Washington Post Halfway Out of the Obama Tank?
In October 2008, the Washington Post endorsed Senator Barack Obama to be the 44th president of the United States. The endorsement was unusual. The endorsement differed with Obama on a number of substantive issues, and you could cherry-pick enough information to build a reasonable case for Obama’s rival, Senator John McCain. The endorsement seemed to be based more on mythic qualities the Post’s editors ascribed to the candidate — “supple intelligence,” “sophisticated understanding of the world,” “nimbleness and steadfastness,” and “preternaturally confident,” for example — rather than any actual qualities or accomplishments.
Still, the editors didn’t want to get to carried away and allowed:
Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.
With President Obama’s term now three-quarters over, how has he fared by the Washington Post’s standards? In the area of foreign policy, a strong case could be made from the Post’s editorials that President Obama has not even reached the bar of “very good.”
Chief among the endorsement’s concerns about candidate Obama was that he would insist “… on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline.” This past December, a Washington Post editor — with the piece “In Iraq, a return to old enmities” — criticized the president for failing to listen to his military chiefs in this regard. In September 2009, another editorial titled “Bob Woodward’s book portrays a great divide over Afghanistan” faulted the president for being too eager to withdraw from Afghanistan. While the endorsement only mentioned Iraq, the mindset it criticized was evident in the president’s dealings with Afghanistan, too.
President Obama’s zeal for withdrawing troops is not the only source of concern for the editors of the Washington Post. Two years ago, in “The U.S. quarrel with Israel,” they observed:
President Obama’s Middle East diplomacy failed in his first year in part because he chose to engage in an unnecessary and unwinnable public confrontation with Israel over Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
The piece also expressed wonder as to why the president chose to confront Israel over the announcement to build new apartments in Ramat Shlomo. Given the importance the president attached to advancing the peace process, the Post’s rebuke is significant.
This March, a number of editorials criticized different aspects of Obama’s foreign policy. On March 2 and again on March 7, editorials demanded that the administration take action against the Syrian government. Subsequently, one editorial faulted the president for his naivete in dealing with North Korea, and another criticized him for sticking to a deadline for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan regardless of the consequences.
The Washington ComPost is doing this just for show. They are just as much Marxists propagandists as the NY or LA Slimes, they are just less open about it.
Kind of the way CNN is just as far to the left as MSNBC, but doesn’t openly admit that fact.
Also keep in mind that they are in thrall to two virulently anti-Semitic constituencies – the predominantly black population in DC and surrounding Maryland counties, and the Islamists in NoVa. So it’s hard to believe they would be critical of such a virulently anti-Israel President.
The WaPo’s editorial page has moved to the right of it’s news pages over the past decade. That doesn’t mean they are on the right, just that the editorial offerings are not reflexively liberal to the point you already know what they’re going to say even before you get past the headline. The news pages — especially Style — still is in the firm grip of the Washington-New York-Boston liberal media groupthink (if Obama is criticized there, odds are it’s for not being far enough to the left on an issue).
What the Post’s editorial page has become in basically the opinion page version of former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan — a lifetime Democrat who says a lot of sensible things at times that Republicans can agree with, but when push comes to shove, not one who is going to buck the entire party and not go along with the crowd on the major issues (just try to imagine what the D.C. party circuit attitude would be at the end of this year for the WaPo’s editorial board if they endorsed Mitt Romney for president. They’re not going to risk becoming social pariahs and spending the post-election period sitting at home watching Christmas special re-runs, especially if they believe Obama’s going to win, because they also know how vindictive their side can be to traitors to The Cause).
John, I agree with you. I still think that credit should be given when its deserved.
David, I’ve got no problem giving the Post credit. I’m just warning against expecting anything but an Obama endorsement come October, irregardless of any foreign policy disaster or further economic woes.
It’s like watching a Road Runner cartoon; we don’t know what path the coyote will take to his next disaster, we only know he’s going to get there. We don’t know what path the WaPo’s op-ed page will take towards justifying their endorsement of Obama seven months from now. We just know they’re going to get there.
John, I don’t really hold out much hope that the Post will endorse anyone other than Obama. Still it’s noteworthy that a publication that will go all in for the President’s re-election is making a comprehensive case against his leadership in foreign policy.
David, thank you for doing the unpleasant job of actually reading Washington Post editorials — and for your continuing wise analyses of their ‘content.’
(Being reminded of what in 2008 the WaPo editors opined were Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency is cause for squirming in embarrassment.)
Fig leaves. The WaPo is trying to regain some respectability through this tactic. Criticizing him for his obvious failures and shortcomings, which the editors can tick off just before it endorsing him with a lengthy homage on his superior intellect, temperment and nuanced sophistication of world geo-politics. Oh, yeah. And it will urge the sheeple to elect him to another four years. They can’t look they are totally in the tank – but they are.
The servants at the Washington Pravda will simply do what they will be ordered to do. Of course the order will not be issued explicitly and it will be a precise duty of the Homo Sovieticus to interpret the will of his masters and puppeteers.
Of course I must imagine that some of the zombies (no offense intended for the real zombies and for PJM Zombie)at the Washington Pravda do volunteer for the building of the totalitarian regime and the subversion of the Constitution, but I am sure that the vast majority would understand immediately if a sudden conversion of the Democratic Party would bring back the party to the the defense of Freedom and they would immediately change their “opinions”.
Please don’t identify the Washington Post with Pravda. Since its re-incarnation after the fall of the Soviet Reich, Pravda has become a decent newspaper. Some very interseting stuff gets printed there nowadays. I give Ann Barnhardt full credit for drawing this to my attention. Now, if one must identify the Washington Post, Granma is a better match.
Who will be the first Conservative Media outlet other than Worldnetdaily who will be dealing with plate full of RED MEAT evidence offered them by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse. What the hell is wrong with the folks here at PAJAMASMEDIA and the rest of the Conservative outlets? Does anyone think Joe Arpaio and his investigators are LYING? They have hundreds of years of law enforcement experience combined for crying out loud and all have unblemished records,most career law enforcement officers. They know evidence and how to evaluate it. They could be prosecuted for lying. Are they WRONG? That would be an illogical conclusion for same reason above. The only conclusion has to be that they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. How in the world can any Conservative sit back and allow this President and his enablers to bitch slap us around as if there is nothing wrong with this criminal activity. Does anyone in the Conservative media still have his/her spine in place? The folks at Fox make me sick to my stomach. Worldnetdaily is the ONLY Conservative media outlet with a set of balls. The rest of you are punking out. RED MEAT, flip in on the gril a time or two and see where it leads for crying out loud.
I agree, Tony. “Something” has changed here at PJM and there’s not much substance lately. WND is my go-to website first thing in the morning. WHY has PJM not reported on Sheriff Joe’s investigation? It’s a huge story.
Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president.
He did, but only if he’d abandoned his ideology. Every failure of his administration directly results from his decision making. Whether it’s the economy, energy policy, foreign policy, or health care, Obama has consistently picked the wrong choice. While Obama’s failure was predictable, it highlights the need to understand a candidate’s track record and learn how they make decisions. Obama’s track record was that of a strident Marxist, there was never any chance for “Hope and Change”.
But I also think the Post and the rest of the media minions succeeded too well in their mission. The press talked the nation into a recession during 2006-2008 with all the negative stories about the economy. They thought, as did Obama, that glowing stories after the election would be all that was needed to revive the economy and turn things around. So they “stimulated” with abandon to give the impression that Keynesian Economics was the way to go, and they passed ObamaCare so they could point to how it revived the economy. Unfortunately, the fake recession they thought they created turned out to be a very real recession and their formerly City and State destroying policies and now a threat to the Nation.
WP halfway out of Obama tank only to charge head first into A LION IN WINTER – eulogy for Osama. Bigger fish, it seems.
I’ve no illusions. WaPo will always be in Obama’s corner regardless of their reluctant criticisms on the lunacy of his foreign policy.
Another one of libral tactics to portray themselves as neutral and mainstream. It doesn’t work – just like the Muslim?Islamic taqiyya!
Washington Post Halfway Out of the Obama Tank?
Nope. Just giving their collective knees a rest.
Deliberate Maskirova and Dezhinformatzia. Sole purpose is to establish an appearance of credibility for when they go all in barking moonbat in support of Obama and against whoever the Republican candidate is. If it is Romney, the WP will have a target rich environment, and a time-over-target scheduling problem.
Subotai Bahadur
– awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he rested on his laurels. What are they going to do — rescind it?
Hmmm, I wonder what the Post had to say about the disaster of Obama getting rid of Mubarak in Egypt without having a plan as to what would come after him. Yup, he took the far-left’s view, as well as the United Nation’s view, of getting rid of a dictator, one that was also very friendly to the United States I might add. But no, Obama was swept up in this romantic notion of an “Arab Spring” and he got rid of Mubarak. Now look at what we have. Egypt is about to be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists, people who make Mubarak look like a pussycat. And, don’t ch’ya know, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists also despise Israel and want to get rid of it, rather than co-exist with it the way Mubarak did. Now THAT is progress, right?
And let’s also take a look at Libya, shall we? Not only did he fight an illegal war in a Libyan civil war without the consent of Congress (let alone the American people), but again he got rid of another dictator because the United Nations wanted him to, not because that dictator represented a clear and present danger to the United States. The Europeans wanted the oil Libya had so we went to war, again, because somebody else wanted us to. And to make the whole experience even better, now we have entire armed militia groups running wild in Libya creating yet another failed African state. We now have something like Somalia on the Mediterranean. Yup, sure was a good thing getting rid of a dictator who was not bothering us. Gaddafi was removed as a threat to us years ago when he gave up his nuclear program (mostly because of our invasion into Iraq). After seeing what happened to Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi saw that there no longer was any benefit to attacking the United States, especially in the post 9/11 era. But no, to Obama this was a perfect opportunity to implement his own view of the world on a North African country that had nothing to do with us, and primarily because other NATO nations wanted Libya’s oil. It doesn’t get any lower than this.
So I wonder why the Washington Post missed these little tidbits of information? Obama, his administration, and especially Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for botching what happened in North Africa last year. Hopefully, Americans will remember all of this in November when it comes time to vote for a president.
I’m not saying that the Washington Post has made every argument possible against President Obama. I’m saying that, taken together, Post editorials make a very strong case against the President’s handling of foreign policy. Even if the Post’s editors ultimately endorse President Obama for re-election, the criticisms ought to be heeded. Coming as they do, from an ally of the President makes them especially damning and damaging.
I like the commenter’s statement above calling that washington rag the Wa Compost. Very good.
But all any intelligent person needs to know about Obama is that he stated in no uncertain terms that under his policies the price of energy would “necessarily skyrocket.” When he took his inauguration oath of office on Jan 20, 2009, the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.78.
How much did you pay last time you filled your car? Could you afford to actually fill it?
This is not a drill… it’s really happening.
Obama seizes control over food, farms, livestock, fertilizer and farm equipment across America.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035301_Obama_executive_orders_food_supply.html