The definition of “Input” does not include sticking your foot up his ass.
After eight years, we’ve gotten used to having a president whose credibility is shot, whose policy apparatus is utterly politicized, and whose decision-making process is completely opaque. So what do we do with President Obama? Do we treat him with the same skepticism with which we learned to approach Bush? If not, how do we hold him accountable? These are some of the issues I’m wrestling with as I prepare to make the transition from Bush to Obama – and I’d welcome your input.
Dan Froomkin – WaPo
As I was going through the dictionary, checking the word above, I noticed that #5 in the list of definitions for the word “Tool” was Dan Froomkin.
Some of these liberal columnists are absolutely falling apart in their self-terror about the forced end of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The Herbert guy from the NY Slimes is a good example. He fired off an unaimed volley at Bush, and his post just reeked of inference into all the things that the “try-Bush” boneheads have listed. Herbert himself couldn’t summon up the gonads to join the try-Bush idiots, but he did everything but in his column.
BDS may well provide the impetus for the Left’s coalescence. If they all gather around the try-Bush-for-war-crimes hatefest in sufficient strength, they may be able to bend a weak Obama enough in that direction to get something started.
I have a promise for them: if they put Bush on trial, I will put the Left on trial. Playing by THEIR rules, the defendant is presumed guilty, so punishment may be pronounced.
I sentence them to the hole: .308 sized hole, to be exact.
He’s employed by the wapo. He’ll shortly be busy fellating PEBO; his biggest concern will be whether to swallow of spit.
His “skepticism” will be limited to wondering if the lottery that tells which day is his to worship at the alter of (N)obama was fixed.
Journalists becoming skeptical of Obama? It’ll never happen. His 4-years in office could be as bad as Jimmy Carter’s, and they’ll still say he was a great president after the American people vote him out. Nah, journalists are only skeptical when it’s Republicans/conservatives in office.
It’s one of those sad facts about humanity; people tend to be skeptical and thurough when examining their enemies, but they’ll trust anything said by those they like and gloss over any easily seen faults. Journalists may not notice this behavior in themselves because they are always looking outward for the story and never inward to cover the biases and faults of the reporter.