Earth's New Deity Has an Amen Corner

Newsweek's Evan Thomas was on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews on Friday, which I never watch, but if I had I would have seen ass-kissing taken to a new level of, well, worship.

Newsbusters has the transcript, and a review.

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Yeah. He really said "God."

Thomas, appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews, was reacting to a preceding monologue in which Matthews praised Obama’s speech: "I think the President's speech yesterday was the reason we Americans elected him. It was grand. It was positive. Hopeful...But what I liked about the President's speech in Cairo was that it showed a complete humility ... The question now is whether the President we elected and spoke for us so grandly yesterday can carry out the great vision he gave us and to the world."

John Hindraker at Powerline notes that Evan Thomas is emblematic of the Newsweek drift into socialist irrelevance

Newsweek editor Jon Meacham has announced that he wants to turn the magazine into a journal of liberal opinion with a smaller circulation. I'm not sure that readers will be able to tell the difference between the Newsweek of recent years and the forthcoming "journal of liberal opinion," but to the extent they notice any change, it's a sure bet that circulation will decline.

And as for Thomas' fawning adulation of The One, Hindraker says

Yes, that's Obama all right--"standing above the world." Good Lord. Reporters are often compared to teen-age girls with crushes on Obama, but, as the father of three present, former or about-to-be teen-age girls, I object to the analogy. I personally have never seen a teen-age girl make a fool of herself over a boy the way many--most--mainstream reporters have over Barack Obama.

And here's how National Review sees the new Newsweek (a parody cover):

Tiller Aftermath: Coordinated Media Attacks?

There is a certain amount of coordination among left-wing political groups and certain high-profile national media and blog sites. We've all heard about the talking point memos that emerge from various war rooms, the press released from Media Matters with the out-of-context clips from various talk shows, etc.

But the shrill, over-the-top, borderline insane attacks on Fox News and Bill O'Reilly? Are they, too, being coordinated?

If so, it's one of the more repulsive spectacles in recent history, and that's saying a lot.

Keith Olbermann has blamed abortionist George Tiller's death on Bill O'Reilly. That's not too surprising as KO goes off the deep end on pretty much a daily basis, and BOR is a favorite target. I think KO believes that, if he metaphorically tears out BOR's heart and eats it on air, he will gain O'Reilly's rating points. That might explain his weird obsession.

But the same charge was leveled on posts at Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and Salon, with very, very similar talking points.

If this is coordinated, it is very offensive and very destructive to the national conversation. The politics of personal destruction waged in media circles.

O'Reilly isn't my cup of tea, and yet we probably agree on 90 percent of the issues. I think he's pompous, and he irritates me when he interrupts his guests to extrude his own opinion in lieu of theirs. So I don't watch him much, and if I do it's to catch Dennis Miller. He's a hoot!

For all his pomposity, O'Reilly is very careful to stay issues oriented with the exception of his "pinheads" segment, which I don't think applies in this case. George Tiller was fair game for O'Reilly's 29 citations over the last four years because Tiller's controversial techniques tested the boundaries of what is legal in an area already laden with controversy. Also, 29 citations sounds like a lot, but in the context of a show that runs five episodes a week for 50 weeks, you are talking about 29 "Tiller references" in about 1,000 hours of programming. Very small percentage.

The idea that Bill O'Reilly should get the blame for Tiller's death is just another way for the Left to say, "Our issues are off limits. Your's are not."

I don't hear anyone seriously suggesting that MoveOn.org, or Olbermann, or Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink, should be blamed for the death of that military recruiter in Little Rock.

People are and should be responsible for their own actions. To go down any other line of logic is to court madness and invite judicial mayhem. There are a lot of weird voices in our media-saturated culture. That they influence our thinking is beyond question: in fact, that's the very reason for their existence. We tolerate this cacophony of opinions and voices because inside it we often find nuggets of truth and wisdom. Our Founding Fathers believed that the potential good to be derived from this far outweighed the damage it could, and sometimes does, cause.

Another pet peeve: The dishonest blogger who claims that so-and-so supports killing abortionists because he allowed an objectionable comment to be posted. I saw this "technique" used today by an Oklahoma-based blog site. I say "technique" because it is not an ethical journalistic practice. It is what used to be called "yellow journalism."

I would not waste my time posting a reply on their site or any like it. They deserve to be ignored and left to wonder why no one gives them credibility.

Credibility has to be earned, and maintained. Everyone has an opinion, but some are incapable of presenting the opinions of others without resorting to cheap demonization.

Likewise, "gang attacks" where the message is coordinated to conduct character assassinations is reprehensible journalism -- if you can consider it journalism at all.

Do the Sharks Smell Blood in the Water?

As Wednesday will be a light blogging day -- must take care of necessary business in Tulsa -- I took a late look around to see what's percolating tonight, wondering how a big "up" day on Wall Street might affect the political outlook (not that it should).

What I found is that some big guns from the media are worried about their man, Obama.

Howard Fineman, at Newsweek, says the president is caught in a "riptide" caused by his being too nice, too deferential, and too interested in checking off his "to do" list than get involved in the details of his liberal policies.

Obama may be mistaking motion for progress, calling signals for a game plan. A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list. A genial, amenable guy, he likes to appeal to every constituency, or at least not write off any. A beau ideal of Harvard Law, he can't wait to tackle extra-credit answers on the exam.

But there is only one question on this great test of American fate: can he lead us away from plunging into another Depression?

Fineman goes on with a devastating list of criticisms of Mr. Obama's leadership style and policies. He never quite tips his hand as to whether he agrees with the list or not, but you get the definite impression Fineman is worried.

Then there is the incomparable Camille Paglia, who I respect a great deal although we come from different sides of the political landscape. Paglia is furious with the Team Obama, although she seems to think the president is not responsible for the tone of his young administration. The attack on Rush was a mistake, she says, and Obama's surrogates on the economy and foreign affairs are doing more harm than good.

First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?

And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.

President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. [SNIP]

President Obama should yank the reins and get his staff's noses out of slash-and-burn petty politics. His own dignity and prestige are on the line. If he wants a second term, he needs to project a calmer perspective about the eternal reality of vociferous opposition, which is built into our democratic system.

I think any talk of a second term ought to wait until he's served at least six months, don't you?

Finally, there is Walter Alarkon at The Hill, who writes that Mr. Obama's Incredible Expanding Budget doesn't have the Democrat votes needed to get it passed.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has spoken to enough colleagues about several different provisions in the budget to make him think Congress won’t pass it.

Conrad urged White House budget director Peter Orszag not to “draw lines in the sand” with lawmakers, most notably on Obama’s plan for a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions.

“Anybody who thinks it will be easy to get the votes on the budget in the conditions that we face is smoking something,” Conrad said.

Naturally, WH press flak Bobby Gibbs sees no problems. "It's all part of the process," he said. There was no mention of whether Mr. Gibbs was smoking anything at the time.

AP: 'Becoming More & More an Obama Economy'

Another Associated Press reporter has gone off the reservation, doing some actual thinking and, in an analysis piece clearly labeled as such (for a change), says that Obama's "recovery plans are sowing some unease."

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama offered his domestic-policy proposals as a "break from a troubled past." But the economic outlook now is more troubled than it was even in January, despite Obama's bold rhetoric and commitment of more trillions of dollars.

And while his personal popularity remains high, some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession.

Although the administration likes to say it "inherited" the recession and trillion-dollar deficits, the economic wreckage has worsened on Obama's still-young watch.

Every day, the economy is becoming more and more an Obama economy.

Did you catch that last sentence?

Tom Raum notes that of the four million jobs lost since the recession officially began in December 2007, half of the losses have come in the last three months: December, January and February. All since America's businesses learned more about the new president's "plans" for the economy.

Raum sugests that Obama's cavalier attitude toward the stock market, and his suggestion that now might be a good time to put some investment money into it, have backfired.

The president's suggestion that it was a good time for investors with "a long-term perspective" to buy stocks may have been intended to help lift battered markets. But a big sell-off followed.

Presidents usually don't talk about the stock market. But the dynamics are different now.

A higher percentage of people have more direct exposure to stocks — including through 401(k) and other retirement plans — than ever.

So a tumbling stock market is adding to the national angst as households see the value of their investments and homes plunge as job losses keep rising.

The AP report also hints that Americans are catching on to the "jobs lost or saved" rhetoric: that it is merely a ploy to save face if the economy plunges even farther. He quotes U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana:

Even White House claims that its policies will "create" or "save" 3.5 million jobs have been questioned by Democratic supporters.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, told Geithner last week.

"If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs," Baucus said. "You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

If the Associated Press is starting to fact check you and question the underlying assumptions of your economic policies, you may be in trouble.