Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Will the press ever turn on Obama…

Will the press ever turn on Obama…

…the way much of it has now turned on Weiner? That’s the question asked by a commenter at this post about The New Yorker’s new cover mocking Weiner.

weinerny

My answer, in a nutshell, is no.

After all, there is no real cost to turning on Weiner. The election is not a national event. No one seemed to like Weiner all that much to begin with; perhaps the only people getting thrills up the leg about him might have been a few of his sext partners. Weiner’s misbehavior was sexual and simple to conceptualize, and most especially it was not political in nature (except for the over-arching issue of lying). Those who supported Weiner earlier and excused his personal failings—once—could rest easy in knowing that had shown them to be personally magnanimous. They had given him another chance, he blew it, and now by turning on him they’re showing they have morals and standards. Win/win.

And besides, his offenses had nothing to do with politics or policy. Abandoning Weiner now threatens no particular political or theoretical belief system of his previous supporters, and helps them look righteous and even-handed. And it doesn’t hurt that his activities lend themselves quite easily to mockery; the double-entendres just keep coming (oops!).

Nor is there any racial angle with Weiner; he’s Jewish, and therefore not of a protected group.

Obama is very different. For him, the press has compromised every ideal it professes to have. His sins are not personal, they are political abuses of power, and the abuses of power are for the most part in furtherance of the agenda of the left. For supporters and press to turn on him now would mean a re-organization of their much more basic belief system and perhaps even their politics. Even worse than that, it could mean saying the right was right about Obama all the time. That would be most threatening of all.

No, the only way the liberal press would ever really turn on Obama would be for not being leftist enough—for joining the conservative enemy, as it were. And although there were moments of that with Obama’s policies on Guantanamo, drones, and NSA spying (all of which involved him appearing, in the eyes of liberals and the left, to be too much like Bush in fighting Islamic terrorism—even though Obama refused to call it that), the Obama-dike of the MSM held.

It’s hard to imagine anything else that could ever threaten it.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

casualobserver | July 30, 2013 at 3:58 pm

Zero chance the press turns on Obama in any meaningful way. Too many ‘reporters’ and editorial types in the media are not only heavily invested in his success, but they also want the symbolism of his presidency to stand in tact. Not just the racial piece by itself. They also swoon every time he makes progressive sounding pronouncements. So he represents all they have wanted – symbolically even if not in actuality – from a ideological standpoint.

Plus, he represents the perfect weapon/tool for them to use in bashing the GOP. I think that is a big reason why he still campaigns against them. He’s feeding the media complex what they need to further the bashing in front pages, editorial screeds, and within the punditry world. If they bring him down a few pegs, that meme isn’t nearly as powerful.

So, he’s still a star as far as many media types are concerned. It’s all symbolism. Not performance.

Carol Herman | July 30, 2013 at 4:05 pm

Falls into the category of “no news is good news.”

What really gets me is that Huma knew her husband had a creepy fetish. Doesn’t go away. And, yet she, and a host of democrapic insiders believed “chicken head” was good at campaigning. (Does he even call Huma on the phone when she’s not at home?)

You think Bill & Hill’s daughter, Chelsea, has a normal marriage? HELLO.

These are just catered affairs not to be taken seriously.

That a man with a fetish can’t help himself? I believe that.

We keep getting some real doozies; whose only strength is they can campaign, seemingly without breaking a sweat.

How did anybody keep putting money into Weiner’s campaign? Do they do this for the laughs?

After having received the Nobel Prize just for being a short term community organizer in the gangsta town of Chicago Obama will receive an Oscar nomination for playing the role of Obdurate in the “Everything you wanted to know about Obama but will never be allowed to know” POTUS movie. Then, on to the covers of “O” magazine and Time where his ‘endearing’ sneer will be portrayed as royal indignation.

Carol Herman | July 30, 2013 at 4:08 pm

The Stupid Party, very much like Bob Dole, can never understand why they don’t garner enough votes to win.

That’s the gap. That’s why democraps are always favored to win.

Also, the media needs to create a “Legacy” for the incompetent DHOTUS* to protect what little rep they have left. The whitewashing of history will begin before Obama even leaves office.

*Diversity Hire of the United States

Rats, should have read the comments first. CasualObserver makes the point better than me:

“Too many ‘reporters’ and editorial types in the media are not only heavily invested in his success, but they also want the symbolism of his presidency to stand in tact”

Thanks for the excellent observations, neo-neocon.

Obama could be caught BBQ’ing puppies on the south lawn of the Whitehouse and press would fawn all over him for bringing an international culinary flair to the office.

You could show a video of Barack Obama beating his wife and raping his daughters and the MSM would insist that all three had it coming.

The MSM will eventually turn on Obama, like they did with Reagan. When it suited their purposes, the MSM was able to say all kinds of great things about him. Their purpose was in trashing contemporary candidates. Glowing stories about Reagan and how […] doesn’t compare. Or pick a topic and “report” that Reagan would never support what the GOP is advocating.

When the next Poster Child for Progressivism needs a boost, the MSM will throw Obama under the bus. At least as much as need be to contrast his failings with the promise and hope offered by whatever new and improved commie they want elected.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | July 30, 2013 at 6:11 pm

Obama is a creation of his campaign handlers/insiders and the media. It is impossible to go from losing a primary for a Congressional seat to the hapless Bobby Rush by 30 points in the year 2000 to become president in 2008 without near universal media support. It simply could not happen. Period. So they put everything on the line for him: objectivity, neutrality, reputation, character – it was all compromised to get him elected. That’s not an opinion. It’s an indisputable fact.

So, no. Not only will they NEVER turn on him, they now have two new goals: 1) get Hillary elected and 2) create a solid Obama legacy. The post-presidency accolades will be even more obnoxious than anything we’ve endured so far. And to smooth the way for Hillary, those post-presidential accolades about how awesome his presidency was will probably start long before he leaves office, sometime after ’14 when he’s a lame duck.

I thought there was a chance they might turn on him after we learned the Associated Press’s phone records were spied on by the Justice Department. Or when the press learned that the Justice Department lied to a judge about Fox News reporter James Rosen to get warrants to access his phone and email records. But even with their First Amendment liberty at stake they went back into protective mode after a couple of weeks of outrage.

Keep a barf bag handy when the media’s post-presidential legacy building begins. You’re frequently going to want to hurl.

    The antidote to needing a barf bag is, of course, to tune out the media. Don’t watch the networks or PBS, and don’t pay for any liberal newspapers.

Henry Hawkins | July 30, 2013 at 8:21 pm

The MSM would and may turn on Obama in a heartbeat. Both are driven by the same Agenda. If/when Obama’s performance proves an irreversible liability to The Agenda, they will turn on him like rabid ferrets on a three-legged mouse. The Agenda is bigger than any man or woman.

However, due to weakened opposition, the MSM has so far successfully protected Obama, thereby protecting The Agenda. They brushed him back a bit after the AP/James Rosen revelations, and Obama won’t make that mistake again.

It is difficult to see how any of the many current legitimate scandals, or those likely yet to come, might incite lasting widespread public anger towards Obama and The Agenda while the MSM is so protective and the GOP leadership is so weakened.

But, if Obama comes to the point of dragging down The Agenda, they will eat his ass up, with an already written plan to put distance between Obama and their next Agenda champion: Hillary Clinton.

How can the left believe Obama has even a hint of wanting to prosecute a war against Islam? He wants to give fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt) and arms to Al Qaeda(Syria) while letting Iran make nuclear bombs in peace! Most of Obama’s “war” efforts seem pointed at quelling domestic opposition.

Carol Herman | July 30, 2013 at 11:04 pm

Abraham Lincoln’s don’t come around very often. And, sometimes, you can learn a thing or two from a man who was a former democrat. But the insiders didn’t give him a chance to get close to a governor’s job. Or the presidency. That man was Ronald Reagan. He said he didn’t leave the democratic party, but that the party left him.

I think things remain pretty much the same today.

Yes, when Obama made it to the Senate in 2006 (yr?) … He was already considered presidential timber. (Don’t forget they thought the same of Kerry over there.) Then Ted Kennedy got struck by a brain tumor. The democrats pointed to his empty chair and said “ours.”

By a surprise Scott Brown won it. But the republicans didn’t like him much. He got disparaged because he just wasn’t “conservative.” Now? A faux indian holds that seat. And, when she makes waves the press gobbles it all up. (I even think Elizabeth Warren has been deemed on the same scale as Obama, as being material destined to get ahead.)

A faux indian should’a been easy to beat. But republicans keep “pulling out of the station” without taking passengers on board.

You know Reagan was a two-term governor of California. And, he ran this state beautifully.

Maybe, it’s an inborn talent? Maybe, a “country club” is no place to go looking for talent?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend