Thursday, October 14, 2010

Circular Criticism Squad

Posted by JHW22

I have made it pretty clear that I find a lot of the "professional left's" criticisms of Obama to be short-sighted, unproductive and harmful to the party. Frankly, I could give a rat's ass if someone calls me a bot for it. I'd rather speak out for reality than be a bot for talking-point criticisms that sound good to the cynical. I try to avoid the superficial complaints about Obama because, honestly, my blood pressure goes up and I get Hulkified with no outlet for my rage. So, for the sake of my sanity, my marriage and my son's respect for me, I try to stick to reading only that criticism that is legitimate, fair and non-something-up-the-ass random.

So I was reading Andrew Sullivan today. I enjoy Sullivan because he gets it. We may not agree on everything but, for the most part, he provides sound reasoning and stays pretty calm. I like thinking about an issue without having to calm down first. He writes in a manner that lets me think from the first sentence through the last without me trying to "refudiate" each sentence along the way.

His post, "The Best Analysis of Obama's Dilemma" starts out like this:

It comes from Obama himself:
"Given how much stuff was coming at us, we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right... I think anybody who's occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion."
That sounds pretty good. I agree. I hate to agree with the President on this but I do. I'd prefer a policy be right and the American people figure out on their own that it's good, but I realize we're stupid and lazy and need to be massaged into understanding why a good policy is a good policy. I wish he weren't right but he is.

The next paragraph is about a Liberal (keep in mind that Andrew Sullivan is a Conservative):
David Corn complains that this is the kind of self-criticism that does not help before an election, and that in arguing that his biggest error was under-estimating Republican obstructionism, the president cannot also argue that he can work with the GOP, if necessary, in the next two years.
David Corn opened that particular article with THIS paragraph:
With a little over two weeks to go to the critical elections, why would the Obama White House want reporters (and voters) to fixate on what it got wrong in its first two years?
Yeah, why would Obama want reporters to fixate on something they already fixate on just fine without his help? Why would he want to state the very point they have fixated on all along? Doesn't he know that their fixations are so automatic that they will fixate on the very thing they have been fixated on just because now he mentioned it?

Perhaps David Corn is just pissed because now Obama has addressed it and that takes some of the cynicism out of the fixation. Damn. How can people like David Corn possibly criticize the President when he's criticizing himself? That's just not fair, gosh darn it. The only people who should be able to criticize are the very people who make a living criticizing. Each time Obama criticizes himself the "professional left" loses their bearing.

What I don't get is why the "professional left" can criticize Obama daily, without merit most of the time and at times seeming as if they are basing their opinions on someone else's reporting rather than doing the due diligence of thinking for themselves -- oh, but Obama can't criticize himself.

THIS is exactly the kind of crap that the left has been pulling for over a year. And it's exactly the kind of crap that has led me to avoid more and more of the "professional left". I stopped following David Corn on Twitter about two weeks ago because of shit like this. It's called stoking the fire. And as they say, if you can't stand the heat, stop reading the firebaggers. Okay, "they" don't say that but I am going to start saying it. Care to join me and create the "they"?

Say it with me, "If you can't stand the heat, don't read the firebaggers". Save your blood pressure for something that really matters. Use your precious time reading people who offer something legitimate to discuss.

Now, I need to get back to reading the rest of Andrew Sullivan and stop fixating on the firebagging.

edit: I was just reminded why I rarely watch MSNBC anymore. Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd are discussing the fact that Obama criticized himself in such a crucial time. Two people who have repeatedly criticized Obama are now criticizing Obama for criticizing Obama. Do these people hear themselves? Where's the remote?

1 comment:

vick said...

I read that Sullivn post yesterday and actually put it in my favourites. Like you, I find I get really, really angry when I read/hear unfair criticism of the Prez. (Truth is I stop reading as soon as I feel the criticism is 'stupid'.) He isn't an angel and he isn't perfect, but only a blind idiot cannot see his political sincerity, or accept the fact that he is the BEST that America has right now. He can at least articulate his goals and assess his own performance.