Its not like we didn't know they were in the tank for the O, But how blatent can you get!?!
And now from the NYT;By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
February 24, 2009
After eight years of blaming everything that came out of our nation's capitol on George W. Bush, the New York Times is suddenly separating the White House from the government.
Such was immediately apparent in the Times front page story Tuesday addressing the mounting pressure being exerted on Washington to come up with more bailout funds for companies and industries in financial trouble.
The following are the opening three paragraphs. As you read them, consider how much differently they would have looked if Bush was still president
The government faced mounting pressure on Monday to put billions more in some of the nation’s biggest banks, two of the biggest automakers and the biggest insurance company, despite the billions it has already committed to rescuing them.
The government’s boldest rescue to date, its $150 billion commitment for the insurance giant American International Group, is foundering. A.I.G. indicated on Monday it was now negotiating for tens of billions of dollars in additional assistance as losses have mounted.
Separately, the Obama administration confirmed it was in discussions to aid Citigroup, the recipient of $45 billion so far, that could raise the government’s stake in the banking company to as much as 40 percent.
Doesn't it seem a metaphysical certitude that if Bush was still president, the opening paragraph would have read, "President Bush faced mounting pressure on Monday to put billions more in some of the nation’s biggest banks, two of the biggest automakers and the biggest insurance company, despite the billions already committed to rescuing them?"
What's the likelihood that his name wouldn't have appeared until the third paragraph? And how about that marvelous qualifier in paragraph three "Separately"?
Separately? So, Obama is now SEPARATE from the rest of "government"?
Hmmm. When did the good folks at the Times take a civics lesson informing them that the United States does INDEED have three branches of government?
After all, for eight years they've been blaming EVERYTHING that comes out of Washington on the executive branch.
Mysteriously, that appears no longer the case, for Obama's name was only mentioned once in this piece.
I guess part of the Era of Obama will be "the government" being blamed for all the bad things so that the president can take credit for the good.