Walsh: Media Protects Obama Because of His Race

To which "liberal press" are you referring?  Congress has defunded NPR and PBS in spite of the fact that both of those media outlets provide education to children and adults.  MSNBC has a liberal bias, but it is in the minority of cable TV news networks in terms of ratings and revenues.  Why don't you think about the number of media sources that are owned by Rupert Murdoch?  Nobody will ever accuse Rupert of being a tolerant, progressive, and open-minded liberal.  Do you honestly believe that the Faux News Channel provides a "fair and balanced" perspective of the news?George W. Bush's administration has redeemed the presidencies of both George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter.  For the record, Franklin Roosevelt was greatest president in the history of our nation, and he was a Democrat.  Abraham Lincoln was, in fact,  the greatest Republican president in the history of our nation, but St. Ronald Raygun (the Teflon President) will always be the most overrated president in our nation's history because of the myths created by the conservative media.  Dwight Eisenhower was, in historical reality, the second greatest Republican president in our nation's history; it was Teddy Roosevelt who was the third greatest Republican president in the history of American presidents.  Neither Eisenhower nor Roosevelt tripled the national deficit; this particular distinction of fiscal irresponsibility belongs to Ronald Reagan.  Joe Walsh is still a conservative tool who owes $100,000 to his wife and children.  Joe leanred all about fiscal responsibility and fairness to women and children from President Ronald Reagan. 
Paul Haider, Chicago 

Obama deserves scorn but has been protected by the Liberal lowlife press

His legacy will rival Herbert Hoover's

.

I forgot to add that, under President Obama, the tax rate for the average Tea Bagger has either been exactly what it was when George W. Bush in the White House, or it has actually decreased slightly.  Well, this is totally unacceptable!  Are the Tea Baggers aware that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy do not apply to them?  If there is such a thing as a literate Tea Bagger, he or she would be best served by reading the book What's the Matter With Kansas? (2004) by Thomas Frank; this book will inform them that they are unknowingly voting against their own economic self-interests whenever they vote for a wealthy Repuganantcan such as Joe Walsh.  Of course, Joe has a lot more now than he would if he had actually bothered to pay his child support. 
Paul Haider, Chicago

There was a time in our nation's history when the Tea Party was simply known as "the Klan."  Tea Baggers claim that the word "Tea" is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already; I claim that it is an acronym for Totally Egregious Assholes.  However, the word "Party" is also an acronym; it stands for Pathetic Angry Racist Tools Yelling.  Taxes have never been lower in our nation's history, and the only people who should have their taxes raised are too wealthy and educated to be holding up protest signs that aren't spelled correctly or dressing up in costumes of our founding fathers, most of whom were extremely intelligent and agnostic or atheist.  Tea Baggers will continue to go against their own economic self-interests when they vote for Repugnantcans like Joe Walsh.
Paul Haider, Chicago

Joe, you are wrong again, and this is even worse than your refusal to pay child support.  President Obama isn't "black," but he is bi-racial due to the fact that his biological mother, Dr. Ann Dunham, was a white woman.  Besides, Bill Clinton will always be our "first black president," and Clinton acutally was a genuine Democrat as oppsed to the moderate Republican (Gerald Ford) that President Obama has been for the past three years.  Obama was elected due to his qualifications and not the color of his skin.  However, if Joe Walsh is keeping score at home: Obama was elected in 2008 with 53% of the vote, and this was the first time that a man had been legally elected president since 1996.   
Paul Haider, Chicago

P.S. The corporate conservative media (80% of what we are offered) protected Bush and St. Ronald Raygun ("Teflon President") from impeachable crimes, but Obama has yet to be protected by either PBS or NPR!

Yes, Obama's election was historic. But a broomstick with a campaign
platform diametrically opposed to what we lived through for eight years
prior could have been elected with ease.

And yet, when given the choice between an historic election of a black man and an historic election of a woman, Democrats chose Obama -- this despite Clinton's obviously better qualifications for office. Not only that, but attempts by both the Clinton and McCain/Palin campaigns to subject Obama to the level of scrutiny they had been/were being subject to were denounced as "racist" (the Hillbuzz blog featured a running commentary on this very tendency).

Democrat do themselves no favors when they try to disparage and whitewash an absolutely true claim about the recent past, especially with so many obvious, accessible public records.

Aside from having been married to a president, Hillary Clinton's qualifications were roughly the same as Obama's. She'd been a US senator longer, but he'd spent more time in public office. In the end, it was a wash. I suspect the only difference had the Democrats gone with Clinton would have been that some subset of the population would now be complaining that when given a choice between a woman and a black man, the party had avoided the black man.

Clinton had direct experience working to pass healthcare legislation, and would doubtless have brought some of Bill Clinton's staff back in to cabinet positions. I don't think Obama's time in state government can compare to that. Both of those would have avoided months worth of blundering around, and would likely have meant passage of a heathcare reform bill less fraught with constitutional issues.

As Blue said, the Obama admin was/is full of Clinton staffers.  You may have heard of the biggest one.  Hint:  He's your mayor.

One, it's kind of silly to tout Hillary Clinton's freelance "work" on a failed healthcare plan as a benefit. I'll take somebody who actually worked in government, even state government, over that any day. Two, have you counted the number of former Bill Clinton staffers in the Obama administration?

Your complaints about scrutiny are laughably stupid.  Nobody had to deal with as much scrutiny and as much smearing as Obama did. 

Walsh's comments are racist, it's laughable to think that a corporate run media was desperate to put a black man in the "most powerful position in the world".

As Chuck pointed out in his piece, any Democrat could have beat McCain/Palin, an uninspiring old man (who Republicans didn't even like) and an out of her league dingbat in one of the biggest campaign mistakes in American history. 

Obama would have not been the pick had it not been for a huge backing by young people energized by his "Change" message, Hilary was seen as more of the same.  Unfortunately, Obama turned out to be more of the same himself*, which makes it all the more laughable that Republicans complain about his mostly center-right policy making.

*which some of us predicted all along.

Sorry, but the scrutiny of Obama was poor. If the media had done its job correctly, they would have forced the birth certificate issue & gotten him to release the original prior to the election. But they didn't want to because McCain was definitely born outside the US, in a Panama City hospital while his father was a Navy officer stationed in the Canal Zone [definitely US Territory, but the Navy's hospital had no capability for obstetrics]. So to avoid questions about McCain's natural born status, they let Obama's idiotic, half-assed response to the birthers get ignored.
If Obama had just released the original in the first place, there never would have been a Tea Party.
Obama created all of his insane opponents.
All of his problems are self inflicted.
He was as Teflon as Reagan up to that point & would have easily gotten the health care law passed with the public option if had hadn't let his foolish pride get in the way.

And I do believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, not because of either birth certificate, but because of the birth notice in the local Honolulu paper.

If Obama had just released the original in the first place, there never would have been a Tea Party.

Weird, I thought the Tea Party was started because of government spending and bailouts...............................................

The Tea Party is an outgrowth of the birthers. Most of the TP were birthers first.

So it was most definitely a racist movement, rather than one about government spending.

Yes, the Tea Party is a very racist movement.
The leaders hate Obama not for taxes, but for his skin color.

You just said they were more concerned with the ridiculous fantasy that he was a "Kenyin Muslum" than they were with any of his actual policies.  Never mind that nobody in the Tea Party has been affected by any of Obama's tax policy, except that they may have gotten cuts.

I never said "they were more concerned with the ridiculous fantasy that he was a "Kenyin Muslum"".
I wrote that the media ignored Obama's birth certificate prior to the election because McCain actually was born outside the USA & they didn't want that to be an issue. If McCain had been born in the USA, then Obama's BC would have become an election issue.
Again, the birthers gave birth to the Tea Party. The birthers are a creation of various extreme right wing factions as is the TP!

This deadbeat dad is working hard. To be a shoe-in for douchebag of the year, that is!

This guy becomes a bigger asshole by the day.

Ugh, nothin' better than a racist deadbeat dad.