This is a common question those on the right ask. Why doesn’t the mainstream media cover Obama scandals?
Well, the answer is simple: They do. As we can see from the IRS scandal and the Associated Press scandal, both of which were the main stories on the nightly news and front pages, the media loves scandal (Just ask Anthony Weiner). Scandals get ratings and sell papers. It has nothing to do with ideology.
But they love real scandals, not made-up ones.
Right wing blogs, following Fox News’ lead, cry about made-up scandals all the time. Benghazi, birth certificates, umbrellas, or whatever silly thing they are obsessing over never make the “mainstream media” not because the other news sources are in Obama’s pocket, but because there is no news there. They’re fantasy scandals, and honest and legitimate news sources know that.
Much of the “mainstream media” is actually quite conservative. Many newspapers endorsed Romney and write editorials critical of Obama. But even they aren’t covering these “scandals” because they (unlike Fox) have journalistic integrity.
But the people who believe these things tend to be more paranoid than the average American. Many of these people also believe the government is out to install a dictatorship and take all our guns and install Sharia Law — and that the Illuminati or something controls the White House with help from the aliens in Area 51 and what-have-you.
So the inability of these people to understand that there is no vast liberal media conspiracy kind of makes sense, because they tend to believe in other things that don’t exist — like the Benghazi scandal.
Let me if I can figure this out from the information currently available…
After the Citizen’s United decision, a huge amount of new political groups popped up and claimed tax exempt status. The large chunk of these were inspired by Karl Rove and carried names like “Tea Party Against Taxes” and other such things.
The head of the IRS is a non-political position that is appointed by the President for a 6 year term. It is fairly independent of the Presidency after that. George W. Bush, in one of his last actions before leaving, appointed Douglas Shulman to be Chair, and Obama was stuck with him for his entire first administration.
When Shulman saw the doubling of applications for tax exempt status, he opened an office in Cleveland with the responsibility of reviewing them. This office then decided “Hey, you know, groups that are anti-tax probably are the ones most likely to file false claims for tax exemption.” While that is probably true, what they did next was wrong: They targeted any group with the words “Tea Party” or similar right-wing key words, looking for applications that should be denied. (And, as an aside, they did find some.)
Still, targeting groups based on the position they hold clearly violates the 1st Amendment and was absolutely wrong.
Everyone agrees on that point, including Obama, who has called the action “outrageous.”
This has not appeased the right-wing conspiracy buffs who are sure that this was an edict from Obama in the first place — as if the President decided to order the head of the IRS — a Bush appointee — to stupidly target groups and the Bush appointee went along with it without a word. And people are buying it. They’re actually believing that happened.
As we all know from the Benghazi hearings, the lack of evidence has never stood in the way of a good witch hunt.
Every month, the economy improves, little by little. We have the lowest unemployment in four years, the stock market is at an all-time high, and the deficit has been cut by a large amount.
Now certainly if any of those things had gotten worse, you’d be sure to hear how it’s Obama’s fault. Hell, you actually hear it now from people who apparently never read anything about the economy.
The real fact is that the President can only do so much to help the economy. That’s true of every President. Somehow people think the President has some sort of magic control box on his desk and can switch the dial from “economy bad” to “economy good” whenever he feels like it. “If I had the power to make gas prices go down,” Obama said last summer, “what possible reason would I have not to do that?”
But the President certainly does have some power — Bush’s decision to cut taxes for the very wealthy hurt us economically and now that they’re gone, the economy has started to improve, for instance. But he didn’t do it alone; he had congress’ help. Obama’s problem is that he is facing a party that has said, many times, that its main goal is to prevent Obama from accomplishing anything. That’s why congress has passed no jobs bills, no matter how much we need them.
Obama fought them when they declared that the way to solve our economic problems was through “austerity” — which means basically cutting everything, throwing many people out of work, and somehow all these now poor people without jobs or income would help the economy by — well, they never exactly explained that part. We know it doesn’t work, because in every European country that tried it, their economy fell head-first into terrible depression and massive unemployment.
So the fact that the economy is improving despite the Republicans seemingly doing everything they can to prevent that should mean that Obama gets some credit, right?
Right?
Hello?
With Obamacare, you are forced to buy insurance.
This was the plan supported by Republicans since Bob Dole was running for President. It’s the exact same plan Romney installed in Massachusetts that he bragged about until the GOP decided it was a bad idea. They originally thought it was a great idea, because it supported insurance companies and business. It promoted capitalism. It was the exact opposite of socialism, where the government provides the service.
Many of these same Republicans (well, at least the ones who have no morals about being completely inconsistent in their views) are now screaming against this terrible form of “socialism”.
Damn, I wish it was socialism. A “medicare for all” system would solve a ton of the problems Obamacare brings and allow us to better spread the costs over all Americans while at the same time getting rid of a middle-man (insurance companies) that provide no health care whatsoever. What a savings that would be.
But no. Obama caved in to the Republicans in order to get their vote and then didn’t get it anyway, which will be regarded as one of his administration’s biggest mistakes.
So go ahead and criticize Obamacare. (I certainly do; I wish it could be better.) But please — don’t look stupid by calling it “socialism”, OK?
(And now, a disclaimer: If you define socialism so broadly as to include any government regulation whatsoever, then Obamacare is socialism in the same way laws requiring you to get a license for your dog is socialism. But you and I both know that’s not what critics mean when they make that stupid argument.)
Really, Tea Partiers? You’re upset that the First Lady of the United States was on the Oscars? It’s not like she gave a political speech.
I wouldn’t have objected to Laura Bush appearing. Heck, even George W Bush saying a few nice things about the movies would have been OK.
But somehow whenever Michelle does anything, you guys react like the devil has appeared. “Michelle has suggested that we should eat better and exercise! She’s trying to take away our rights!!!”
Is there anything she can do publicly that you don’t disagree with? And is there any chance you might stop looking like idiots?
Addendum: After posting this, I discovered that in 2002 Laura Bush did appear on the Oscars, on a big screen, just like Michelle Obama. Hey, does everyone remember how liberals protested when that was done?
To those friends of mine who insist that Obama is some sort of fascist because he is going against “the will of the people”:
A majority of Americans support stricter gun control.
A majority of Americans support gay marriage.
A majority of Americans support keeping abortion legal.
A majority of Americans support Obamacare.
And, just in case it isn’t blatantly clear, a majority of Americans voted for Obama.
Now, you may disagree with these positions — and you have every right to do so — but you’re in the minority. Sometimes the minority is right. But when you’re in the minority, a claim that you represent “The Will of the People” just doesn’t cut it.
So cut it out.
ventrellaquest.com 