The Liberal Media is Deserting Obama ... Alan Caruba

 The Liberal Media is Deserting Obama

By Alan Caruba

The conservative media has been criticizing President Obama since before he was President and that hardly comes as a surprise, but there is a discernible trend occurring among the liberal media. They are beginning to abandon Obama and, if that continues, it will erode his base and the electoral turnout he needs to be reelected.

New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, is one of my barometers and she has been backing away from Obama for weeks. In an August 6 column, “Downgrade Blues”, she opined that “Barack Obama blazed like Luke Skywalker in 2008, but he never learned to channel the Force. And now the Tea Party has run off with his light saber.” It’s more like Obama has become Darth Vader, destroying the economy since the day he arrived in the Oval Office.

“When he had power,” said Dowd, “he didn’t use it.” No, Obama’s problem is that he did use it and most dramatically in his effort to impose Obamacare on an America that did not want it. Only a straight party vote in Congress passed it despite a massive 2009 march on Washington to protest it. That sparked the Tea Party movement and that transferred power in the House in the 2010 midterm elections.

The syndicated columnist, Eleanor Clift, a strident devotee and defender of Obama, wrote on August 9th that “Disappointed liberals are among Obama’s harshest critics. They feel he’s given away too much to conservatives and they don’t understand where his gifts of intellect and oratory are now that the country is looking to him for a bold plan forward that can take the economy out of the doldrums.”

Like so many liberals, reluctant to assign any blame to Obama, Clift ignores the trillions in additional debt that Obama added to an already tenuous situation when he became President. She ignores the failed stimulus program or his administration’s all out attack on the energy sector of the economy. It’s a long list of bad judgments.

As to his alleged intellect and oratory, Obama’s dependence on teleprompters became a running joke early in his first months in office. During his address on Monday, his “oratory” fell flat with both the media and the public. A string of clichés and worn-out ideas, plus a plea for bipartisanship he has never displayed resulted in a further plunge in the stock market.

A Spurned Prom Date

David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times, on July 25 sharply criticized Obama after the debt ceiling negotiations, saying “the president lost his cool. Obama never should have gone in front of the cameras just minutes after the talks faltered Friday evening. His appearance was suffused with that ‘I’m the only mature person in Washington’ condescension that drives everybody crazy. Obama lectured the leaders of the House and Senate in the sort of patronizing tone that a junior high principal might use with immature delinquents. He talked about unreturned phone calls and being left at the alter, personalizing the issue like a spurned prom date.”

Assessing the Monday address following the Friday Standard & Poor’s credit rating downgrade, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, wrote, “Yet Obama plods along, raising gobs of cash for his reelection bid—he was scheduled to speak at two DNC fundraisers Monday night—and varying little the words he reads from the teleprompter. He seemed detached even from those words Monday as he pivoted his head from side to side, proclaiming that ‘our problems is not confidence in our credit’ and turning his bipartisan fiscal commission into a ‘biparticle.’”

In October 2010 the Washington Times published a commentary of mine that asked if Obama was a moron. Turns out, he is.

In the August 9 edition of the conservative Wall Street Journal, columnist Bret Stephens’ column was titled “Is Obama Smart?” Concisely summing up the two views of the President, Stephens wrote “Liberals say he’s too cerebral for the Beltway rough-and-tumble; conservatives often seem to think his blunders, foreign and domestic, are part of a cunning scheme to turn the U.S. into a combination of Finland, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.”

“I don’t buy it,” wrote Stephens. “I just think the president isn’t very bright.” He concluded “Stupid is as stupid does, said the great philosopher Forrest Gump. The presidency of Barack Obama is a case study in stupid does.”

For me, there is more than a degree of schadenfreude, taking pleasure in other’s misfortunes, but the really bad news is that Obama’s misfortunes are America’s misfortunes and the mainstream media is beginning at last to take notice.

© Alan Caruba, 2011
**********************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. To visit his Facebook page, click here For information on his professional skills, Caruba.com is the place to visit.

The Middle East: Reporting an Enigma ... Alan Caruba

The Middle East: Reporting an Enigma

By Alan Caruba

**************

When President Obama delivers a speech on why he is going to send more thousands of U.S. troops and spend more billions on the eight-year-old conflict in Afghanistan, it would be a good idea to better understand why so much of what is reported from the Middle East suffers a great disconnect from the truth.

In 1998, Joris Luyendijk , a Dutch student who had studied Arabic at Cairo University for a year, was offered a job as a Middle East correspondent for a Dutch news agency despite having no experience as a reporter. What followed was his real education about the Middle East and the way it is presented to the West by the news media.

His book about that experience, “People Like Us: Misrepresenting the Middle East” was initially published in the Netherlands in 2006 and has since then it has been translated and published in Hungary, Italy, Denmark and Germany. In October an English edition was published by Soft Scull Press, an imprint of Counterpoint, a Berkeley, California publisher.

Having begun my career as a journalist, I was interested to learn what Luyendijk had taken from his years hopping around the Middle East before and after 9/11 and during the two Iraq wars waged by the U.S. to resolve a problem called Saddam Hussein.

For anyone digesting the news from his morning newspaper or watching it on television, suspecting that it might be biased or wrong, this book that focuses on reporting from the Middle East is a revelation because Luyendijk strives mightily to expose the way the news is manipulated by all the parties involved.

Covering his experiences from 1998 to 2003, the author is refreshingly candid, admitting that, despite his student year in Cairo, he had little or no real understanding of Egypt or the rest of the Middle East.

There is, however, one thing that anyone can understand. The Middle East is composed of dictatorships and the sole purpose of each one is to survive. To do that, their people must be constantly indoctrinated and fearful. That is made possible by rendering them, individually and as a group, powerless. There simply is no such thing as justice or the opportunity to express an opinion in opposition to the leader.

Significantly, those living in the Middle East cannot make an informed judgment of what is occurring around them because they operate two points of view that are very real to them. First is a widely accepted sense of victimhood, and, second, they believe that Israel, ultimately, is manipulating the entire world!

Conversely, Americans who have no contact with the Middle East beyond the headlines and snapshots of bloodshed and warfare are comparably unable to make informed judgments about a people who differ among themselves in many ways.

The Middle East is very different from the West and Luyendijk believes that few in the West are even vaguely aware that those who live there live in a parallel universe; one that functions by the rules of ruthless dictatorships, by tribes, and by a religion that is hostile to all others.

Democracy is not likely to take root in the Middle East and this can be traced to the prevailing religion of the region, Islam. The only reason democracy occurred in Turkey is because the founder of the modern state, Ataturk, isolated Islam from the conduct of governance and that has been backed up by an army that has, thus far, ensured the separation.

The only other democracy in the Middle East is, of course, Israel. Lebanon’s effort has been steadily undermined by Hezbollah, Islamists who are an instrument of Iran.

The news coverage by Western reporters tends not to reflect the fact that Western powers have long supported the gaggle of monarchs and despots in the Middle East, at least until they saw fit to replace them. For this and for its interventions, the people of the Middle East quite naturally see the West as part of the oppression under which they live.

“EVERYONE IS AGAINST US. It’s banged into ordinary Arabs through the media and their education from a very young age, so don’t expect them to be pro-western.”

For a Western journalist, that means having to operate in societies where their reports are closely monitored and where access to events repeatedly reveal how staged they are, whether it’s a mass rally or whether it is those they interview who know that one wrong word can get them imprisoned, tortured, and even killed. The journalists, too, are at risk.

The “truth” in such a place is an impossibility. The “truth” does not exist for those who live in the Middle East and is carefully filtered by the Western news agencies that cover it for people who live thousands of miles away. The task is to report on an enigma.

Citing a group trip to Saddam’s Baghdad arranged by the Cairo Foreign Press Association, Luyendijk says, “It was complete madness. The secret-service minders practically sat on our laps. They’d regularly leave us waiting in lobbies for hours on end without any explanation, and then shove us into taxies for an excursion.”

Though a novice journalist in 1998, Luyendijk quickly “abandoned the idea that you would know what was going on in the world if you followed the news generated by the twenty dictatorships of the region “or reported by the correspondents for Western news agencies.

”There were virtually no reliable and verifiable figures or statistics against which I could I could (report) in a broader perspective.” Information is power and it was controlled by the dictators. The foreign press was and is a pawn in the game.

“When something big happens, the (Western) public wants to know things that the correspondent can’t find out.” The result is a lot of nebulous speculation or regurgitation of previous news.

While those in the West are accustomed to fairly rapid progress, the Middle East defies this because the currents that determine events are rooted in events that may have occurred a hundred or a thousand years earlier.

The hatreds, the lack of trust, the resentments, the rivalry for power, the need to survive, all jostle together in an impenetrable jumble in which one young, Dutch reporter found common human elements, “people like us”, but people whose protests subject them to arrest and execution.

Alan Caruba

*********************

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.