A year ago, liberal pundits were appealing vainly to the conservative commentators to come to their senses and realize that America's foreign policy was absurd and that the contradictions (such as condemning torture at Nuremberg and encouraging it at Abu Ghraib prison) were causing the country to be held in contempt by many of the citizens in the countries that are on the "allies" list. Now, a year later, apparently the golden age of bipartisanship has arrived because Rush Limbaugh and all his digitally cloned echoes on the fair skinned but mentally unbalanced news team have joined their former adversaries in disparaging the President on a 24/7 basis. Both teams of pundits are pointing out that the President's torture policy seems to be continuing, the dual quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing to drain the country's monetary resources and Iran may soon be hiding WMD's from the inspection teams. However the liberals and conservative pundits still seem to differ on how to remedy that situation -- but they both agree that the President deserves criticism for the status quo.
The conservatives seem to be having a jolly time of their new role of criticizing the President. They have refrained from that for a full 8 years and now they have "fallen off the wagon" and are jubilant about exorcising that long dormant ability.
The liberal pundits, however, are experiencing the feelings that occur to a base runner on first who gets suckered into taking a lead that is one pace too far away from the bag. They expected to be in a cheerleading role, but instead are a bit skeptical about the new President's efforts to overhaul healthcare, end two wars, and start the economic recovery process.
The editors for the various liberal web sites are caught between Iraq and the hard task of singing the praises of the new President and are dealing with what would have been a nightmare scenario just a year ago.
Should they let the writers take cheap shots at the White House's newest occupant or should they insist that the scribes lavish praise on the Emperor's new clothes?
Many folks have heard the advice: If you can't say something nice; don't say anything at all. If you believe that what is there to write about?
What kind of punditry needs to be written for the liberal web sites? Should a columnist continue to bash whatever President condones torture? Is some cheerleading for a greater effort in Afghanistan tantamount to endorsing the Bush policy of doubling down?
What's not to like about handing scads of cash to the healthcare industry so that their executives won't suffer from bonus envy regarding the bailout money that the banking industry leaders got just in time for last Christmas year's shopping season?
If the writers who contribute to the liberal web sites start heaping lavish praise on the efforts to continue the Bush policies won't they sound like they have succumbed to the old "sell out to the establishment" <I>modus operandi</I> that was anathema to the anti-war liberal hippies of a generation ago?
To bash or not to bash that is the question.
Rush Limbaugh, who has never been a big fan of Barack Obama, these days, sounds like a millionaire's kid in the F. A. O. Shwartz toy store. Will he endorse the recently floated trail balloon for a military coup to depose the inept commander-in-chief? Obviously no liberal pundit is going to be that caustic in their assessments of President Obama. Liberal pundits have not come to his defense with the lightening fast moves of an old Western gunfighter. Why the hesitation?
Maybe a columnist should turn the readers' attention elsewhere and write about some old English history?
Could a story about Jeb Bush be reconfigured into a medieval tale resembling a modern retelling of a restoration drama about the Stuart Royal Family? Could we then portray Rush's efforts as a revival of the Fronde? That may be a little too elitist to appeal to the common man, but the Republican's Wehrmacht will come up with a clever humorous label -- don't you worry about that. Wouldn't Rush just love to provide a suggestion for handling his grievances with President Obama that would be the same as the solution that the Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" provided for settling all difficulties?
Perhaps, rather than a diatribe about President Obama, this columnist's next effort should be a review of Lisa Rogak's book, "A Boy Named Shel: The Life and Times of Shel Silverstein"? Who doesn't like Shel? Such a book review wouldn't contain one single line of Obama bashing.
Online we found this quote attributed to Shel Silvertstein: "I will not play tug o' war. I'd rather play hug o' war. Where everyone hugs instead of tugs. Where everyone giggles and rolls on the rug. Where everyone kisses, and everone grins, and everyone wins." Isn't that Blackwater's official company mission statement?
Now, the disk jockey will play Bobby Bare's entire "Old Dogs" album and we'll go searching for where the sidewalk ends. Have a "Runny Babbit" type week.