Frank J over at IMAO made my coffee come out my nose with a posting this morning:
Obama rolled his eyes. “This isn’t about that time I shot and ate a Chinaman, is it?
I’m still cleaning coffee off my monitor and keyboard. That’s two mornings in a row. I need a sippy cup or something…
“For years, we dreamed of America, but now that dream is no good,” says 18-year-old Pedro Morales, sitting in the elegant Spanish colonial square of Comala under the shadow of the spectacular Volcan de Fuego. “There are no jobs and too many problems. We don’t want to go.”
John Dickerson has a posting at Slate titled, “Can You Be Honest With Me? Is either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney capable of telling American voters some hard truths?” One part hand-wringing concern, one part wagging finger, Dickerson doesn’t get to the point while telling the candidates to get to the point. It’s kind of sad to see the flailing.
It starts with pabulum, a self-revealing taste of the weak expectations the media has of themselves and the low bar that the average voter sets for candidates:
Expecting presidential candidates to be candid with voters is such a quaint idea you’d expect to find it on Pinterest.
Except it’s not quaint (See Paul Ryan for an excellent example of candor). And suggesting that it is gives politicians an inch with which to take a mile. Millions of us watched as the media was complicit in protecting Obama by creating a vetting void. We don’t even know his college grades to this day. And the White House (and the Media’s) reaction? “Nothing to see here! The reason is simple, it’s because shut up, Republicans!”
And now Dickerson wants to pine about candidates’ honesty and truth?! And I’m not supposed to be insulted?
There are brushes with reality in the article:
Successful politicians must shade the truth, embellish it, and keep everyone happy by avoiding it.
But reality leaves the premises in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE:
But if this year’s contenders are going to go on so much about candor, it’s worth asking how honest has either candidate actually been.
Seriously. Because they’re going on about it, it’s worth asking. To Dickerson, and millions of other confused Americans, the act of vetting a potential President of the United Stated is predicated on the candidates own rhetoric regarding candor! (I guess they should just shut up about it.) Dickerson is Slate’s Chief Political Correspondent. Starting to see the problem here?
I want the media to be equally curious about both candidates families, upbringing, schooling, activities, college, work history, social circles and more, so that we can make an informed decision about the man or woman elected Leader of the Free World.
Finally, the point of Dickerson’s piece diverts the discussion by masking the vetting process in some pseudo search for truth in the hearts of the candidates. I don’t think he’s being devious, and he can’t be that naive, but he’s obviously confused as he not only abdicates his journalistic responsibility over to the candidates themselves, but seems literally to have forgotten that asking questions, doing research and seeking the truth from the words of both candidates is a journalists responsibility in the first place.
@BarackObama tweets: Big news: The President and First Lady are holding the first rallies of the campaign on May 5 in Columbus, OH, and Richmond, VA.
First rallies? That’s rich. His entire term has been one long campaign.
I poked at Obama’s Rolling Stone interview earlier. Reading more of that interview, I’ve had to stop and take a shower just to feel clean. The questions are sophomoric and obvious softballs. But when I got to the following question, I couldn’t take anymore:
Is there any way to break through that obstructionism by Republicans?
Once again, in order to even frame the question this way, you’re either utterly ignorant of basic civics, or you’re deliberately misinforming your audience. Which is it Rolling Stone?
Consider, it is simple fact that for the first two years of President Obama’s term he had a Democrat majority in both houses of congress. Obstruction by Republicans simply wasn’t possible. The suggestion is simply laughable.
Now, in November 2010 the Republican Party won a majority in one of the two chambers of the Legislature, the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the Senate, the other body in the Legislature, has been controlled by a Democrat majority from Obama’s inauguration to this day.
There’s nothing controversial about those statements of fact.
This means that for only one third of his term Obama has had only a half of the Legislature with his party not in the majority. Yet he hasn’t been able to get any serious legislation through. And blames Republicans for obstruction.
How did the Democrat-controlled Senate vote on Obama’s budget? 97-0. But obstructionist Republicans are the problem. Mustn’t interrupt The Narrative.