Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Fail: New York Times Tries To Play Race Card, Rewrite History

In its lead editorial Sunday, the New York Times plays the race card, accusing Republicans of criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy because he is black. The editors, like many on the left, refuse to acknowledge that it is Obama’s own radical policies, and imperious style, that led to the backlash that delivered Congress to the opposition in the first place. However, since the “paper of record” attempts to rewrite history to back up its claims, the editorial is worth deconstructing.

It begins:

It is a peculiar, but unmistakable, phenomenon: As Barack Obama’s presidency heads into its twilight, the rage of the Republican establishment toward him is growing louder, angrier and more destructive.

Actually, what is remarkable about the “twilight” of Obama’s presidency is that he refuses to acknowledge his party’s recent historic defeat. Instead of listening to the electorate, he is governing as if nothing happened, enacting more radical policies.

Republican lawmakers in Washington and around the country have been focused on blocking Mr. Obama’s agenda and denigrating him personally since the day he took office in 2009.

A blatant historical lie. The truth: in 2009, Republicans were unsure how to deal with their defeat, and many were eager to appease him. Bill Kristol even wrote on the Times‘ own op-ed page that Republicans ought to give Obama a chance to show that liberalism could be “a service to our country.” That honeymoon ended with the massive stimulus bill of February 2009, when Obama rejected Republican suggestions, telling them simply: “I won.” The result: the rise of the Tea Party movement.

More

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (National Journal)

Anonymous said...

How'd that work for you Mitch?