Liberals seeing and hearing no evil about Obama’s missteps *UPDATED*

I don’t know why I didn’t blog about the Charles Freeman story.  Certainly it had all the perfect elements for yet another point of concern about the Obama administration:  the Director of National Intelligence (!) selects Freeman, the Obama administration disclaims about knowledge of the selection, and Freeman turns out to be both a lunatic and a paid shill of the Saudi and Chinese governments.  There’s a guy you want whispering in the President’s ear about the direction our foreign policy should go.   The fact is, so many others were blogging about it, that I had nothing to add.  (And speaking of others, here’s an excellent summary of the Freeman debacle and why it matters.)

Anyway, Freeman is just another in an almost uninterrupted line of stories about the Obama administration screwing up — yet again — when it comes to selecting someone to serve the administration.  We’re getting used to the sordid tales of tax cheats and wackos.  The more interesting story about Charles Freeman, I think, is that the New York Times refused to cover the story.  (This, again, is something other bloggers have been pointing out with some consistency during the last three weeks).  The Times, after all, calls itself the paper of record, and boasts that it prints all the news that’s fit to print.  Apparently it did not deem Freeman newsworthy and the Times wanted no record of his existence.

Another story that’s been flying almost entirely outside the parameters of MSM coverage is the British dismay (and, in some quarters, outrage) over the cavalier treatment their country and their Prime Minister received from the Obama administration.  You all know the details, so I’ll summarize:  returned Churchill’s busts; gave incredibly cheap and tacky gifts; and rejected meetings and phone calls, all explained away by Obama’s fatigue after the incredible burden of a whole six weeks of governing.

That the MSM isn’t talking about either Freeman or the deliberate insult to Britain matters.  It matters in part because it proves Obama wasn’t lying when he said he handle foreign policy differently from Bush.  (The problem being that many people understood this to mean that he’d hire competent, honest people, and that he’d create more friends abroad, not more enemies.)  It also matters because media silence about important facts means that large swaths of the voting public never learn these facts.

As it happened, I didn’t raise the Freeman matter with my resident liberal, Mr. Bookworm, but I did find sufficiently amusing (in a grotesque way) Obama’s England fumbles to ask him if he’d heard about it.

“No,” he hadn’t.

“Really?  It’s been all over the front page of every British newspaper.  They’re very upset about it,” I said.

He asked, “What are they upset about?”

I gave to him a slightly extended version of the same little summary I set out above above.  Mr. Bookroom’s reply spoke volumes:

“I don’t believe that.  That’s just stupid gossip magazine stuff.”  In other words, if it’s not in the New York Times or on NPR, it’s not the news that’s fit to print.

I gently reminded him that, as I’d said at the start of our talk, the story is front page material in England, across the political spectrum.  The conversation harmoniously ended there, with me hoping that, perhaps, he got just an inkling of the fact that his chosen media outlets aren’t being completely honest with him.

UPDATE:  I barely finished posting the above, and I read at Power Line that the Washington Post is carefully expurgating Freeman’s communications to make him sound like a beleaguered victim, rather than an antisemitic nut case.

UPDATE II:  And here’s the reason why the MSM ignores these stories:  they don’t agree with their narrative.

UPDATE III:  Kathy Shaidle, who blogs regularly at Five Feet of Fury (I love that name), also weighs in on just how heinous Freeman was — which also highlights just how much the MSM hid from the public.  And this time they weren’t protecting a candidate, they were protecting a president.

UPDATE IV:  Vaguely related, so I’ll throw it in here:  apropos the fatigue of the job rendering Obama incapable of ordinary civility, Small Dead Animals captures the fact that Obama was never willing to do the grunt work that went with the title.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    BW writes: “I don’t know why I didn’t blog about the Charles Freeman story.”

    I think I do — “outrage fatigue”….. I’m serious about this — after one after another after another of these absolute outrages, I find myself mentally throwing up my hands in despair and exhaustion! I don’t have the energy to react, anymore…..

    Dangerous, it is. One hopes that there are others out there who are capable of continued activity in the face of this deluge. A lot of very important things that affect all of us are riding on this.

  2. Charles Martel says

    Earl is perfectly right: There are only so many outrages a normal, logical, non-hating human being can take before he throws his hands in the air and curls into a fetal ball. So, I wonder if maybe we shouldn’t take a page from the Spartans at Thermoplyae or Pete Carroll, the football coach at USC and use platoons.

    We should gather all of the great minds of the conservative movement—and there are hundreds of thousands of them—and assign them to respond to and handle particular outrages.

    Thus, we could have a dedicated Anti-Semitism Squad to handle Obama’s Jew-hatred, and a Balls-R-Us squad to handle his cowardice, and a Marx-Was-A-Smelly-Lazy-Assed-Woman-Hating-Mama’s-Boy Squad to handle idiots like Bill Ayers and Lani Guinier.

    Nobody has to extend his protests beyond his narrow specialty, knowing full well that other good minds are taking care of the other topics. That way none of us feels that he has to trundle about addressing the endless, apparently inexhaustible, inanities and stupidities of the left.

    I would be happy to organize this grand conspiracy, but will require a retainer.

  3. Deana says

    Charles and Earl -

    I hear you loud and clear. I have NEVER dreaded turning on the news before. Never. I still turn it on but I have the same feeling one gets when they are opening a container of food that has been in the back of the fridge for months. You know you have to take care of it but it is going to make you retch.

    I’m not sure if you were serious or joking, Charles, but I believe you are absolutely right. We conservatives MUST get very serious about identifying our targets and developing a dedicated group of people to focus all of their efforts on just one target.

    We also need to address how to get your average citizen more involved. I do NOT believe that our lives should center on political activism but for a long time, conservatives have hated the government and therefore, have not been interested in it.

    Well, now the government is interested in us and it’s frightening.

    I keep thinking that there are a LOT of people who feel like we do but are overwhelmed with the responsibilities of their daily lives. These are not people who are familiar with the ins and outs of telling their congressmen/women what they think.

    The same thought keeps going around in my head. I would love to see a very basic one-page publication that could be sent out to conservatives that would:

    - be issue focused
    - take NO MORE than 5 minutes to read
    - identify WHY it’s a critical issue (and where they can access additional info if they wish)
    - list what can be done AND provide an easy way for the person to do it.

    (For example, if it is suggested that a letter be written to their congressperson, a link could be provided that automatically takes the person to the form that lets them e-mail their congressperson. The publication also could suggest one or two key points that reader could include in their e-mail.)

    It has to be a targeted effort. Conservatives need to understand that we CAN have an affect on government and it does NOT require massive amounts of time and effort. We have to appreciate that people are simply overwhelmed. Even those who do this type of stuff for a living can’t focus on everything.

    I don’t know. I’ve never done this sort of thing before. But I feel like the left has arrayed an army of activists who are PURPOSELY trying to overwhelm Americans to get their way.

    I think they want to make us think that resistance is futile.

  4. Charles Martel says

    Deana:

    One thing I learned from my very brief flirtation with eastern philosophies was the so-called “water way,” which teaches that one of the world’s softest, least solid things—water—can wear away mountains if it is patiently and diligently applied.

    I suggest that our “water way” be for all of us to take a few minutes each day to read and pass on the kind of one-page arguments and summaries that you describe. Even in places like my Marin County, where liberalism has metastasized, it is good for our “representatives” to know that there is an articulate and determined opposition that is beginning to coalesce.

  5. Deana says

    The water way.

    That is a good thing for me to keep in mind. I’m impatient.

    I’m slowly losing my reticence in discussing political issues with friends and strangers. I’m not in their face but I’m more willing to throw in a comment or illustration of the consequences of leftist ideology and practice.

    I guess it lets other kindred spirits know they are not alone and the less-than-kindred spirits know that their efforts will be resisted.

Trackbacks

  1. All the News that’s Fit to Ignore…

    Bookworm has an excellent post about some very relevant stories the media chooses to ignore. Don’t just read her post, read the comments too. Her readers made some great observations…….

Leave a Reply