Newsweek finally goes where none have gone before
posted at 4:31 pm on May 13, 2012 by Jazz Shaw
Are you kidding me? I get that Andrew Sullivan is a man with an agenda and I completely support his right to make his opinions heard. I also understand that Newsweek – like any other publication – is in business to make a profit and that frequently involves pushing the envelope in terms of catching the public’s attention. But at what point is too much simply too much? When is the shark definitively jumped and the daily bread burned past any reasonable definition of being toast? Ladies and gentlemen, this would be that point.
Politico “explains.”
“‘Let the games begin,” Tina Brown said last week after Time Magazine released its controversial breastfeeding cover.
Brown, whose tenure as editor at Newsweek has seen an array of controversial covers, will respond with the above, pegged to Andrew Sullivan’s piece on Obama’s support for same-sex marriage: “The First Gay President.”
The poster that comes from this is going to sell millions. Take that to the bank.
I’m not such a political neophyte as to suggest that this is unique in politics, but the bold faced, brazen machinations and ham handed plotting which have characterized this “evolution” in the President’s position on the subject at hand are rather breathtaking. And I’m not saying that people don’t actually “evolve” in their positions, beliefs or ideology. I know that my own attitudes and beliefs in my twenties were a far cry – in some instances at least – from where I stand in my fifties. Very few of us spring out of the halls of high school fully formed with all of the opinions we’ll hold until the grave.
But these evolutions generally take place over a long period of time, as exposure to new people and different ideas are examined and experimented with. Some are kept, others are rejected. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has gone in the course of less than a decade from full throated support of gay marriage to full opposition on religious grounds, back to full support. Are we really supposed to be buying this?
Apparently Mr. Sullivan thinks so. And Newsweek is more than happy to jump on board with a cover which will probably go down as one of the most ridiculed and satirized efforts in the history of magazine publication. (But I wouldn’t mind a piece of the sales from the poster, though.) Yeesh.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I agree. The MSM has messaged this is the new norm. The next scandals will not be covered at all
Obama cannot be impeached with the current Senate.
Too bad the RINOs had planned to stuff it to the Tea Party, the anti amnesty crowd, and the anti gay marriage crowd. To go whole hog against the Executive branch, they need the support of the last group of Americans who demand rule of law
This IMHO is why the RINOs did not push the issue before the last election. They too wanted the tea party dead. Both RINO and Libs have been messaging that the Tea Party is dead. The funeral had been held last fall. Benghazi forced the Libs to release the Tea Party IRS data for cover.
And they did stage the release.
It did cool down the Benghazi momentum from the Whistleblowers
Plus, it throws a screw in the RINO plans.
entagor on May 19, 2013 at 5:51 PM
Workingclass Artist is right. You are focusing on the admin being able to pass their agenda( what you refer to as a “check”)…but what does it matter if no new regs get passed when you can simply do what you want( clearly) and there are absolutely NO consequences to your orders? Use that power to place all your “men” in the right positions?
The ends justify the means to them…no consequences mean they can move about with impunity and the worse that happens is some people call them bad names in the news and on blogs…small price to pay to wield the might of a government like ours with nothing stopping you.
Alinsky on May 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM
Ms. Clift should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail…
Khun Joe on May 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM
It didn’t take long for the MSM to get over it’s phony outrage and get back in the groove. These liberals lie and the MSM swears to it.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 6:04 PM
The law certainly doesn’t matter to this administration.
Axion on May 19, 2013 at 7:07 PM
It’s time to put this old Witch out to pasture! She has been a chief liar for the Libs for many years and I think she has out-lived her usefulness!Give her the gold retirement watch and tell her it’s time to take a walk!!
Jersey Dan on May 19, 2013 at 7:23 PM
So, this must be the “Hope and Change” Obama was talking about when he asked for our votes. Where, if it can’t be proven (by an Obama-appointed prosecutor) to be illegal for the government to screw you, it’s OK for it to do so?
Glad we cleared that up.
Socratease on May 19, 2013 at 7:33 PM
No, workingclassaritist is not right. Executive orders can be undone by electing a new executive. Preventing Obama from advancing his legislative agenda is the best that we can get right now. It isn’t ideal, but the situation could be far worse.
ghostwriter on May 19, 2013 at 7:58 PM
First?
Paul-Cincy on May 19, 2013 at 8:04 PM
Because liberals are looking out for the little guy, anything they do is a okay.
racquetballer on May 19, 2013 at 10:45 PM
I’ve only ever seen it on PBS, but I guess that’s changed in recent years.
rickv404 on May 20, 2013 at 3:23 AM
“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Lying is not found anywhere in those honorable words. Unless, “execute” has been taken out of context by every president before Obama. Hint Eleanor, it does not mean that one can use executive power to cover up criminal behavior, as both Clinton and Nixon learned in recent history.
kregg on May 20, 2013 at 5:42 AM
You don’t really expect nasty old hags like this to actually be journalists do you?
After all, where is she goign to get her shoes, lampshades and purses made of gosnell fabric is we actually enforced laws around here?
acyl72 on May 20, 2013 at 7:13 AM
One thing for sure, the TEA Party will be working their butts off in the midterms to turn the Senate. If the IRS couldn’t stop them, nobody can. The scary part is what the Republicans will do and who they put up as their candidate in 2016.
lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:20 AM
Late to this one, so I will just say that if this WAS purely a middle level thing, entirely carried out by faceless peons, and there is nobody higher than a GS15 or so to blame, certainly nobody whose name you would have heard, …then nothing short of eliminating the IRS will do. It is just too big, too unwieldy, and too unaccountable to permit in a free country.
So that’s the deal. Pitch the people on top, all the way up to and including the CEO, or pitch the organization itself. I’m sorry, but we need to be absolutely sure that this can NEVER happen again, and there will not be any taking of anyone’s word that they ‘get it now’. We can’t have a government that powerful and that untrustworthy. Those of us who were targeted will not forget, and we will not let it go. No. Not in America. That we were just paranoid was always a lie, and it is now self evident. We told you.
Dirty Creature on May 20, 2013 at 7:24 AM
I suppose this means that in the New America the party that holds the Presidency can and will use all of the levers of government power to punish and silence political opponents.
So, liberals, next time there is a GOP congress, we will investigate you with the IRS, FBI, NSA, and every other federal organization until we either bankrupt you through forcing you to hire attorneys to defend yourselves or find something that we can use to prosecute and imprison you.
And, as shown by the liberal trolls such as Hotairlib, verbulace, and the like, the liberals are perfectly fine with this state of affairs.
I’m glad that we have this new wonderful America created by the left – where the gov’t is used to destroy political opponents. They sure do love their country and all of its values. that’s what makes leftism so wonderful.
Monkeytoe on May 20, 2013 at 7:47 AM
Clift, like miller, believes that Heads of agencies like the IRS have no obligation to inform the Congressional oversight committees that monitor them the entire status / issues / scandals / etc that is going on. Her statement regarding hiding something from Congress is not the same thing as MISLEADING them, thereby committing FRAUD through hiding their scandalous activity.
Right now Liberals like Clift & Milner are trying to set precedence by defining what the IRS did – misleading Congress – as ‘not illegal’. That needs to be stopped in its tracks RIGHT NOW. Congress MUST demonstrate that this is INDEED ‘Illegal’ & do so by charging Miller with a crime!
easyt65 on May 20, 2013 at 8:18 AM
If only these inoffensive, teeny little non-scandals had occurred during the Bush administration, Eleanor Clift would have worked herself into such a fevered pitch condemning Bush and all his cronies for their calculated attacks on civil liberties that she might well have had an aneurysm on t.v.
morganfrost on May 20, 2013 at 9:20 AM
“They” are not the Obama-ites. They, and he, are not that bright. Just take a look at the minions that they keep sending to the Sunday shows when in trouble.
I am in agreement with those that believe the leaks have a Clintonian smell to them. Many of the Obama staff hold an allegiance to the Clinton’s. Protection of Hillary regarding Benghazi is utmost.
Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:50 AM
What is really needed, is another agency, to monitor this agency. Because clearly, there isn’t enough regulation on this agency. So when we like something, we want more, we want more!
/s
kirkill on May 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM
Is Clift implying that there is a crime leading to the Oval Office?
So this IS inappropriate, but IS not illegal. Depends on what your definition of IS is.
Civil Service will protect them? Does that mean anyone who gets into Civil Service is protected for life, no matter what they do?
Steve Z on May 20, 2013 at 1:47 PM
No, no we won’t. We don’t control the bureaucracy they do. You won’t be able to get those low level employee’s to pursue your political enemies like they would their own. You just don’t realize how badly we’ve lost.
DFCtomm on May 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Why do you think almost every government job requires a college degree? It’s to ensure they get the right(left) kind of person.
DFCtomm on May 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3