Obama Attacks? Still Racist, Says NYT

If you thought we had moved beyond the point where any criticism of President Obama could be characterized as racist, the New York Times editorial board encourages you to think again. See, even though every single president who ever sat in the Oval Office has been relentlessly criticized, Obama is special. As the nation’s first black president, he is above your petty opinions. Should you dare to question his policies, you expose yourself as a hoodless Klansman, only one step from burning a cross on the White House lawn.

Even by today’s standards, the editors tell us, “the tone of the current attacks is disturbing. So is their evident intent – to undermine not just Mr. Obama’s policies, but his very legitimacy as president.”

Oh, that is disturbing. Before reading further, why don’t you take a moment to put the phrase “selected, not elected” into a Google search and see how many results you get. It might shed some light on whether Obama is the first president to have his legitimacy thrown into question.

The editorial then draws our attention back to the birther controversy. “Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message – reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim.”

It’s 2015, and they’re still sore about the birth certificate? Jeez, you don’t see conservatives still whining about Katie Couric’s Palin attack. It’s time to move on. But since you bring it up, have we really proven that he isn’t a secret Muslim? Is there a difference between being a Muslim and defending the religion at every given opportunity? Whether Obama actually faces Mecca twice a day or not, his allegiance to Islam has been the biggest break ISIS and Al Qaeda could have ever hoped for.

Oh, and Republicans don’t need to bother reminding people that Mr. Obama is black. Fine, unbiased publications like The New York Times won’t let us forget it.

“Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama has no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” the editors wrote.

That’s not exactly what the letter said. It simply reminded Iran’s leaders that Congress would have the final say over the lifting of sanctions. Perhaps if this president had not already demonstrated what little regard he had for the separation of powers, such a reminder would not be necessary. Was it the best move, politically speaking? Probably not. But there’s a big difference between strategy errors and racism. And compared to the risk we are taking with the Iranian regime, it’s a relatively minor misstep.

Concluding their screed, the editors write that this era of anti-Obama attacks is “ugly, it deepens mistrust of the government, and it harms the office of the president, not just Mr. Obama.”

One wouldn’t normally turn to The New York Times for a belly laugh, but sometimes you get one when you least expect it. The thought that it is the Republicans responsible for harming the presidency is the kind of absurd humor usually reserved for The Onion. It’s like saying Charlie Hebdo is responsible for harming the good name of Islam. Not the terrorists, of course. The cartoons.

But hey, nice try, New York Times. Thanks for reminding us that no one can hold a candle to you when it comes to being this president’s biggest cheerleader. Can’t wait for your editorial, circa 2018 or so, when you finally admit that Obama hurt this country in ways from which it may never recover. Ah, damn, we got it wrong. Obama really screwed us good. Sorry about that, guys. Yo, but how about that Hillary! What an awesome job she’s doing! Can you believe what Republicans are saying about her? Bunch of sexist creeps…

About Admin