by Tina Grazier
I was reading a surprising piece this morning, given CNN was the source network. The title of the article, “Obama’s Foreign Policy in a Tailspin” by Frida Ghitis caught my eye because I agree with the author’s assessment on Obama’s foreign policy and because I am very concerned about what it means for America and the free world. Unfortunately I didn’t get past the fourth sentence. The focus of the article took a sharp left turn and subject change. I began to frown. My objection isn’t meant for this woman personally, but the all too familiar method. I will use her article to examine the thinking of liberal progressives generally and in media. They just don’t get what conservatives are saying…and frankly they don’t seem to care.
After setting the stage with gritty and bold assertions:
America’s foreign policy has gone into a tailspin. Almost every major initiative from the Obama administration has run into sharp, sometimes embarrassing, reverses. The U.S. looks weak and confused on the global stage.
Ms Ghitis, whose credentials are described as “…a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer and correspondent, she is the author of “The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television.”, continues with a short paragraph but it has nothing to do with the Presidents failing policy. Nope! Instead she writes, “This might come as happy news to some opponents of the administration who enjoy seeing Barack Obama fail.”
Really? Is she going to use her first opportunity to explain why she believes Obama is failing to slam conservatives generally and Rush Limbaugh, who said in 2009, “I hope Obama fails,” in particular?
This woman is desperate! She is a woman longing to change the subject, to turn away from the title of her own piece! She will grasp an anything to excuse the President!
It’s unfortunate that she cares so little about the truth and so little about the state that this president has created both in and for our country. It’s also unfortunate that she has no interest in being accurate about what Rush was saying. But, she can’t afford to be curious much less accurate because she wants to believe that liberal policies are good and conservative policies are bad.She wants to believe that liberals are kind and conservatives are mean. She is deeply invested in BS.
Lets look at the wrong-headed thinking regarding Rush’s comment. We look to the man himself. We look to the full context of his (prescient) remark by going to his webpage and the full text of the monologue:
RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.” Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.
Rush goes on to point out that nobody finds it unusual when liberals hope Republicans fail and he’s absolutely right about that. People don’t notice and they don’t seem to mind that liberals say the most incredibly inaccurate and hateful things about republican leaders.
As it turns out Rush had good reason to be concerned and this woman should be giving him his due rather than issuing covert criticism. She should be marveling that his concerns were right on the money! Obama’s management of foreign policy and domestic policy have failed miserably! Conservative concerns about his lack of experience and his progressive policies were well founded. Obama was not prepared for the difficult job he has taken on. Unfortunately he has not grown into the job after five years either.
But progressives are not generous enough to admit that the man they love for no reason could be bad for the country. And they cannot admit that the man they have chosen to hate most, Rush Limbaugh, could have been right in 2009. They are not honest enough to admit that their assumptions about what he was saying were flat out wrong. His remarks were not racist, or mean spirited, or even non-supportive. His remarks were not about Obama at all but about his policies and politics. Rush’s remarks were about his heartfelt concern and fears for our nation.
The next paragraph is a return to the subject:
America’s failure in international strategy is a disaster-in-the-making for its allies and for the people who see the U.S. model of liberal democracy as one worth emulating in their own nations.
Notice it is “America’s failures and, once again, this Obama sycophant cannot place the responsibility squarely at the feet of the one person in charge. In the next breath, so to speak, she makes a back handed slap at the previous administration:
There is no question that Obama was dealt a difficult hand.
He came to office after America’s international standing was battered by the unpopular Iraq war launched by George W. Bush. Since then, countless events outside of Washington’s control have presented the White House with options ranging in many cases from bad to worse, and problems that had no good solution.
1. America’s standing was mainly “battered” by leftist journalists and pundits that wanted to destroy George W. Bush! People like her, who from even before he took office, did all in their power to destroy him and his presidency!
2. George Bush was respected by both his allies and his enemies. George Bush could be counted on by his allies and his enemies. George Bush ended his presidency having kept terrorists from successfully hitting America at home, having brought Iraq to stability with a democracy in place, having brought Al Qaida to near ruin, and having handed his predecessor a manageable starting position. George Bush did all in his power to welcome the first family to the White House and offer President Obama a smooth transition to begin his presidency! The same courtesy was not given to George Bush as he entered the presidency!
3. George Bush not only faced “countless events outside of his control” just as Obama and all presidents do, he faced them having to also deal with relentless, pounding criticism and efforts to undermine his (hands-on) management of the war from our leftist media and the political opposition.
Responsibility is not the strong suit with liberal progressives.
Four paragraphs of dallying later the author returns to her subject. But is anyone concerned enough about the failures to continue. Once she moves on from pointing fingers at Republicans does any progressive care? Isn’t it they who find it necessary to throw deadly slings and arrows and isn’t it because they refuse to address the fundamental problem…that liberal polices and methods are a disaster and Obama’s foreign and domestic polices have failed spectacularly? Isn’t it impossible for liberals to admit that republicans might just have some ideas that do work and are better overall for the country? Isn’t it true that Republican policies are not designed to hurt people but to work for all concerned?
Ms Ghitis, the President, and progressive liberals all could take this opportunity to better unite the country and set America on a path to strength and growth. They could take the high road and admit they have made mistakes. Sadly, I don’t think they have the courage. Ghitis ends her article thus:
Obama’s supporters and his critics should hope he can pull America forward.
“Hope”, half of nObamas signature slogan in the first election and, “forward,” the thrust of Obama’s second campaign slogan is a call, whether consciously intended or not, for more of the same.
Why did this woman bother to write this piece? She hasn’t learned a thing; not about Obama’s failures and not about the opposition’s motives and concerns.
As long as progressives are allowed to get away with this brick wall attitude toweard conservatives this country hasn’t a prayer…not for unity of purpose, not for success at home or abroad, and certainly not for our standing in the world!
