Posts Tagged ‘broken clock’

…but other than Chris Matthews saying publicly how some on the left consider the troops and West Point I don’t have a big issue here.

I don’t care if he gave a good speech, I don’t care about the politics of it all that much.

All I care about is the commanders are going to get the troops we need to win. It would be nice if he talked about victory but I’m much more interested if he actually MANAGES victory.

Eyes on the prize, he is a radical left wing president, domestically he is going to push a left wing agenda but his primary job is as commander in chief during wartime is to win the war and protect us from attack.

If he does that on balance this will be a successful presidency. A victory in Afghanistan is more important than a victory in 2010 or 2012.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose this president, but if we win, then the war won’t be one of them, and that’s good for America.

Sarah Palin has it exactly right:

As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

Eyes on the prize. If you can’t tell the difference between a political enemy and the real enemy you have to get your priorities straight.

Update: John McCain doesn’t like the timeline, neither do I, but not to worry; just remember the immortal words of Jim Gerathey at NRO’s the Campaign Spot:

All Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All Of Them.

That timeline is going to go the way of the Dodo.

You might recall in my dissertation on Bloggers Alzheimer’s I said the following:

Like regular Alzheimer patients some brief periods of lucidity may emerge (re Iran) but when exposed to the “external threat” again (re: Palin) the syndrome re-asserts itself. And the patient will often make an object of adoration of any opponent of the external threat.

Andrew proves both points, the first to his credit:

I’ve noticed a few right-of-center blogs complaining of double standards on the left, in the denunciations of extremist rhetoric and imagery of the Tea Party marches. Ed Driscoll has a good point. The extremes of the anti-war left before Iraq were every bit as inflammatory and loopy as the Tea Partiers today. Now, they were opposing a war that turned out to be a catastrophe for all involved, while the Tea Partiers are just opposing the working poor having a chance to buy health insurance. But if Godwin’s Law is the point, many (but not all) on the left currently do not have a leg to stand on.

Full marks to Sullivan for backing up Ed Driscoll and others who have not thrown the left’s marches down the memory hole.

Those brief moments of lucidity are precious to those who deal with Bloggers Alzheimer’s and it is welcome, but when the trigger returns so does the disease:

Some remaining questions: When exactly did Todd find out about the pregnancy? And when did he discover that his son had Down Syndrome? Or were those two pieces of news delivered simultaneously? Why did the Palins make no attempt to prepare their other children for Trig’s special needs when they had so long to do so? Why on earth did Palin believe that the mere fact of her pregnancy would elicit criticism and disdain – “Oh, the criticism that I knew was coming” – when it would obviously actually redound to her credit as a working mom and governor?

I’m taking a risk with this link and quote but I’m an old hand with Sullivan’s syndrome so don’t try this at home, remember the warning:

No current treatment is known for Sullivan’s syndrome but readers are advised to avoid prolonged exposure to the subject as the syndrome can spread to the point where the infected person can become the trigger for the syndrome in others.

So be careful.

…Even that darling of liberal Catholicism Father Thomas Reese gets it:

Imagine if the Knight of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal. Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse.

And they would all be correct. And I would join them.

But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?

Via ABC and hotair. If the case is so clear even Fr. Reese can’t justify it then the defenders of Roman Polanski have a problem on their hands. If James Carroll agrees then it’s all over.

Andrew Breitbart said this on Big Government:

Everything you needed to know about the unorthodox roll out of the now-notorious ACORN sting videos was hidden in plain sight in my Sept. 7 column, “Katie Couric, Look in the Mirror.” ACORN was not the only target of those videos; so were Katie, Brian, Charlie and every other mainstream media pooh-bah.

When you read the whole thing you realize how successful this has been. Acorns defenders in the print media are now forced to make their defense to a public that has seen the videos and Jay Leno and John Stewart mockery of Acorn has left guys like Errol Lewis in effect asking readers: “Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?”

The media is now on the spot and choices had to be made. The Washington post chose to go after the filmmakers as it was very hard to go after the film.

Michael Barone commented:

The Post, like almost all of “mainstream media,” waddled in late on this story. I remember one time in the 1980s when the Wall Street Journal beat the Post was beaten on a story based on public information in Montgomery County, Maryland, court files. Ben Bradlee, the executive editor of the Post at the time, did not whine as New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson did on the ACORN story about how the bureau was short-staffed and, gee, it’s hard to stay on top of every story. Bradlee was furious—scooped in our own backyard!—and as I recall heads fell. But that was then and this is now. “Mainstream media” is complacent about suppressing a story that is embarrassing to the Obama administration and the Democratic party, and its response after getting scooped is to waddle in with attempts to discredit it. Pathetic.

The AP wasn’t far behind playing defense as they attempt to make excuses for Acorn:

ACORN has portrayed its problems as the unfortunate work of a few employees. In the best case, that suggests it made bad hires and gave them poor training and supervision. But when the founder of a national organization admits attempting to keep quiet his brother’s theft of more than $900,000, it’s a sign that ACORN’s problems may rise high and run deep.

How did ACORN wind up in this mess? Did it simply grow too big for its own good?

Oh I see poor Acorn betrayed by their own success. Peg’s (proudly banned from lgf yesterday) personal friends at Powerline (proudly banned from little green footballs last week) had this to say:

The AP takes the cue and puts the words in O’Keefe’s mouth. It’s quite a racket they’ve got going here, and someone really should call them on it.

They actually contacted the Washington post before putting up their entry and are still waiting a response.

Between this and the Van Jones issue the media is now faced with a choice: Unwavering defense of the administration or to act like, you know reporters.

This week George Stephanopolis made that choice and caught the president totally by surprise:

Save money on your state-mandated auto insurance with GEICO? Pass your signature legislation while holding the White House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a 70+ seat majority in the House? Obtusely obfuscate the lawyerly difference between a dollar seized by the government through fine and a dollar appropriated by the government by tax? Confuse the practical utility of automobile liability insurance and health insurance?

Now, technically Obama is right in the Stephanopolis interview. A fine is not a tax. The net effect is the same but he’s the kind of technically right you might expect a Constitutional lawyer to be on this issue. He’s stuck on the hot seat, though, because he’d look like a dick nattering about what kind revenue generating bill originates in which house of Congress. So deny it, impugn Merriam Webster (a fine, upstanding woman I’m told), and misdirect with a fallacious comparison to state-mandated auto liability insurance.

Who’s the genius that cooked up that line of reasoning? It’s a flawed argument for a couple of obvious reasons.

This wasn’t a confrontational interview but that was an actual challenging question, the type that I used to hear reporters ask decades ago, and this president couldn’t handle it. I thought the guy was supposed to be the Liberal Ronald Reagan?

Morning Joe is all over the Steph clip today, it’s news but the real news is that he followed up. I submit that he would not be doing that if it wasn’t for the Acorn Tapes, Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles. That is the real news. The combination of Van Jones and Acorn are going to force the media to be either advocates or reporters and in at least some cases they are choosing to be reporters.

Related: This howler from Newsbusters:

But check out Tom Rosenstiel (formerly of Newsweek and the L.A. Times) gritting his rhetorical teeth at Alexander’s point even as he calls the liberal media “non-ideological”:

It “can’t be discounted,” said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. “Complaints by conservatives are slower to be picked up by non-ideological media because there are not enough conservatives and too many liberals in most newsrooms.”

“They just don’t see the resonance of these issues. They don’t hear about them as fast [and] they’re not naturally watching as much,” he added.

The “non-ideological media” have “too many liberals in most newsrooms”?

Expect a lot more of this. The worm has turned.