By Larry Elder
Thursday, May 23, 2013
How does President Barack Obama, a man of such keen
intelligence, with such promise to "change" America, find himself in
so much serious trouble?
From the IRS targeting conservatives to the continued
confusion over what happened at Benghazi to provoking a battle with The
Associated Press by subpoenaing phone records that could involve as many as 100
reporters, what went wrong?
The answer is simple: arrogance, aided and abetted by a
compliant, adoring "news" media.
CNN's Roland Martin urged the president to "go
gangsta" on conservatives who wouldn't confirm his political appointments.
Supporters like MSNBC's the Rev. Al Sharpton publicly said they will not
criticize Obama -- on anything. Even though Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.,
called the then 15.9 percent black unemployment rate
"unconscionable," she refused to publicly criticize the President.
Politicians, Waters candidly told a Detroit town hall audience on unemployment,
want to get re-elected: "If we go after the President too hard, you're
going after us. When you tell us it's all right and you unleash us and you're
ready to have this conversation, we're ready to have the conversation." So
why shouldn't Obama feel that he operates under different, special rules, and
can do so without risking loss of support?
By refusing to hold Obama to the same standard they would
hold any garden-variety Republican, the media now face the monster they
created.
With a straight face, Obama used lines like he's going to
"save or create" 3.5 million jobs. What does that even mean? How do
you measure whether a given policy "saves" a job?
"The inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula
is part of its attraction," wrote William McGurn in The Wall Street
Journal. "Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the
Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures 'jobs
saved.'"
With a straight face, Obama told us over and over how his
mother, as she lay dying from cancer in a Hawaii hospital, fought with her
insurance carriers over paying her medical and hospital bills. But according to
the book by Janny Scott, a former New York Times reporter, the sole dispute was
over a disability policy his mother had taken out. Her bills were paid promptly
and without dispute. To date, not one reporter has asked the President about
this false narrative he used so effectively to personalize his fight for
ObamaCare.
With a straight face, Obama told us that under ObamaCare
the "cost curve" would "bend down"; that if you like your
doctor, you can keep your doctor; and that nobody will be worse off under
ObamaCare. Yet premiums are going up. Employers are dropping plans and cutting
hours to shed the number of "full-time workers" for whom employers
must provide a health care policy or pay a fine.
With a straight face, Obama told us that the soaring
annual deficits come from "two wars we didn't pay for" and "tax
cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for." Did his suck-up media do
the math? If you take the generally accepted estimate of the costs of wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq -- over the 10 years from 2001 to 2011 -- they annually
accounted for 10 percent of the then-deficit. As to tax cuts for the rich, Obama
put the "cost" at $700 billion over 10 years and has said, "We
need to get rid of ... tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and ...
corporate jet owners." But $700 billion over 10 years is $70 billion per
year, a small fraction of the current deficit.
With a straight face, then-Sen. Obama, the Un-Bush, said
he opposes any military intervention unauthorized by Congress unless the
country faces imminent risk of attack. But as President, Obama joined with
France and Britain in bombing Libya, a country that posed no imminent threat to
America. Libya's then-leader, Moammar Gadhafi, had long before surrendered his
weapons of mass destruction to the Bush administration. President George W.
Bush obtained congressional approval for Afghanistan and Iraq. Not so with
Obama and Libya. President Obama paid no political price for what Sen. Obama
would have opposed.
Newsweek, after the passage of ObamaCare, published a
gushing cover story: "We Are All Socialists Now." Somehow the piece
failed to note economists like UCLA's Lee Ohanian, whose peer-reviewed work
shows that FDR's New Deal lengthened and deepened the Great Depression -- the
opposite of what most Americans learn in high school. But to Newsweek, the
question has been settled. A bigger, activist government is simply right and
proper and just. If it takes thuggery on the part of Obama to get us there,
well, so be it.
Obama's arrogance flows from our fawning, gushing,
Bush-hating "news" media, which shirk their responsibility to fairly
report the news. The media's fecklessness creates overconfidence. With good
reason, Obama expects his media cheerleaders to look the other way, accept
excuses without much challenge and turn the President's critics and
whistleblowers into enemies.
No comments:
Post a Comment