January 24th 2009
AP’s Obama-Love Doth Abound
T
his morning I told you the tasty tale of AP’s fawning over Obama and continuing hatred of Bush in a story about Obama’s very public food tastes and Bush’s more private approach to eating. Two blinks later, the once-respectable wire service fawned once again:
Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands
Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush’s unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government. …
In the highly scripted first days of his administration, Obama overturned a slew of Bush policies with great fanfare. He largely avoided cultural issues; the exception was reversing one abortion-related policy, a predictable move done in a very low-profile way.
Isn’t. That. Nice.
Only one thing the least big … oh, controversial … just a “predictable” and “low-profile”‘ thing that had something to do with abortion. That’s it, folks.
Of course the abortion ruling re-established federal funding for abortions in countries receiving U.S. health aid and is one very big cultural issue indeed. When Bush reversed the Clinton policy eight years ago, the press howled about Bush’s divisive action; but reversing it, now that’s magically not divisive.
Also divisive, to say the least, was Bush’s policy on Guantanamo, interrogation techniques and the CIA’s use of prisons in other countries for nefarious jihadists. Divisive by definition means there are two sides, but when Obama reversed these policies, it somehow was not divisive. In other words, the opinion of those of us who question Obama’s actions is not worth counting.
Then, of course, there is the matter of the stimulus plan. Obama’s proposals must be devisive to some extent or there wouldn’t have been an exchange like this in a meeting between the prez and GOP-ers:
In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the [stimulus] proposal, the president shot back: “I won,” according to aides briefed on the meeting.
“I will trump you on that.”
AP excuses that as non-divisive, as it does any divisiveness over the war on terror tactics with this:
Certainly, some Republicans are griping about Obama’s economic stimulus plan and closing Guantanamo. But their protests are somewhat muted, perhaps because little of what Obama has done thus far is a surprise.
Is AP saying the “divisive” actions Bush took at the outset of his term were a surprise and that’s why the press howled? What a ridiculous argument that is: Obviously Bush did what was expected of him as a conservative Republican.
Or it might be that the lack of divisiveness is really nothing more than lack of coverage. For example, there was this item that wasn’t exactly rushed to the leads of the mainly marginalized media:
Moving quickly to undo the Bush administration’s regime of secrecy, President Obama on Wednesday repealed a 2001 executive order granting former presidents, and even vice presidents, the ability to keep documents secret long past the 12 years allowed by law.
It was one of Mr. Obama’s first official acts, and was hailed as a rebuke of the past eight years. (WashTimes)
A “rebuke”‘ isn’t divisive?
January 20 may have changed a lot of things, but one thing didn’t change a bit: The media still is living in Obama fantasy land, for sure.
Posted in Media bias, Obama | 1 Comment » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
January 24th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
The AP/Reuters and all those who share their policies and ideology are mortal enemies on par with the Islamic terrorists. They will all have to be dealt with, in one way or another.