Wayward thoughts on nonexistent issue

Reading media outside of a liberal perspective is definitely beneficial. This allows for arguments that counter held ideas or notions, and bring to light the concerns of opposing thought. A piece, by way of Canada Free Press, on the Free Republic blog site does not do this. It is understood that this was written for right-leaning consveratives, however this piece borders perpostuousness. Without employing pejorative requires work for this blog piece, as nearly every line is hyperbolic or hypocritical. Here is a breakdown.

A.   The author of the piece opines that President Obama works toward internally damaging the US with the intent of destroying the country. This was clearly stated in the opening line as a thesis of sorts for the rest of the piece.

1.      President Bush advocated for many public interests as documented by On The Issues, an organization with a goal of shedding light on politicians’ stances. A quick search in Google news archives from 2000 to 2008 did bring up articles criticizing his “public activism.”

2.      Even if President Obama becomes the US’s most outspoken president, does not detract from his symbol as “Head of State” or unofficial “Leader of the Free World. These titles bring implied responsibilities which include advocating on behalf of the public to Congress, the country, and any who will listen.

B.    Though not a claim but blight on the article is the description of the election of President Obama. Whether you voted for him or not does not diminish the integrity of the election as the article implies. It was not a “…coup d’état… [or just] another presidential election…” This sentence disgraces our government and what the country stands for.

1.      A counter to this point is the debacle of the Bush-Gore election; the US public accepted the event and eventual president despite the international embarrassment.

C.    The last point critiqued was on the location and content of President Obama’s response to the two police officers shot at Ferguson. The piece ridicules the President responding on a comedy show, and how he condemned the shooter but still spoke of the problem happening there. The assumption is the President should have only condemned the shooter and praise the police despite their years of racist actions.

1.      First, rarely does a President respond to a police shooting with a press conference. Even with the heated situation, the Justice Department is taking control of the situation under the delegation and supervision of the Presidency. As was expected Attorney General Eric Holder publicly responded to the event.

2.      Second, the President is a politician and will respond accordingly. He must still satisfy his political base and constituents. On the other hand he has an obligation to keep pressure in Ferguson due to the prejudices committed and indignation felt.

3.      Last, the President does not control where he receives news. Not to harp on President Bush but he heard of the terrorist attack at an elementary. He kept his composure and continued with his public engagement until he found a suitable time to leave and address the situation. President Obama’s reaction was appropriate to the severity of the event.

This piece is terrible even when reviewed with the benefit of the doubt. It is de rigueur to attack the President and over analyze every movement or word, however the entirety of the piece is spent demurring anything the President does. Going back to the first line and onward one can see that this piece is salacious, playing to false concerns, and instigating unsubstantiated claims.