On May 9, Obama announced on ABC News his support for gay marriage, though he did not actually do anything about it.
“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said.
Two days later, The Washington Post published a long-researched, front-page piece on Mitt Romney’s behavior in high school toward a presumably gay classmate, quoting another student describing Romney “marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut (John) Lauber’s hair” and how the bleached-blond, long-haired, tearful Lauber was pinned to the ground while “Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.”
Coincidence or coordination?
This past Friday, Obama made his grand pronouncement that certain illegal immigrants would be exempted by executive fiat from deportation under the immigration laws — those who came to this country when they were younger than 16, have a relatively clean criminal record and are still under 30. (Sounds downright arbitrary and capricious, but that’s another topic.)
Three days later, The New York Times published a long-researched, front-page article about young people raised in the United States who are now living in Mexico because their parents were deported or chose to return home for various reasons.
The story ledes with fifth-grader Jeffrey Isidoro, whose father was deported, being teased by his classmates in a Matamoros school to speak English when answering a teacher’s question.
It contains the typical sociologist hand-wringing: “These kinds of changes are really traumatic for kids. It’s going to stick with them.”
One paragraph of the story observes, “Houston — that is where Jeffrey’s thoughts typically drift. There, he had friends, McDonald’s, the zoo. It is where he lingered at the library at Gleason Elementary to catch up on his favorite series of books, ‘Diary of a Wimpy Kid.’ There, his school had a playground; here, there is just a concrete slab. There, computers were common; here, there are none.”
Coincidence or coordination?
Two good examples!
One wonders – is the same conspiracy that Mr. Mitchell believes reaches down into the lower levels of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to manipulate employment information in a manner that will help the Obama campaign? Or is it a separate conspiracy entirely?
ave seen several reports on the White House staffing of the President’s “Information” department. The media won’t give this the attention it needs, IMO.
One report said the White House had hired an unusual and record breaking number of skilled professional newspersons.
Another stated the size of this group was “well over 100,” and another stated an “approximate 200!”
It appears the White House has assembled a gigantic sophisticated propogana operation to support things Obama. This includes coordination with the adoring media, eg. The Times, Post and MSNBC.
It’s foolish to accept “news” from the “major media” these days, IMHO.
It is indeed shocking that a White House press office would hire people who have experience with the press.
Odd timing, Beryl, don’t you think?
Separate conspiracy entirely, Petey, but that is a better example of a lazy press than a conspiring one.
Had not seen numbers that big on press hires, John, thanks.
Nor is surprising there more be so many sympathetic ones, right, Petey?
OK, so there are two separate conspiracies going on. One directing the editors of major American newspapers as to when they should publish articles that support the Obama Administration. The other in concert with career civil servants at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Do you think there are two separate parts of the White House running these conspiracies? Or are they both being coordinated by a single demonic puppet-master?
Love how nyp provides the answers he wants you to reply with.
Leading the witness.
Looks like things are back to normal with nyp.
I believe it’s called free speech. Although it makes the Washington Post and New York Times (accurately) appear to be Obama supporters, I’m not convinced that one could call Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Times entirely neutral. I agree that the news media should be more neutral, but I see liberals complaining about conservative-leaning media and vice-versa – but NEVER about publications that align with their beliefs. I don’t like it, but I’m not sure an editorial board at the Times is abusing their power any more than a billionaire or union contributing millions to SuperPacs
Yeah Bruce. But it was a nasty day on Wall Street. Nyp’s probably smarting a little today.
But my Etrade account earned nicely today, so I am happy. OSIR 🙂 best 6.15 I ever spent.
Perhaps not abusing their power, Rincon, but violating their trust?
Defending the indefensible. The Truth is no longer our politicians’ stated goal.