How the Standard of “Acceptable Rhetoric” Changes Depending on Which Party Holds the Oval Office

ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos challenged White House press secretary Jen Psaki directly during a Sunday morning interview on “This Week,” asking her how President Joe Biden planned to reverse his still-sinking polls.

Unbeknownst to George, the media already found an answer to this question.  They just declared that any criticism of Joe Biden is an exercise in very poor taste.  Why?  Because criticizing a US President during a foreign conflict is “shameful” – even if a said conflict is a direct result of the President’s own failures.

Newsday thinks so:

“You also, ideally, present a united front. The undercutting of Biden by Republicans as he actively navigates armed conflict is shameful. This nation was stronger when domestic political squabbling ended at the water’s edge.

And you communicate clearly to your own people the hardship they might have to endure — in higher prices, interrupted trade, and possible cyberattacks on critical institutions.”

According to Newsday, mentioning the fact that Biden’s terrible policies – like severely damaging domestic oil production, or disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, are directly responsible for the current mess, is “shameful.”  As long as Joe Biden communicates clearly to us what his own failed policies have caused, we should all come on board and cheer for the failure.  Because Biden does not understand foreign policy and does not employ anybody who does, his “navigation” of it needs his full concentration and he can’t be distracted by the “squabbling.”

CNN’s Chris Cillizza agrees:

“A decade ago, the notion of calling a president of the United States “unfit” in the wake of the most serious invasion in Europe since World War II would have been unthinkable for members of either party.”

Chris is correct: a decade ago, criticizing a US President would not just be considered “in poor taste” – it was plain racist.   When the Oval Office is occupied by a Democrat, there is never a good reason for criticism.   However, Chris does not seem to remember how two decades ago, John Kerry called a Republican President “unfit,”  or how a number of “prominent” Democrats compared him to Hitler, all in a middle of a major war.

“But Trump’s four years in office have changed all calculations of how politics can and should be conducted — even in a moment of war.”

You got to love CNN.  They are like your 5-year-old who steals a cookie and blames you for eating it.  The four years of Trump really did change the calculation – but the change came from no other than Chris Cillizza’s buddies in the legacy media.   Washington Post proudly admitted that coverage of President Trump should not provide “the phony kind of fairness” and should use “more high-impact language.”  And for four years, CNN did just that. Its programming consisted solely of hours-long discussions about Trump being “mentally unfit,” “a Russian asset,” and “a war criminal.”

In defense of CNN, Trump did not start any wars, which makes “a war criminal” accusation quite a leap in logic, but no matter – the gutter sniping was a fair game, I guess.  All Trump needed to do for the media to get behind his agenda is to start a major war.  I am sure that would lead to a big cheer from the media – not to an impeachment de jour.

“What Trump did — and continues to do — to the Republican Party is defining downward the idea of acceptable rhetoric.”

Let’s hear some of the rhetoric that CNN found “acceptable” during Trump’s years:

 

 

 

 

If you found this article informative, please consider a small donation to our coffee cup to help support Conservative Journalism – or spread the word. Thank you.

 RWR original article syndication source.

Share this:

What do you think?

2 Comments

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Written by Tatyana Larina

Tatyana Larina comes from my favorite work of poetry.  And that's the only time you'll see me quoting Wikipedia as a source.

I came to the US in 1991, lived in Bay Area for 30 years, and I have a Computer Science degree.  I worked in software industry for several years, later switching to a career of a full time mom, and I never looked back.  I am currently a resident of Florida.

In my younger days, I wasn’t a conservative. That is not to say that I was ever a liberal – I was not anything at all. I had no idea that there were such concepts as “conservative” and “liberal”. I did not pay attention to politics at all, and the most political knowledge you would get out of me would be who the US President was, and even for that you had to catch me on the right day.

My first introduction to politics was during the second Israeli intifada in 2002. Unspeakable violence erupted in Israel. Every day dozens of people were killed. Even though I didn’t follow politics, that deeply affected me. I felt sad, frustrated, and powerless. And one night, I happened to stumble on an MSNBC program called “Alan Keyes is making sense.” He was talking passionately about Israel and the violence, and he addressed my feelings very well.  Since that evening, I turned on Alan Keyes every night, and by his commentary he was able to take away some of the frustration and anger that I had. It was like a nightly therapy session.

Feeling intrigued after watching Alan Keyes, I wondered what else MSNBC had in store. I switched through the channels, and low and behold, I found Scarborough Country. Right off, Joe Scarborough wasn’t what he is today at all. He was a solid conservative (as I now understand), making common sense conservative points. I found him interesting and engaging. Opposing liberalism had not entered my mind at that time. I still didn’t know anything about liberalism. It was just the things he said sounded very common sense and worthwhile to me. Imagine that at some point, MSNBC had a conservative host on the air. Crazy times, ha?

Exploring my new political universe, I switched through more channels, and one night I found FOX. O’Reilly Factor was on. From the very first night, I was hooked. I abandoned Scarborough. O’Reilly was not just common sense – he was aggressive, and he was a fighter. He was Scarborough on steroids. He wasn’t just talking – he was taking on what he thought to be wrong and unjust. Ever since the first time, and until untimely end of Bill’s FOX career, I don’t think I ever missed one Factor.

For forming my political views, and my ability to formulate them, I have to give special credit to three people: Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly, and Greg Guttfeld.  To Charles - philosophy.  To Bill - realistic and pragmatic approach to politics.  To Greg - realization that a good joke will change more minds than a long lecture.

And for everything else, thanks to my family.

Thousands of refugees leave Ukraine, women and children flee as the men remain to fight

Steve Wozniak’s new venture takes aim at space junk