I guess it’s human
nature. When we are confronted with
information that crosses our ideological grain, we cut short the speaker or
stop reading the story. I, myself, must
confess that I have done this … and, I suspect, so have you. More and more frequently these days, when the
subject of one of Obama’s scandals comes up (generally not brought up by me), many
of my liberal friends respond, “I don’t want to talk about it.”
What does this mean? To me, this avoidance indicates the seriousness
of these moral breaches on the part of our current administration. This can be measured by the number of
unanswered or unanswerable questions that linger like a miasma around Jay
Carney and those other unfortunate Obama spokespersons.
Just this last weekend, Dan
Pfeiffer, an Obama senior political adviser, went on five Sunday talk shows
(shades of Susan Rice), trying to hold back the tide of negative disclosures
about the multiple scandals enveloping his boss … see: National Review Story. He did not do a very good job … even saying
at one point, “the law is irrelevant,” when ask about White House dissembling …
see: Townhall Story
I’m actually somewhat surprised
that Pfeiffer didn’t put his fingers in his ears … but maybe this asinine
statement was the equivalent.
2 comments:
Re Pfeiffer: If you actually listen to the clip, he was stumbling over his words at the time, and mis-spoke. He was implying that the IRS targeting was wrong; that it would be wrong even if there was not a law prohibiting it.
Dan Pfeiffer is irrelevant. He was merely a lap dog who was asked by the big O to act ferocious. He was out of his element. Come back Rahm ... teach the administration how to take advantage of these crises. Perhaps another stimulus?
Post a Comment