Political Director of CBS News: Why, Obama Should Tear the Throat out of the GOP!

"Tear their throat out!" the headline screams.

Having offered that advice -- which he says wasn't "advice" but "analysis" of Obama's best move (which is, uh, the same thing as advice) -- he now whines that conservatives just aren't capable of understanding the fine distinction between "advice abut Obama's best possible political move" and "analysis of Obama's best possible political move."

When you are on the Fox News’ ticker for the wrong reasons, it's time to put things into context.

On the eve of the president's inauguration, I wrote a piece about what President Obama needs to do to be a transformational rather than caretaker president. I was using a very specific definition of transformational presidencies based on my reading of a theory of political science and the president's own words about transformational presidencies from the 2008 campaign. It was also based on these givens: The president is ambitious, has picked politically controversial goals, has little time to operate before he is dubbed a lame-duck president, and has written off working with Republicans. "Bloodier-minded when it comes to beating Republicans,” is how Jodi Kantor put it in the New York Times. Given these facts, there is only one logical conclusion for a president who wants to transform American politics: He must take on Republicans—aggressively.

For me, this was a math problem with an unmistakable conclusion. Some people thought I was giving the president my personal advice. No. My goal was to make a compelling argument based on the facts. I used words like "war" and “pulverize,” and some have responded with threats to me and my family. (“Go for his throat!” some have counseled, echoing the headline.) These words have also liberated some correspondents (USUALLY THE ONES THAT TYPE IN ALL CAPS!!!!) from reading the piece or reading it in the spirit in which it was written. But there were also almost 2,000 other words in the piece, which should put that provocative language in context. What's been lost in the news ticker and Twitter threats is the argument of the piece: This is the only plausible path for a bold, game-changing second term for a president who has positioned himself the way President Obama has.

Let me explain the problem to this fucking imbecile.

First of all, advice is the same as "analysis of your best possible move."

But more importantly, Dickenson would never have written a piece with the headline "GO FOR HIS THROAT!," advising the GOP to "bloody up" Obama. Including before/after the 2010 elections, when such advice would have been, uh, well, advisable.

Only liberals are cheered on by the media to let their ideological freak flags fly. When liberals offer "advice" (or "analysis") to conservatives, it's always the same:

1. We must compromise.

2. We must concede the general outline of the liberal agenda.

3. We must buckle under -- For our survival!

And what bothers us at this point isn't that this is unfair; it is, but we're used to it.

We're just sick to death of being fucking lied to every fucking day by organizations which, although claiming to have the mission of truth, are now dedicated to lying to the audience.

Day in, day out.

They will continue denying the undeniable -- that they are liberal, and root for liberals, and consciously slant their coverage in favor of liberals (and congratulate each other for scoring points on conservatives).

And we will continue to be incensed by it, just as any human being will be incensed by someone telling the same childishly-ridiculous lie to his fucking face over and over and over again.

posted by Ace at 08:36 PM

| Access Comments