During the chaotic week of the Boston bomb attacks, Barack Obama finally did something a lot of people had been waiting for: He got angry. In public. In the Rose Garden. It happened after the Senate had shamefully failed to pass a bill, favored by the overwhelming majority of Americans, requiring background checks for gun purchasers. "The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," he said. "They claimed that it would create some sort of Big Brother gun registry even though the bill did the opposite ... Those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of Senators."[emphasis added]
Assorted Republicans were put off by Obama's passion. The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer falsely claimed that the President had falsely claimed that the background-checks bill would have prevented the Newtown massacre. Krauthammer also said that helping the victims' families lobby for the law was "emotional blackmail." The conservative pundit and former Bush functionary Pete Wehner--who occasionally professes a desire for moderation but just can't help himself when it comes to the President--called Obama's behavior "demagoguery" and described it as a "Lear-like" rage.
THERE WAS A TIME when I subscribe to both TIME and NEWSWEEK magazines. I was young, and ignorant/naive, and living in an apartment house in Oakland, California. (Thank goodness the "Three Strikes Law" doesn't apply to non-felons!) Besides, my neighbors stole my magazines from the mailbox so frequently, I didn't get to read most of the magazines I had paid for.
Eventually, though, even the highly filtered contend I DID read got through to me. I realized that the things they were saying in their articles were not "factual reporting" but "emotional reporting". In a word every political article was slanted ... slanted in a way which was directly opposite of my own personal convictions.
Today, I don't even have my television hooked up to cable, and I get the same or more 'content' from the Internet .. as my access to this article demonstrates.
There's a saying that "no cops are Democrats"; and I suspect the same is true of Military, both active and past-service. This article is a sterling example why those of us who have put our lives on the line for our community, or for our nation, have rejected the Liberal/Progressive/Democratic party line.
Looking back at the article (scroll back, or check the link), you'll notice that I've high-lighted some of the comments in the original article in red.
Okay, here's the point:
I don't have an issue about the President getting angry, or about TIME applauding his lack of perspective.
Okay, maybe I do, but I get angry all the time and I seem to always be able to justify it, at least in my own mind. I'm not the President of the greatest nation in the free world, though, so maybe I'm a little bit peeved that the President can't control his own emotions, and couch his expressions in a more civilized manner than a guy in a sloppy home-office in Oregon.
I find it disconcerting that our political leader cannot say that he's unhappy that he hasn't universal approval from
Going back to the original quote, when a media source which is internationally recognized for its integrity uses such phrases as ".... the Senate had shamefully failed to pass a bill ...", that's a sure sign that this media source has renounced its claim not only to impartial reporting, but to integrity itself.
And when the President claims publicly that some of the media constituents " ... willfully lied ... ", that goes beyond the gentile bounds of public discourse.
The TIMES article goes on to throw the phrase "Shamefully" at least once more. Where's the Civility? Where's the Impartiality? Where's the journalistic integrity?
Gone, in sixty seconds, like a 1971 Mustang Fastback.
I'm not surprised that TIME magazine could throw its integrity under the bus ... and not even all that surprised that the President would do the same thing. I'm just really disappointed.
Ike wouldn't have done that. Nor would even Nixen or Carter. Or Reagan. Okay, maybe Clinton; maybe even Ford .. we will never know ... but not Truman or ...
Get the picture? It's not PRESIDENTIAL! It's Presidential.
I don't like it when I have to evince respect for a President who seemingly makes every effort to undermine my respect for the office. I've already given up respect for the man, but I'm loath to give up respect for The Office.
What is going on, when I think about meeting the leader of our nation, and I'm appalled by the prospect that I might actually be expected to shake his hand .. and smile? There was a time when I thought it would be the greatest honor of my life.
I've given up my dream of going to our nation's capital, to visit The Wall and honor my fallen comrades. The odds are slim, but still possible, that I might actually meet the President.
It's no longer a dream;
It's a nightmare.
I'm sorry for the demagoguery, but I just can't help (myself) when it comes to the President.
(Thanx to TIME MAGAZINE for the quote.)