One “mainstream” American journalist broke into sobs of joy last week when President Obama publicly announced his twirling pirouette (aka “flip-flop”) in support of gay marriage. In describing the unbinding of his emotions, Andrew Sullivan called Mr. Obama his “father figure.”
Another of America’s most highly esteemed “mainstream” journalists, the former ESPN sports reporter who drew out Mr. Obama’s big gay marriage flip-flop, kept her wits about her. No crying from that steely paragon of journalistic integrity.
“There is no denying when a president speaks out for the first time like that, it is history,” Robin Roberts gushed to her ABC News co-host and Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos.
Then she lost it.
“And let me tell you, George, I’m getting chills again,” she emoted on-air in footage that the network actually broadcast and did not even try to bleep out.
It was unclear when precisely the first time it was that Ms. Roberts got “chills.” Or, perhaps, she was piggy-backing on MSNBC’s Democratic operative, Chris Matthews, who once talked about the “thrill” shooting up his leg at hearing Mr. Obama speak.
Yes, America, these are the “mainstream” journalists who cover politics in this country and will be presenting you the political news between now and the election.
The “mainstream” media’s skin-chilling, bone-thrilling, blind devotion to Mr. Obama is the only reason he remains a remotely viable option for re-election. All their shivering and weeping have badly blurred their vision.
What actually happened last week was that an increasingly desperate Mr. Obama made a craven dash for campaign money and a shameless pander to shore up his base. The White House does not even try to deny this.
“I had already made a decision that we were going to take this position before the election and before the convention,” Mr. Obama explained, fully conceding that it was entirely campaign-related. His hapless vice president simply “got a bit over his skis” in forcing the issue last week, he added.
So, how does the “mainstream” media portray this cynical act of desperation by a politician?
They herald it as an historic act of bravery by a man they embrace as a “father figure.”
That these snobbish people are hopelessly out of touch with average Americans goes without saying. But what is even more astonishing is how out of touch they are from even the people President Obama seeks to win back with all his flip-floppery.
First of all, there is nothing courageous about suddenly deciding to surrender your long-held beliefs so you can just go along with everybody around you, which is exactly how Mr. Obama explained his “evolution.”
Second of all, the president says that he now supports gay marriage, but in the same breath says he will not sign any sort of executive order requiring federal contracts to include gays (as the gay lobby has demanded). Nor does he think the federal government should force upon states its views on this pressing issue of “civil rights.”
Seriously? Based on what he now believes, this would be the equivalent of supporting Jim Crow laws in the South. But instead of against blacks, it is against gays.
Indeed, it is a mighty strange education a constitutional law expert gets from Harvard. Sadly for Mr. Obama, those he is pandering to are probably smarter than that and understand he hasn’t done a single thing for them other than give a little shout-out. And of course, take their money and wrap himself in their rainbow flag just long enough to get through the election.
• Charles Hurt can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2017 The Washington Times, LLC.