The Washington Times Weekly - - Politics -

“The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion re­ally needs to get over it­self,” the lib­eral Na­tion mag­a­zine’s John Ni­chols writes at www.thenation.com.

“First, the pres­i­dent and his aides go to war with Fox News be­cause the net­work main­tains a gen­er­ally anti-Obama slant.

“Then, an anony­mous ad­min­is­tra­tion aide at­tacks blog­gers for fail­ing to main­tain a suf­fi­ciently pro-Obama slant.

“Th­ese are not dis­con­nected de­vel­op­ments,” Mr. Ni­chols said.

“An ad­min­is­tra­tion that won the White House with an al­most al­ways on-mes­sage cam­paign and gen­er­ally friendly cov­er­age from old and new me­dia is now frus­trated by its in­abil­ity to con­trol the de­bate and get the cov­er­age it wants.”

Mr. Ni­chols noted that NBC White House cor­re­spon­dent John Har­wood re­ported that an anony­mous White House “ad­viser” told him that lib­eral blog­gers who have been crit­i­ciz­ing the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion need to take off their pa­ja­mas, get dressed and re­al­ize that gov­ern­ing a closely di­vided coun­try is com­pli­cated and dif­fi­cult.

Mr. Ni­chols added: “As for the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, whether the grum­bling is about Repub­li­cans on Fox or blog­gers in pa­ja­mas, there’s a word for what the pres­i­dent and his aides are do­ing. That word is ‘whin­ing.’ And noth­ing — no at­tack by Glenn Beck, no blog­ger bust­ing about Guan­tanamo — does more dam­age to Obama’s cred­i­bil­ity or au­thor­ity than the sense that a pop­u­lar pres­i­dent is be­com­ing the whiner in chief.” ior fel­low at the lib­er­tar­ian Cato In­sti­tute and co-au­thor of “Healthy Com­pe­ti­tion: What’s Hold­ing Back Health Care and How to Free It.”

“All the bills mak­ing their way through Congress start from the same failed premise: They would put the gov­ern­ment in charge of one-sixth of our econ­omy and some of the im­por­tant per­sonal and pri­vate de­ci­sions in our lives.

“They would force peo­ple to buy a gov­ern­ment-de­signed in­sur­ance pack­age or face a penalty. They would es­tab­lish in­cen­tives and struc­tures that could even­tu­ally lead to the ra­tioning of care. Some ver­sions would force mil­lions of work­ers into a gov­ern­ment-run plan.

“And they would do so at enor­mous cost to the Amer­i­can peo­ple in terms of higher taxes, greater debt and in­creased in­sur­ance pre­mi­ums. Even the cheapest bill costs more than $800 bil­lion ($2 tril­lion if off­bud­get costs are in­cluded) over the next decade. Amer­i­cans would end up pay­ing more, but get­ting less.”

Mr. Tan­ner added: “It’s time for Congress to scrap its cur­rent flawed gov­ern­ment-cen­tered ap­proach and start over with a fo­cus on cre­at­ing a con­sumeror­i­ented free mar­ket in health care.

“Af­ter all, isn’t it bet­ter to get it done right than to just get it done?” Truth’ be­ing shown to Bri­tish school­child­ren be­cause it was largely pro­pa­ganda, not sci­ence.

“Mr. Gore swat­ted away the ques­tion by claim­ing the judge had found in fa­vor of his film. He also briefly ad­dressed one of the ob­jec­tions to his film by scoff­ing at claims that po­lar bears weren’t an en­dan­gered species. Mr. McAleer tried to fol­low up by point­ing out that po­lar bear pop­u­la­tions were in­creas­ing, but his mi­cro­phone was quickly cut off. Or­ga­niz­ers in­sisted that sev­eral other peo­ple were wait­ing with ques­tions and they had to move on.

“In fact, Mr. Gore didn’t an­swer Mr. McAleer’s ques­tion and was wrong on the facts. The Bri­tish court found that ‘An In­con­ve­nient Truth’ ‘is a po­lit­i­cal film’ rid­dled with sci­en­tific er­rors. ...

“As for po­lar bears, Mr. McAleer was cor­rect: Sur­veys show their num­bers are in­creas­ing.

“Mr. McAleer [. . . ] says he’s more dis­ap­pointed in the en­vi­ron­men­tal jour­nal­ists who give Mr. Gore cover than in the for­mer vice pres­i­dent. Mr. Gore is sim­ply do­ing what any pro­pa­gan­dist with a weak case would do: avoid­ing se­ri­ous de­bate or ex­change. To quote the late William F. Buck­ley, ‘There is a rea­son that baloney re­jects the grinder.’ ”


Be care­ful who you pick a fight with: Brit Hume of Fox News sug­gests that the White House re­con­sider its joust­ing with Fox, say­ing “ev­ery pres­i­dent” sooner or later “ends up dis­gusted” with some or all news me­dia.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.