Sunday, February 26, 2012

Want some cheese to go with that whine?

Colbert King--in a Washington Post op-ed--openly whines about criticisms and attacks directed at President Obama. He begins with some theatrics about an over-the-top op-ed written by someone named Andrew Adler in something called the Atlanta Jewish Times. The op-ed was quite obnoxious, to be sure, essentially calling for Israel to order the assassination of President Obama (or any other U.S. President), if it proves necessary to guarantee Israel's existence. But then, most of us have probably heard far worse in everyday interactions.

King, however, uses this nonsense as a spring-board for his own self-pitying whine-fest. He proclaims--without a trace of irony--that:
To read in a mainstream publication that Barack Obama should be killed takes the breath away.
Wait, what? Here is the actual article in the Atlanta Jewish Times. Again, it's obnoxious. But it doesn't say Barack Obama should be killed, it says Netanyahu should be prepared to do whatever has to be done to protect Israels's existence. The writer is operating from the view that this existence is in real jeopardy and clearly he is more worried about that than anything else.

But more importantly, the Atlanta Jewish Times is not a "mainstream publication"! It's just not. Who is Colbert King trying to kid? Oh, that's right: the entire country.

The Atlanta Jewish Times is a small community newspaper with a supposed current readership of around 3,500  (down from 25,000 in 2005). The author of the article in question is the owner of the paper, which he purchased in 2009. I haven't been keeping up with the paper, but maybe that drop off in readership is related to silly articles like this one?

Regardless, this is not a "mainstream publication." To claim that it is--in order to justify some serious whining--is dishonest, to say the least. Note that the piece was published on January 13th. It took over a month for Colbert King to hear about it.

But based on this breathtaking article, King proceeds to lament the many barbs and arrows Obama has suffered, allowing that past Republican Presidents have dealt with similar attacks, but it is nonetheless different for Obama:
What sets anti-Obama foes apart from the persecutors of Bush, Reagan et al., however, is that the purveyors of this brand of inflammatory rhetoric include the GOP presidential candidates themselves.
Yah. Okay. I have to wonder where--exactly--Mr. King was in 2004, 2000, 1996, and so on. One example should suffice, I think. Howard Dean--Democratic candidate for President--said the following in January of 2004  about President Bush:
This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father.
That's a pretty vicious attack, and rivals those provided by King on Obama. But I bet I know the problem: King probably agrees with the attack, therefore it's okay...

Cheers, all.


  1. Well... I heard about the piece a while back (in the context of the little approar about real mainstream media and Dem supporting outlets such as Think Progress and Media Matters) using neo-nazi originating "Israel-firster" term. If I am not entirely mistaken, the giy who wrote the piece was forced out or something. But I agree with the general gist. :)

  2. Yes Dm, he stepped away from the paper (he's the owner), apologized, and all that jazz.

    You know, I get his point, which was more of an "this is an unwinnable situation!" one than anything else. He just should have had better sense than to use that particular example to make it.

  3. I agree with you. I am not entirely sure about his thought process though. What exactly did he expect would happen? *shrug* It's mostly a non story, except for those who want to point fingers and say, "Hey, you want an example of extremist Israel-firster, here he is..."