Last week we reported that rightbloggers were enraged the tyrant Obama was contemplating war with Syria. This week we can report that rightbloggers are enraged that the pussy Obama is avoiding war with Syria.
But if you’re tired of foreign affairs, don’t worry, the brethren didn’t ignore domestic policy: Many of them raised the alarm on Michelle Obama’s evil plot to get Americans to drink more water.
The Administration’s late flip from saber-rattling to a deal with Russia to remove Syria’s chemical weapons seems to have caught rightbloggers off-guard. At least when they were pretending to be peaceniks, they could follow the familiar stylesheets of previous anti-war movements. (No blood for O!)
When the switch came, they could hardly tell readers that they’d actually wanted war all along. So they complained about the way Obama got out of war: By coddling Assad and, especially, by making Valdimir Putin look good.
Two weeks back, Ace of Spades gave us “14 Reasons to Not Bomb Syria” and decreed “we cannot go to war under this clownshow’s disaster-movie leadership.” Comes the Russian deal and — record scratch! — Ace of Spades sneered at “Obama, the president that people love because he makes such efforts to avoid being decisive,” then became enraged at “the world’s most awkward weakling, Bassar al-Assad, openly taunting the US,” and then, get this, told us, “I actually would like, in my heart of hearts, to hit Bassar al-Assad (a longtime sponsor of terrorism, financier and logistics officer for Hezb’allah, and useful Iranian client/minion state)… I wish I could support this action. I can’t.” Spades said this was because he very recently came to believe that Al Qaeda is mixed up with the rebels, though readers not born yesterday may draw a different conclusion.
Spades also affected to believe that Time magazine put Putin on the cover of of its three international editions, but put college sports on the U.S. cover, because the media is trying to shield Obama from criticism (“Someone’s a little protective, eh?”). We suppose the well-covered fact that Time‘s U.S. edition covers are often different from its foreign editions (our favorite: world gets “Travels through Islam,” America gets “Chore Wars”) may be among the many things Spades doesn’t know.
Other rightbloggers followed suit. “What are You Trying to Say, TIME Magazine?” demanded Bryan Preston of PJ Media. National Review‘s Mark Steyn was less coy: “The palace guard in the America media are doing a straddle Pravda and Comical Ali never had to attempt,” he claimed — “telling the truth to the world while keeping their domestic readership in the dark.”
Wow, the dying, discredited MSM is pretty powerful all of a sudden. Even the hated New York Times was treated seriously by the rightbloggers. When Putin, having done the Syria deal, published a cheeky op-ed in the Times, the brethren considered it proof that the Russian had one-upped Obama — because really, it’s not like an anti-American op-ed had ever appeared in the New York Times before.
“Having eaten Obama’s lunch, Putin wanted to send a message to us in Obama’s favorite newspaper,” cheered Scott Johnson at Power Line. “…Putin has eaten Obama’s lunch. Now he wants to rub it in… He’s taking his shirt off and baring his chest in a manner that is calculated to make an impression outside Russia.”
Johnson wasn’t the only one fixated on Obama’s lunch and Putin’s naked chest. “Daddy Putin just spanked Obama,” declared Curt at Flopping Aces. “This whole debacle has been embarrassment for America… Just embarrassing… And now what is Daddy Putin up to?… Obama, upstaged and outsmarted at every turn.” What a daddy! On Fox, Ralph “Blood ‘n’ Guts” Peters purred, “I don’t like Putin, but I respect that guy. He is tough. He delivers what he says he’ll deliver… He presents himself as a real He-Man… Our president talks tough, but in the clinch he’s gutless.”
Putin “presumes to write op-eds in the New York Times, dictating the American president what he may or may not say in his speeches,” claimed the Wall Street Journal‘s Bret Stephens. At FrontPageMag, Robert Spencer said Putin’s Times op-ed was a “veiled threat” to Obama. The guy’s a regular Daniel Ellsberg!
“The administration claims (preposterously, but no matter) that Obama has been working on this idea with Putin at previous meetings,” sputtered Charles Krauthammmer at National Review. “Take at face value Obama’s claim of authorship. Then why isn’t he taking ownership? Why isn’t he calling it the ‘U.S. proposal’ and defining it?” That large countries may obscure the details of their foreign policy initiatives, and arrange them so that everyone gets a piece of the credit, seems not to have occurred to Dr. Krauthammer, or else he hoped it had never occurred to his readers. In any case, Krauthammer let it be known he didn’t like that “Obama gets to slink away from a Syrian debacle of his own making,” and attributed this to “epic incompetence,” which suggests that there may actually be a lot Krauthammer doesn’t know.
RedState’s Erick Erickson, who had earlier told the world that “we should be staying out of [Syria],” seemed outraged that Obama was staying out of Syria, or about something anyway: “Never has a President given a speech in which he wished to convince Americans to take an action he no longer is going to take,” Erickson raved. “He has become to war what the Clapper is to turning on the lights. War is on and now war is off. But we will never call it war.” Maybe Erickson is worried he’ll be drafted. Also: “The President told Americans they need to do this for the children. It is ironic, considering he has, for a long time, been in favor of infanticide.”
Ben Shapiro stopped running headlines like “WH HAS ‘NO SMOKING GUN’ LINKING ASSAD WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK” and started running headlines like “REPORT: ASSAD USES CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN DAMASCUS AGAIN.”
In another post-deal story, Shapiro said the Syrian agreement was “purely absurd – the enforcement mechanism for the treaty means nothing, considering that Russia has a heavy hand in the monitoring and compliance process.” Guess Obama should have bombed Syria back when Shapiro was telling us there no proof they’d done anything to get bombed for.
What of Yossef Bodansky, whose idea that the U.S. planted the chemical weapons on Syria so it could make war was disseminated by Rush Limbaugh and others? His latest headline: “Syrian Chemical Attack: More Evidence Only Leads to More Questions.”
One of that bizarre story’s disseminators, PJ Media’s Preston, rushed to redeem himself with “Slapped Around By Putin, Humiliated Over Snowden, Obama Pivots Back to the Economy While He Escalates the War in Syria,” and then, as it became clear that no such escalation was taking place, really hauled out the rhetorical big guns: “This administration just can’t finish a day without taking a childish swipe at George W. Bush… They’re brats. Our nation is being run by brats.”
This seems to catch the brethren’s general post-deal tone well, so we’ll abandon the subject there and move to a more important topic: Do you know that Michelle Obama is trying to get young Americans to drink more water — and what a threat that is to our nation’s health?
You probably know that Mrs. Obama drives rightbloggers absolutely crazy. Why wouldn’t she? She’s black, female, and successful. So they’ve been after her since the 2008 campaign, when they peddled a non-existent “whitey” tape of her saying offensive things to sabotage her manicured image.
As First Lady, Obama has carefully chosen what would normally be non-controversial causes to support — and rightbloggers have made them controversial. When she encouraged kids to eat more vegetables, they ran stories like “Michelle Obama’s School Lunches Starve Kids.” When she encouraged them to avoid obesity by exercising, they ran stories like “Schoolchildren attending Michelle Obama ‘Let’s Move’ event forced to go almost ten hours without food.”
Now Michelle Obama has this “Drink Up!” thing, telling people to “drink just one more glass of water a day and you can make a real difference for your health, your energy, and the way you feel.”
Sounds like something your mother would tell you. Still, considering Americans drink about 44 gallons of soda a year and diabetes is rampant, any encouragement to drink more water seems like a good idea. The First Lady’s campaign doesn’t mention drinking water instead of soda, probably to keep from pissing off the nuts who think Big Gummint is trying to take away their Big Gulps, but a normal person would probably get the idea.
Rightbloggers are not normal people.
At National Review, Patrick Brennan told us that “there isn’t good scientific evidence that people should drink more water. The first lady’s claim that one more glass of water per day will ‘make a real difference’ for ‘your energy’ and ‘how you feel’ is homeopathy, not public health. (Who’s the party of science, again?)” Brennan cited Dr. Stanley Goldfarb of the University of Pennsylvania, a reliable quote supplier to conservative magazines, whose anti-extra-water message (“unfortunately, frankly, they’re not basing this on really hard science”) was replicated in Politico and elsewhere.
This is rather like saying that there’s no scientific evidence that laughter is the best medicine, so any attempt to make people feel better by telling them jokes is an affront to science.
But wait, there’s more: The corporate sponsors for “Drink Up!” include water bottlers, said Brennan, so “any concerted effort to get people to drink more water will be a remarkably profitable campaign for bottled-water companies…” In many homes, Brennan failed to note, there are metal tubes affixed to the walls called “taps” which also supply water without enriching Deer Park et alia. But wait — people pay water taxes for that — and they go to Big Gummint! The conspiracy goes deeper than Brennan even knew!
Also, said Brennan, “people drinking more bottled water is obviously likely to create a great deal of waste and litter… littered water bottles in the U.S. today actually might present more of a problem than everyday dehydration.”
Instead of staring at this and blinking, other rightbloggers carried this message to their readers.
“Just when you thought the Nanny State couldn’t get anymore drunk with patronizing power over people…” wrote Carol Brown in “Michelle Obama’s water torture” at American Thinker. In the “Drink Up” kick-off tour, Brown reported, “actress Eva Longoria will be accompanying her. Nothing like traveling with A-list celebs to help spread the Gospel of Government.” (“Mrs. Obama is exhibiting a kind of neurosis that seems to be at the heart of contemporary progressive politics: a compulsion to tell other people how to live their lives,” added Brown’s guest commentator Thomas Lifson.)
“With her husband stymied on the world stage and pivoting (yet again) to the economy, the first lady is once again passionately concerned with what you eat and drink,” snarled Sarah Hoyt at PJ Media. “Mooch’s Water Pitch Falls Flat,” chuckled Charlie Sykes at WTMJ. “Michelle Obama’s Drink More Water Campaign Based on Faulty Science,” cried the Washington Free Beacon. “Doctor on Michelle Obama’s ‘drink water’ campaign: An urban myth that’s been ‘debunked over the years,'” wrote The Right Scoop. “Michelle Obama and The Crony Bottled Water Industry,” wrote Economic Policy Journal. “Everything is becoming a government rigged game.”
The Daily Caller ran a funny photo caption contest with Longoria and Mrs. Obama. Sample entry: “‘Why is the photo so soft focus?’ ‘You wouldn’t want to see what these two old ladies look like in the harsh light of day.'”
Liberty Unyielding’s Howard Portnoy took the opportunity to remind us of those other anti-science, commie nutritional campaigns, like one encouraging Americans to eat more fruit: “Overdoing it with fruit also can lead to dental decay, osteoporosis, wasting of muscle tissue, inability to maintain a healthy weight, chronic fatigue,” etc., he said. Portnoy, too, had scientific proof, and a doctor’s endorsement. Perhaps this will not only keep true patriots from drinking more water, but also keep them from eating more fruit, as well as more of Mooch’s so-called “healthy” vegetables…
You know what? Maybe it’s not really about Michelle Obama hatred. Maybe it’s actually a long-term campaign to create enough sick Americans to wreck Obamacare.