Your Lying Eyes

Dedicated to uncovering the truth that stands naked before your lying eyes.

E-mail Me

Twitter: yourlyingeyes

25 January 2009

Surreal Obama Coverage Continues Apace

Following on Steve Sailer's observation that mainstream media Obama coverage is indistinguishable from Onion parodies, CNN asks without even the remotest hint of irony: "Will Obama have to be better because he's black?" Meanwhile, WaPo claims Obama has sent Al Qaeda into a state of desperation just by the mere power of his awesomeness ("Obama Presents New Challenge for Al-Qaeda").
But for now, the change in Washington appears to have rattled al-Qaeda's leaders, some of whom are scrambling to convince the faithful that Obama and Bush are essentially the same...Al-Qaeda's rhetorical swipes at Obama date to the weeks before the election, when commentators on Web sites associated with the group debated which of the two major presidential candidates would be better for the jihadist movement...Soon after the vote, the attacks turned personal -- and insulting.
Good God no - insults? We knew Al Qaeda thought nothing of blowing people up and mass murder, but insulting Obama? Does it get any lower?

The CNN reporter apparently couldn't find anyone who thought that Obama wouldn't be held to a higher standard, although it did hint that such shadowy people could exist.
Rojecki says people who say Obama isn't going to be held to a different standard because of his skin color didn't pay attention to his campaign.

He says Obama had to deal with challenges that other candidates didn't have to face. Obama's run for office was almost ended by his association with his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose incendiary sermons shocked many. But Republican presidential nominee John McCain's relationship with the Rev. John Hagee, who was accused of anti-Semitism, never threatened to end his campaign, Rojecki says. "Obama was held responsible for what his minister said, and McCain was associated with Hagee, but somehow that didn't stick," Rojecki said.
Sure, they're the same thing, Obama's relationship with his personally-selected pastor of 20 years, acknowledged father-figure and inspiration for his best-selling book, vs. McCain picking up an endorsement from some pastor McCain didn't know and...oh, why bother, it's just so depressingly absurd.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on the money again, ziel, including your parting remark, which sums up how I feel. I can't believe no one notices how counter-democratic this whole love-fest is. I feel there's been some fundamental shift in our democratic understanding due to political correctness. It almost feels like we're in some second or third world pseudo-democracy where the press constantly kowtows to the Great Leader. How long will this continue?

Incidentally, I don't feel it's the "Left" that is responsible for this reprehensible state of affairs - they're ideology-driven, after all, and will criticize Obama when he doesn't satisfy their demands - so much as the vanilla liberal mainstream, the Anderson Coopers of the world.

January 25, 2009 6:48 PM  
Blogger ziel said...

That's a good point -- it's the mainstream that's out of control - the Charlie Rose/NPR/NYT/WaPo etc. The leftwingers are letting him have it when he disappoints them.

January 25, 2009 7:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if Al Quaeda hasn't "hit" us again because they have decided that is strategically not in their best interest to do so at this point, given what other operations they have going on in the world at the moment and their mid-term plans?

Is the Sunni Al Quaeda gearing up for a fight against the Shia in Iraq after we leave, or are they still looking for ways to unite the mid-east under a Caliphate, are they looking for ways to help various terrorist groups against Israel, are they focusing on keeping the prosetlylization campaigns up in Europe and Russia and fighting a demographic war for greater inlfuence 40 years from now, are they focusing on obtaining WMD's..........

Its hard to say what they are up to, because they obviously dont think as we do (rationally, and influenced by the rights of man as an individual, etc.)

I have a icky feeling that they would have some "assets" here in the US that could pull some pre-planned act off if they got the signal to do so, but as its probably not in their best interest to incite us against them, have simply refrained from doing so. If they are anything like the big-bad organization that we have been led to believe, its hard to imagine that they could't blow up a few dams here in America for instance. I know they have people willing to die for the cause, and this makes much possible from a terror standpoint.

What is such a shame is that we are letting some Gitmo detainees back into the world and will probably end up having to deal with them as "hostiles" again here or elsewhere. Thats got to be a morale-suppressor for the military that valiantly apprehended these folks.

January 25, 2009 8:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ziel said...
"That's a good point -- it's the mainstream that's out of control - the Charlie Rose/NPR/NYT/WaPo etc. The leftwingers are letting him have it when he disappoints them.

"January 25, 2009 7:32 PM"

With all due respect, ziel, I thought Charlie Rose/NPR/NYT/WaPo were leftwingers. That point notwithstanding, I would not hold my breath, waiting for the racial socialist Left to criticize its Fuehrer.

January 26, 2009 9:56 PM  
Blogger ziel said...

Well they don't think of themselves as leftwingers - I'm thinking of the ones who are actually proud leftwingers - the ones who complain about his "moderate" cabinet appointees.

January 27, 2009 12:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My hunch, from having lived with some lefties during the previous millennium, is that the folks you mentioned very much consider themselves men of the Left, but fantasize that they have fooled the world into considering them "mainstream." And considering how successful they've been at setting themselves up as the arbiters of political acceptability, and in marginalizing their critics, maybe they're not even fantasizing. Still, I think a distinction without a difference is in order, say between the "'closet' Left" and the "'out' Left." (I originally wrote, "in-your-face Left," before realizing that both types are in your face. Consider, for example, the NYT's Frank Rich.)

January 27, 2009 12:33 AM  
Blogger ziel said...

Yes, Frank Rich...his latest column (No Time for Poetry is not too bad for him - at least it's an effective litany of the excesses of the past decade from a liberal's point of view - except when he mentions Obama, who somehow or other he thinks is asking the nation to sacrifice - when of course what he's really asking is for those who make and save money to sacrifice. But that is the left's mindset - saving money and building wealth is the root of all evil.

January 27, 2009 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read that one, and you're right, ziel: It's not as bad as his usual, er, stuff. However, with his newest, he's back in the toilet. No reality, just spin. A fellow could get dizzy reading Rich.


February 16, 2009 10:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home