in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| James Petho. | Must-Read: Why the official 8.3 percent unemployment rate is a phony number |
0 |
| The Hill | This: Senate Republicans to challenge recess appointments in court |
0 |
| WIBC | 2012 Watch: Santorum Fails to Qualify for Indiana Ballot |
0 |
| AP | 0 | |
| Zero Hedge | Wow: Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinker
One thing none of us will be “thankful” for this Thanksgiving week? The fact that two of the biggest major mainstream news media outlets continue to be deeply in the tank for our celebrity President. Check the headlines today at the NYT:
Both pieces go in depth as to how ‘hip’ and ‘modern’ and ‘stylish’ President Obama’s first state dinner was, and how marvelous the First Lady looked – implying a ‘departure’ of sorts for First Ladies in terms of style.
The only thing missing was a teaser from Obama devotee and NYT ‘moderate Republican’ columnist David Brooks regarding some prominent male [GOP?] politico allegedly putting his hand on Brooks’ thigh.
The WaPo, to their credit, stuck to more serious issues but still lavished love on Obama like a child would over a litter of puppies. The headline:
In this article we learn that, in spite of Obama’s growing reputation as an oft-golfing, jet-setting, hardcore apologist, he’s a hard-working, dedicated servant of the people torn between his party’s left flank, pesky conservatives, and ‘trying to do the right thing’ (to paraphrase).
(I should note that the WaPo did cover the state dinner, but appropriately had coverage of the food and fashion on their “arts and living” page whereas the NYT’s was on their “politics” page, as if writing about what was on the menu and what the First Lady was wearing was about “politics.”)
Really. If both these ‘distinguished’ newspapers wanted to give the President a “Happy Thanksgiving” that badly, they should have just come right out and said it. But instead, the pretense of ‘objectiveness’ continues, fooling some people out there in Mainstream America.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
13 Responses to “WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinker”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
when this president goes down as the most corrupt in history, will they go with with him for playing along?
***
The lovely stylish FLOTUS–Michelle Obama did look a lot better in the photos I saw. Better fashion, hairdo, and makeup work. But she looked unhappy-no smile on her face. Maybe she hears the sound of a 2010 and 2012 TSUNAMI COMING! This is a very bitter woman.
***
Rocketman
***
more media bias? are you kidding? you can’t be serious!
Barack Hussein Obama: Disgrace
I’m sure the soldiers in Afghanistan will be excited reading about the Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s “stylish”, and very important, state dinner that took place last night as they try to hold off the Taliban who outnumber them hundreds to one. And they only have to wait one more week to find out if, and when, they will be receiving help.
Its a good think we have a President who knows how to properly prioritize things. Very important state dinner with unrelenting media coverage on First Lady’s “stylish” wardrobe first…..decision on sending help to those fighting and dying defending the United States second.
A new tshirt is coming out Friday. It’s the Hope portrait of Obie looking all messiah. The new tshirt has the colors running and the words”is fading fast” under the word Hope.
Very appropriate, I think.
Funnier still is the printer is a liberal.
As we prepare for Thanksgiving at our house, we were all wondering if B. Hussein Obama was planning to go to Afganistan to have Thanksgiving with the troops? We don’t know but would bet it is less than 25%. Why? It is just not on his priority of things to do as such he must prepare for his non-victory speech at West Point.
“…and ‘trying to do the right thing’ (to paraphrase).”
Right. Most noticeably when he flapped his mug out of order over a Cambridge cop (I don’t have all the facts but…”)
So why is it he can make a snap decision about diddly squat, but takes months while more American soldier lives are lost. (Not that he gives a squat about American soldiers’ lives, either, unless it happens to belong to a murderous muslim at Fort Hood.)
I think the answer is quite simple Carlos….he has been educated at the knees of liberals all his life and he really doesn’t know how to deal with issues of national security because they deem that not as important as the multitude of social welfare programs and redistribution of wealth.
My hope it that he is getting a very large dose of reality on what the POTUS actually is responsible for..and I hope he is tiring of his czar system. I can’t imaging having opinion over opinion over opinion before making a necessary decision on Afghanistan. But, of course, this is the “intellectual” way of making a decision. Prioritizing is not something that comes easy to a liberal, wait, yes it does come easy if it has something to do with self interest and pandering to a favored sacred cow, but not if the issue is related to building long term security for all Americans. Appeasement doesn’t seem to be working with the Taliban and AlQueda….and now with the Ft. Hood terror attack I hope Obama will have an epiphany of sorts and take a stand for the good of our soldiers.
The sad thing is that we are all pawns in his great experiment of liberalism and I pray that our soldiers can weather this storm. Isn’t this the sort of thing that would cause a military coup in Venezuela?
So the Obama’s are “‘hip’ and ‘modern’ and ’stylish’”
Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Churchill, de Gaulle, and Reagan all knew a thing or two about leadership.
Being ‘hip’ and ‘modern’ and ’stylish’ weren’t part of it
Tom, being “hip”, “modern” and “stylish” are simply a part of the means to an end. None of the others you cited were out to crush the human spirit and make our nation (or any other) a nanny state.