There’s one thing I love about recent Democratic presidents; or
should I say, the treatment they receive at the hands of those in
the national press who worship at their feet. Before their
elections, in the interminable months leading up to their
nominations, we are inundated with innumerable references to their
vast and nuanced intellectual capacities, lovesongs to their
honesty, paeans to their eloquence and tributes to the crystal
clear transparency of their administrations; should they deign to
bless us with same.
But soon after the inauguration, the media quickly switch from
their roles as lionizers to deodorizers; cleaning up after their
idols like a mother who follows her children around with wet naps
to tidy up any embarrassing accidents her little darlings might
inflict on society. It’s hard to decide which is worse: their
tortured defense of Democrat duplicity or their steadfast refusal
to acknowledge it.
It really began with Bill Clinton. The media never blinked an
eye at such glaring evasions as “it depends what the meaning of the
word ‘is’ is.” And where was the outrage when the
draft-dodger-in-chief scaled the heights of hypocrisy with his
pernicious claim of executive privilege based on his being head of
the military? And what about his various and sundry exploitations
of women? You could almost hear them clucking with maternal pride,
“Poor little Billy… always in trouble! Well, after all, everybody
does it!”
And now they are tasked with marshalling along the career of
their latest offspring, Barack Obama; truly the product of their
laudatory and worshipful propaganda. We are constantly reminded
that he is a paragon of truth and master of elocution, who has but
to toss his teleprompter onto the stage to vanquish any and all who
dare challenge his abilities as a master communicator and wizard of
wordplay. Yet, when this orator of Churchillian proportions
speaketh the words “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build
that,” his guardians feel the need to change his diapers, as it
were.
Of course the first and most predictable response from the media
was the thunderous howling that it was taken out of context. Unlike
say, the sound of crickets that accompanied a quote that was
pointedly and purposely manipulated: Andrea Mitchell’s blatant
re-editing of Mitt Romney’s speech at a Wawa restaurant. In
this age of 24/7 blogging and cell phone cameras, it’s amazing that
the media are so arrogant as to think they can still get away with
this nonsense. But such is the impenetrable attitude of Dan Rather
and his acolytes.
But what of Obama’s actual statement? Can it be that he actually
meant what he said in exactly the way he said it? Absolutely.
Smooth talking socialists like Obama are fond of pointing out the
benefits of building upon common achievements but fail to credit
the people or ideas upon which the original structures were
founded. They want prosperity for all, but sneer at the market
capitalism that has historically produced it; they claim to love
freedom, but have little use for our soldiers who defend it; and
they are fond of professing love for the rule of law when their
radical agenda is advanced by our legal system, but ridicule the
religious tenets upon which it is based.
In short, liberal politicians are closely mirrored by their
canonizers in the press who proudly cite their First Amendment
protections while ignoring those of the rest of us and claim as
their divine right an aura of impartiality, while failing miserably
to live up to the integrity of their predecessors of only a few
short decades ago. And given their lack of on-the-ground research
coupled with their unholy reliance on secondary and tertiary
sources, they have become little more than op-ed writers posing as
real journalists.
But let us not question their work ethic. After all, with the
Democratic convention only a few weeks away and tons of exposure
for Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama in the offing, there’s plenty of
babysitting to be done. After all, a man may work from sun to sun
but a mother’s work is never done.
