The News Media definition of Obama–left and right

Charles Krauthammer, I am wondering if the fellow must have been “reading my blogs” LOL! since his published editorial was republished in the Spokesman-Review on Monday 30^th of June 2008. He is sneering and dismissive and must have gotten all of his talking points from the GOP supporters of Senator McCain. So, let us start with FISA, that special judicial system that GW repudiated for about 7 years while trying to accuse the Americans he spied on as being at least “terrorist sympathizers” if not factually terrorists themselves. If he had reason to believe that any American he spied on was indeed a terrorist or had terrorist connections, then the FISA court would have been the way to go for getting special warrants. But do remember just how many “terrorist cells” the FBI and etc. paraded before the cameras and nothing came of attempts at prosecution? The state hadn’t in most cases, managed to make a case. That’s a lot of time, money and effort to round up a few dozen losers only to ultimately be embarrassed before a court of law. Time, effort and money that might have been better spent working toward eliminating international terrorism, where ever it may be found through out the world. Would I necessarily support Obama’s decision to provide retroactive “legal” relief to the Telecomm companies who worked closely with the GW administration to use the marketplace itself as the other spy network against people who didn’t know they were being spied upon or even why? No. But neither would I have cause to defend the collective yawn from the same victims of GW’s socialist gvt. They had nothing to hide, therefore they didn’t mind being spied upon. Being spied upon was for their security. But for anyone who survived in the Soviet Union, being spied upon was a threat. If you were spied upon because the gvt itself could tap into numerous resources in order to find out what you were up to, what would it take for you to find yourself ultimately in Siberia? Instead of Krauthammer taking Obama to task for supporting the Telecomm companies from future lawsuits; he should have been engaging in a truly conservative outrage that a Republican president would act more like shades of Commie in the White House concentrating his war against terrorism, by using the powers of government against mostly innocent citizens. Where was Krauthammer to argue, once knowledge of GW’s domestic spying had come out to remind GW that the last time we saw gvt run amok in this manner was in the former Soviet Union. But because Krauthammer was apparently so enamored of GW, that he couldn’t begin to voice criticism one that GW’s “protection of this nation” was to first engage in what tyrannies always do, suspect the citizenry of being a threat to that particular reign. So, the Telecomm companies may get their “protection” now. But if Obama were to become president because of this “flip flop” or in spite of it, doesn’t mean that the Telecomm companies would continue to have such protection in the future. Such laws can be revisited and surely will. And in any case, the Democrats in general in Congress have in large part capitulated to the GOP and GW on a lot of issues. So singling out Obama might be useful for political talking points, but fails to address the larger issue. That if Obama were to become president, would the Democrats develop any more of a spine to stand on principle where they now have a Democratic president? It’s what a president Obama would have to deal with. Krauthammer could have discussed that, he didn’t choose to.

Then Krauthammer rails at his fellow news media buddies. For failing to discuss at length all of Obama’s shortcomings. Then again, I don’t suppose he takes the time to watch CNN, where discussing Obama’s shortcomings is a full time job. Getting into the Reverend Wright flap, yeah, he had been Obama’s pastor for 20 years. Yeah, he actually did prove that Obama does go to church and isn’t a Muslim. Yeah, and then between Senator Clinton and the GOP during the primary season; Reverend Wright became an attack ad against Senator Obama. At this stage in Krauthammer’s life, I certainly wouldn’t be prepared to argue that given his political ideologies, he should actually offer a bit of sympathy on Obama’s behalf; but that he should be truthful. A journalist who doesn’t offer up a factual recounting of recent history, lacks solid credibility. Reverend Wright only became an issue because of the politics. The sort of politics that could paint him, and Obama by association as “the scary other.” And didn’t the news media only go whole hog on helping make Rev. Wright the scary other? Once Obama was forced to be disgusted by his church, his pastor and his church’s guest preachers and priests—I wouldn’t question his political ambitions here—but now Krauthammer slaps him silly for doing so. After Obama’s “judgment” was questioned for failing to do so before. While I can definitely disagree with Obama’s positions even repositionings on a number of issues; Krauthammer will have guaranteed that Obama will garner more sympathy votes. What decent people are going to love a bully wielding a journalist’s pen, anyway?

---

To the right of Krauthammer, Leonard Pitts, jr. gives Obama a brief and useful chastisement over his “Muslim Problem.” Yes, actually, Muslims should indeed enjoy freedom of religion in this nation. No, Obama shouldn’t have to fear visiting a Mosque. No his campaign staff shouldn’t have to mind seating women with head scarves in full view of the camera where the candidate is speaking. The problem is, that this nation still has a bigot problem. Obama isn’t just African-American with a Muslim sounding name, the “character issue” that the bigots want to hand him is that he is African-American with a Muslim sounding name. At least Pitts has the sense to acknowledge it. As long as the bigots can delight in spreading rumors by e-mail and etc. about Obama, then they can also curtail whom he reaches out to.

At least John Kennedy only had a Catholic problem when the bigots were not only fellow Christians but also protestants.  Kennedy didn’t have a “color” problem to go with his Catholicism.  He was actually able to overcome the sectarian differences in his brief reign as president.  But now, I would have to argue that the true test of this nation is:  how willing are we to overcome the “color” problem?  We put Roman Catholics on the U,S. Supreme Court because they agree with some ideological extreme.  We’ll put on the U.S. Supreme Court guys with “foreign sounding names” because they hold an ideological view like our own.  How willing are we to get past the “color” problem and put a Democratic Senator into the highest office in the land on the basis of how good a campaign he ran to get there, and even further, what he has to offer as president.  Pitts has no problem with that idea, Krauthammer however, needs to grow up.