The New York Times recently declared that there was absolutely nothing scandalous about the Obama administration’s response to the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi. This is all pretty convenient for Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attack, and who just so happens to be about to launch another bid for the presidency.
Mendy Finkel | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
The author is an attorney and frequent political commentator. His articles have been previously published by The Washington Times, Fox News and the Jerusalem Post.
For all the divisiveness’ surrounding the state of Israel, it’s impossible to deny the country’s power to unify. What other nation of the world can bring together the far right and left in a fight for a common cause? Indeed, just this past week, those occupying both poles of the political spectrum were uniformly applauding the American Studies Association’s (ASA) decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions.
The New York Times’ statistics guru, Nate Silver, is infallible. You see, Silver doesn't predict election winners and losers; he only gives odds of winning and losing. So even if Silver gave Obama a 99% chance of winning, an Obama loss would still be perfectly consistent with Silver’s projections. In other words, when it comes to measuring Silver’s performance, heads Silver wins, tails his critics lose.
After the 2008 vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin was criticized by the media for her unwillingness to deviate from prepared talking points and address what her opponent was actually saying. According to McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, Palin’s approach was by design. Convinced that Palin wouldn’t have sufficient time to learn all the policy specifics, McCain’s advisers wanted her to play it safe and stick to prepared talking points.
In a few days, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will meet in Denver for the first of three presidential debates. To the national media, however, these debates are a mere formality --- nothing more than a means to promote their pre-existing narratives. Other than the specific details, the media has had their post-debates story lines set up for months.
Tens of millions of American are out of work or underemployed, several Arab countries have descended into chaos, and our national debt is $16 trillion and rapidly climbing. With all these frivolous distractions, it’s a good thing we have the national media to remind us of the truly important issue in this presidential election: Mitt Romney’s tendency to make gaffes and clumsy statements.
There is nothing new about the national media downplaying stories that lend support to conservative arguments. If a firearm is used to prevent a lethal crime, or unethical activity is uncovered at a liberal institution, the media goes to great lengths to make sure no one notices. But since Obama’s election, the media has also been downplaying stories that lend support to liberal arguments --- when those stories have the potential to damage the Obama presidency. This is the case even for stories that under normal circumstances would have remained on newspapers’ front pages until they were seared into the national consciousness. To the media, there is no higher calling than protecting Obama.
National conversation on solitary confinement should serve as model for debate on anti-terror policies
In a recent blog post discussing George W. Bush’s anti-terror policies, The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan wrote, “Torture is not ... a ‘difficult issue.’ It is an easy one. We don't do it or condone it ...” Of course, when Bush’s critics, such as Sullivan, accuse him of torture, they are referring to Bush’s approval of the practice known as waterboarding.
The way liberals see it, the Supreme Court’s four liberal justices often side with conservatives on major cases. Why, then, don’t we see outrage from liberals when one of their justices breaks rank, as we saw with conservatives when Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the constitutionally of Obamacare? In fact, it’s hard to think of any examples of liberals being outraged at liberal justices for crossing the ideological divide.
Justice Kennedy votes to strike down portions of the Arizona immigration law. Roberts upholds the constitutionally of Obamacare. Ginsburg, joining with conservative justices, rules affirmative action unconstitutional.
Listening to liberal pundits these days could leave a person believing that the Supreme Court is venturing into new and dangerous territory. Apparently, most sitting justices have dispensed with their roles as impartial arbiters of justice, and instead have taken it upon themselves to serve as an arm of the Republican Party. Naturally, such naked partisanship is undermining the court’s legitimacy and threatening our democracy.
Back in 2010, when asked by Jim Lehrer to name the specific Bush administration policies that caused the economic crisis, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said:
It’s no secret that discussing sensitive topics can be an occupational hazard for members of the media. Say something that is deemed offensive by the guardians of appropriate discourse, and your job can disappear in the blink of an eye. Indeed, there have been a slew of such incidents over the past several weeks. Most recently, Naomi Schaefer Riley, who blogged at The Chronicle of Higher Education, was fired after writing a post questioning the value of colleges’ black studies departments. And not too long before that, John Derbyshire wrote a column in Taki’s Magazine that many found to be racially offensive, resulting in his immediate dismissal from National Review.
Brave. Gutsy. Risky. Such terms have frequently been used by the media to describe decisions made by President Obama. The most notable instance of this was when Obama ordered the SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound last year. His loyal scribes in the mainstream media were tripping over themselves to heap praise on the president for taking such an enormous “risk.” It’s doubtful, however, that anyone outside the president’s most feverish supporters actually believes that ordering the raid was a difficult decision. Indeed, if the call was in fact so “gutsy,” there would be absolutely no need for Obama and his cheering section in the media to keep reminding us of this. But much like we’ve seen with the “economic recovery,” the media is hoping that if they just keep repeating their fantasy narrative long enough, people will stop believing their own lyin’ eyes, and instead defer to Obama’s version of reality.