Meta

Blogroll

The Los Angeles Times runs a little bit of interference for the Obama campaign today, which is being battered by attacks from its left-wing nutroots concerning the campaign’s dramatic shift away from its liberal roots.

The message: “Relax angry liberals.  He really didn’t sprint rightward all that much, and even if he did he’s just lying to win in November.”

Who are you going to believe, The Los Angeles Times or your lying eyes? We’re the paper for crying out loud! You may think you’re seeing despondent liberals across the internet beating their chests and crumbling to the floor in sobs about Obama’s FISA vote or call for government faith-based programs. You may think you heard Reverend Jesse Jackson say Obama’s new positions make him want to “cut his nuts off.“  But you’re wrong. In fact, as far as The Los Angeles Times is concerned, “Most aren’t complaining.”

“We’re willing to work through this period,” said Richard Parker, president of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, one of the party’s most enduring advocacy groups. In the long run, he said, the organization’s “serious concerns” about Obama are far outweighed by its disagreements with Republican John McCain.

Gerald Austin, a veteran Democratic strategist, put it more succinctly: “When I hear people complaining . . . I tell them I have one thing to say: ‘President John McCain. Three Supreme Court appointments.’ That’s all I need to say.”

[...]

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, disagreed with Obama’s support for the ruling on the right to bear arms. But from a pragmatic standpoint, Helmke said, “I think Obama probably played it the right way politically.”

Behold the new politics of the first non-politician to ever run for President.  Nothing to see here.




Like That? You'll Probably Like These.

Tagged

, , , ,

Comments are closed.