Posted on 01/06/2013 3:25:31 AM PST by Fzob
President Obama never disappoints. When the monthly unemployment rate fails to drop, forget it. What’s important is the number of jobs created. But when the rate actually does drop, forget the growth (or lack of it) in jobs. It’s the rate that matters. And don’t blame Obama for the persistence of slow economic growth and high joblessness. That’s the “new normal.” As for the millions of dropouts from the job market, that’s no big deal, hardly worth more than a passing mention.
Full credit is due Obama for his role in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. He was cleverly “leading from behind.” But the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three others in Benghazi—the president bears no responsibility for that. Perish the thought.
Meanwhile, in the months before his reelection in November, Obama doled out government favors to Democratic interest groups like unions, Hispanics, teachers, and single women. This may have looked like shameless exploitation of his high office, but it really was unusually skillful politicking by a master of the game.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Is this a trick question?
No they are like minded hate and blame America first.
Absolutely not! He is their creation and their hope for a socialized society with no soul where they can share elite status with career politicians and entertainment celebrities.
They have devoted themselves to hiding his past so he can tear away at America's values and strength. They aren't about to turn on him now.
Only if:
1. He does something so egregious that even radical liberals are mortified. And their tolerance is so high he’d have to bomb Mecca on a dare or mandate they be muzzled before liberal media-ites scream.
2. They bash Obama as his successor is nominated, in order to paint the new guy as great.
3. A new liberal guy takes over, and they have to admit the truth about Obama to keep their jobs.
Thanks for posting Barnes feeble attempt at satire.
re: “Will the press ever give Obama tough coverage?”
Did Pravda ever give the Stalin tough coverage?
Is the Kennedy compound dry?
re: “Will the press ever give Obama tough coverage?”
Did Pravda ever give Stalin tough coverage?
Had to fix the typo, sorry for the re-post.
Four year honeymoon?
Heck, the press are the ones extending the honeymoon, and they want it to last forever.
They did the same with the Clintons, one of the most corrupt administrations in the history of the world, and that honeymoon is still ongoing.
The previous press covered up FDR’s infirmities and extramarital affairs in the 1930s and 40s then did the same for Kennedy in the 1960s.
Most of America’s “press” hate freedom.They want to dictate everything from what movie you should watch to what you believe,eat,wear,work,live,and vote.
How often did they tell us how bad the economy was during GWB's terms, when we actually had very low unemployment and a booming economy, and what was the effect upon public perception?
It would be interesting to see the agenda that would be revealed through such a study, as well as how we, the dumbed down people, would react to seeing how we have been and are being played.
It will be done eventually. It's an excellent case study on how the mighty fall or can be made to.
To 1962 USSR/Pravda. No...US MSN is worse than Pravda...they've done this on purpose with will.
It took 6 years for Barnes to write this?
I did like the part about “some” in the press being embarrassed at what they have willingly done. I imagine quite a few are embarrassed...but if they start to expose Obama now? They have to answer for why they covered for him the last 6 years. I keep thinking SOMEBODY will go for it—make their career as a REAL journalist—thought it might be Jake Tapper. Wrong again.
I still have a bit of hope for the Benghazi-gate story. Bush would have already been impeached and in prison if this had happened 5 years ago. Obama? Nothing to see here...move along.
The press will never stop giving their man a free pass. They got him elected through their lies, and now want him to increase his power.
The illegitimate, bisexual, Marxist Kenyan Muslim Usurper could eat a live negro fetus on the set of "The View', and the media would praise him for performing a post-partum abortion.
But the MSM is going out of business. Newsweek published its final print edition a few weeks ago, and staff cuts at leading news organizations like the New York Times have become ordinary events.
Important changes have been taking place in America — for example, the enactment of right-to-work laws in an increasing number of Midwestern states; the record number of food-stamp recipients, etc. — but the media hardly covers them.
Detroit — the poster city for bad liberal behavior — is on the verge of death, yet how often have Fred Barnes and his colleagues visited that scene of hell and documented the homelessness, poverty, crime, and other horrors which is the reality of big-city America these days? About as often as the journalists at Pravda reported on the horrors of the Gulag, or the starvation in the Ukraine in the 1930s.
But even the Soviet Communists couldn’t stop reality, and finally they were overthrown, and so will Obama and his minions be.
To produce such a documentary would be to reveal the shadow government that is running America, if done honestly. And who would do the documentary, the media.? No lectures about “new media” please.
Who? Good question. Perhaps no one wants such a thing to be made? Maybe making similar documentaries is one of the reasons Breitbart is no longer among the living.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.