Some Americans think they have the right to criticize their leaders, while still respecting the human rights of those leaders and wishing them no harm.
Those Americans are wrong.
That’s what I learned while reading Peter Baker’s latest piece for the New York Times. It’s titled “Showing Concern for the President, Even While Criticizing Him,” because you’d have to be nuts to think you could possibly do both:
President Obama must be touched by all the concern Republicans are showing him these days. As Congress examines security breaches at the White House, even opposition lawmakers who have spent the last six years fighting his every initiative have expressed deep worry for his security.
“The American people want to know: Is the president safe?” Representative Darrell Issa of California, the Republican committee chairman who has made it his mission to investigate all sorts of Obama administration missteps, solemnly intoned as he opened a hearing into the lapses on Tuesday.
What a bunch of silly teabaggers. If you’re so concerned with Obama’s physical well-being, you terrorists, why do you keep disagreeing with him? Make up your minds, wingnuts!
Yet it would not be all that surprising if Mr. Obama were a little wary of all the professed sympathy. Although the target of the legislative scrutiny is the Secret Service, not the president, the furor over security has left the White House on the defensive.
If there’s anything worse than an attempt on the life of the President of the United States, it’s embarrassing a Democrat. That’s the greatest crime of all.
I wonder what Baker would say if Republicans had shown no concern at all about the Secret Service’s recent security lapses? Would he have preferred that? Somehow it seems unlikely.
If you wanted the president dead between 2001-2009, naturally you assume that your ideological opponents want the president dead now. You can’t imagine that anybody else is better than you. Then you put your byline on these deep thoughts, and they appear in the Newspaper of Record.
Keep telling us who you are, libs.
