I am not surprised that news reports this weekend report that Barack Obama is very “angry” about how the Ebola crisis has been handled.
Here is the weekend New York Times headline, on the top right of the very front page <link>:
Amid Assurances on Ebola, Obama Is Said to Seethe
No, this pathetic excuse for leadership is what we have come to expect with this president. He doesn’t get ahead of events, he lags far behind them and then “gets angry” about how his team has screwed it all up.
Beneath the calming reassurance that President Obama has repeatedly offered during the Ebola crisis, there is a deepening frustration, even anger, with how the government has handled key elements of the response.
He’s angry at the government?? Wait – isn’t he the president? Isn’t he a rather major part of the government? Of course he is. He sits atop the entire thing, and yet he cannot accept any responsibility for what happens on his watch. By now, six years into his regime, this ongoing disgrace is legendary and not fooling anyone.
What does surprise me is that the New York Times faithfully promulgates this canned White House message. Why would the editors and owner do so at this point?
It’s easy to see why Valerie Jarrett and mr. Obama’s inner circle want to have him portrayed as “being angry” once a crisis has gone far beyond the point it should have. First, we have mr. Obama’s excessive rounds of golf and visage that says “I don’t care about any of this”. Even Obama supporters can’t stomach it when he so obviously is out to lunch on issues like Ebola, or half a dozen other train wrecks unfolding every day. Second, we have mr. Obama’s feckless leadership to cover up, and when you don’t have real leadership to talk about, you have to resort to plan B, which in this man’s case is “He’s angry” things are not going better, and it’s everybody’s fault except his.
So when the White House calls the Times and says “Here’s today’s narrative: Barack is angry about the Ebola response!!”, why do Times editors turn it into a front page story?
Why don’t they shrug their shoulders and say “So what? The president is angry? This is not news, sorry.”
But no, they print it most faithfully, including all of the blame the president heaps on this team.
Check this nugget from the “story”:
He told aides they needed to get ahead of events and demanded a more hands-on approach…
Sure, Barack, just like you are doing! Staying ahead of things and taking a hands on approach!
Lead by example, as they say, except it’s a fantasy because Barack Obama is the complete embodiment of the opposite of these things.
Why print this narrative and call it news?
No shame at the New York Times, apparently.