I came across an Associated Press headline that left me racing to the toilet to hurl: Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands
Let me play the first few bars of this article for you, so I can explain what is so profoundly wrong with it:
WASHINGTON – 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.
“What an opportunity we have to change this country,” the Democrat told his senior staff after his inauguration. “The American people are really counting on us now. Let’s make sure we take advantage of it.”
I have two reactions. In no particular order: 1) Wow. That Obama. So wonderfully bi-partisan and non-divisive. I hope they come out with an Obama teddy bear so I can hug him all night long. 2) It is truly frightening that a newspaper as large and as important as the Associated Press would print something so blatantly untrue and so nakedly partisan in its presentation.
Let’s see a couple of titles that should serve to contradict the paper’s thesis that Obama is avoiding partisan political stands:
Support for the LGBT Community (Obama’s own website detailing his radical plans to advance the political goals of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgenders, accessed January 25, 2009).
And, of course:
Bush’s “War On Terror” Comes To Sudden End (detailing Obama’s closure of Gitmo and his dismantling of Bush’s successful intelligence/security measures).
Way to avoid those “divisive stands,” Barry. With such a reporter as this telling the story, Obama might well be able to chop off the heads of every evangelical Christian in the country and still be “avoiding divisive partisan and ideological stands.”
I wonder. Before the author praised Obama for his “avoiding divisive partisan and ideological stands,” while simultaneously comparing him favorably to that “unpopular Bush,” did she bother to check President Bush’s first week to compare/contrast how “divisive”, “partisan”, or “ideological” Bush actually was in relation to Obama? I mean, doesn’t the comparison completely fall apart if it turns out that Bush wasn’t any of those things his first week, either?
You’ve got to love liberals for their constant blatant hypocrisy. At least they’re consistent. Here’s the game: if you don’t submit to their extremely radical liberal ideology, you are “divisive.” Think just like us, or we’ll brand you as “divisive” and then start throwing in other terms such as “partisan” and “ideological” as pile-ons.