Syria And The Conservative Anti-Obama Reflex

SIMON MALOY/Media Matters For America

Over at Salon, Joan Walsh despairs at the possibility that an honest, productive debate over the need to intervene militarily in Syria will fall victim to the "familiar dysfunctional ditch of Republicans abandoning their historic values to sabotage Obama, and Democrats putting the need to support their beleaguered president ahead of their need to craft a new national security policy." She's talking primarily about the debate in Congress, now that President Obama is seeking legislative approval for the use of force, but there's also a great, big, gas-baggy media conversation to be had. And judging by the initial reaction to Obama's push to secure Congressional authorization, the conservative reflex to abandon principle and oppose Obama is already taking hold.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal this morning, Kimberley Strassel whacks Obama for putting the Syria question before Congress, calling his "crude calculus" overtly political and asking: "When did a U.S. commander in chief last so cynically play politics with American credibility?" Per Strassel's reckoning, if Obama is going to intervene, he should own it:

Now trapped by his own declaration, Mr. Obama is reverting to the same strategy he has used in countless domestic brawls -- that is, to lay responsibility for any action, or failure of action, on Congress. The decision was made easier by the fact that Congress itself was demanding a say.

That proved too tempting for a president whose crude calculus is that Congress can now rescue him however it votes. Should Congress oppose authorizing action against Syria, he can lay America's failure to honor his promises on the legislative branch. Obama aides insist that even if Congress votes no, the president may still act -- though they would say that. The idea that Mr. Obama, having lacked the will to act on his own, would proceed in the face of congressional opposition is near-fantasy.

Now let's jump all the way back to March 2011, shortly after President Obama ordered military intervention in Libya. At the time, Strassel was incensed that Obama would order the use of force without consulting Congress, calling it bad policy and bad politics:

President Barack Obama is going on a week into military action in Libya. If he doesn't start explaining how and why, he's going to be fighting a rearguard action in Congress.

Commanders in chief are rightly accorded broad power to unilaterally order American military force. The smart ones understand they need to garner public and congressional support. Congress's backing is particularly crucial, given that body's own authority to play havoc with a military undertaking. In today's partisan political environment, presidential wooing is even more important.

[...]

This is what comes from waging war through the United Nations. The White House was determined not to move on Libya unless it could hide behind a U.N. resolution. The best that multinational body could muster was a vague and confused resolution backing efforts to stop Gadhafi from slaughtering civilians. That resolution, Mr. Obama's rationale for action, is now his constraint. To answer Congress's questions would require thinking and resolving beyond the U.N. remit. He's unwilling to do so.

The president seems instead to be hoping he can quickly hand this off to some other leader of the free world, and move on. But a failure in Libya will only bring more congressional questions. Better to define an actual U.S. strategy -- one that can succeed -- while Congress is still willing to listen.

You can argue that the circumstances surrounding Libya and Syria are different -- because they are -- but Strassel didn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room. Back when Obama didn't include Congress before ordering military action, she said Congressional consultation was the smart, prudent thing to do because the president needs political cover. Now that Obama is including Congress in the decision to initiate hostilities, she's calling it bad politics and trashing Obama for seeking political cover. The only consistency between Strassel's two positions is that they're anti-Obama.

The same reflex has also seized Fox News' senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, who railed against the "terrible" War Powers Act when Obama was weighing unilateral action in Libya, but argued that it's "mystifying legally" that Obama would consult Congress on Syria when the War Powers Act allows him to act unilaterally.

It's difficult to have a serious, informed debate about the necessity of military action when influential right-leaning pundits are haphazardly jettisoning principle and contradicting themselves simply to be in opposition to a political figure they dislike.

More Louisiana Republicans Blame President Obama For Hurricane Katrina Response Than Bush

BY REBECCA LEBER/Think Progress

According to a Public Policy Polling survey, 29 percent of Louisiana Republicans say President Obama is more to blame for the botched executive branch response to Hurricane Katrina while just 28 percent blamed George W. Bush. A plurality of 44 percent said they were unsure who was more responsible, even though Hurricane Katrina occurred over three years before Obama entered the presidency when he was still a freshman Senator.

When the Hurricane hit in 2005, Bush was slammed by both parties for errors pre- and post-Katrina. Later, a congressional report determined that a lack of presidential leadership failed the people of New Orleans. But Bush praised the federal response at the time, saying FEMA director Michael Brown was doing “a heckuva job.” Since Obama took office, he has directed federal funding to rebuilding New Orleans hospitals.

President Obama received some better reviews for at least one storm that actually occurred while he leads the executive branch. After Hurricane Sandy storm hit the East Coast, Republican governors Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, praised federal efforts.

Even Brown’s criticism of Obama during Sandy came across as a compliment, because the disgraced FEMA director slammed Obama for responding “so quickly” to the oncoming storm.

The Establishment’s Obama Derangement Syndrome

BRIAN BEUTLER/TPM

Others have done an excellent job explaining why so many pundits and news analysts are constitutionally unable to describe the impasse over sequestration as anything other than a bipartisan failure — while also revealing, perhaps unintentionally, that President Obama is advocating the very compromise they claim to believe is necessary.

But mark down Feb. 27, 2013, as the day this self-deception morphed into something more like the establishment’s very own Obama derangement syndrome.

Here’s Bob Woodward — again! — on MSNBC Wednsday morning arguing that Obama’s decision not seize imperial powers but instead to follow the letter of the sequestration law amounts to a “kind of madness.”

“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’”

The obscure type of budget document Woodward’s referring to is called a duly enacted law — passed by Congress, signed by the President — and the only ways around it are for Congress to change it (Obama’s trip to Virginia on Tuesday was all about pushing Congress to do that) or for Obama to break it. Sequestration is bad policy, but not remotely unconstitutional, and if Obama decided to ignore it and just spend money as if the law didn’t exist the howls of outrage we’d hear from Woodward and others would be entirely justified.

David Ignatius doesn’t go quite as far as calling Obama’s decision to obey the law insane, but hisWednesday Washington Post column typifies the “Obama’s right on the merits, but this is somehow all his fault too” genre. In an overstretched metaphor he compares the U.S. political system to a drunk driver and Obama to a sober passenger who’s too meek to comandeer the wheel.

“I’m no fan of the way President Obama has handled the fiscal crisis,” Ignatius declares. “As I’ve written often, he needs to provide the presidential leadership that guides Congress and the country toward fiscal stability. In my analogy, he should take the steering wheel firmly in hand and drive the car toward the destination where most maps show we need to be heading: namely, a balanced program of cuts in Social Security and Medicare and modest increases in revenue.”

As it happens, that’s the precise mix of policies President Obama has been offering House Republicans for nearly two years.

Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney confirmed recently that the president still supports re-indexing Social Security benefits to a less generous measurement of inflation called Chained CPI. And Obama himself recently declared that “the biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population. And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms - otherwise, our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children, and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations. But we can’t ask senior citizens and working families to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and most powerful.”

He even burrowed down to specifics: “We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors. We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital - they should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive. And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don’t violate the guarantee of a secure retirement.”

That’s the “balanced program” of cuts and taxes Ignatius called for. But it’s not quite good enough for him.

“Obama tries everything to gain control — except a clear, firm presidential statement that speaks to everyone onboard, those who voted for him and those who didn’t — that could get the country where it needs to go,” Ignatius sighs.

At this point I should note that Obama’s above remarks were delivered in the first few minutes of his State of the Union address — the most high-profile statement a president makes in a normal year — just two weeks ago.

I don’t know how this sequestration fight will end, but I do know that it would end within a week if Republicans rethought their commitment to never increasing taxes, without something like the expiration of the Bush tax cuts forcing their hands. None of the commentariat’s vague bromides about the need for leadership make any mention of this fact; or its direct corollary, that strong leaders will recognize sources of dysfunction and work to eliminate them.

And yet, breaking that anti-tax streak has been Obama’s main political project for the past two years — first attempted gently, in private negotiations with John Boehner; and ever since in a more bare-knuckled before the voters.

If nothing else, Obama’s done a genuinely excellent job of fixing the broken link in the public’s mind between taxes and popular spending priorities. Likewise, because asking nicely won’t change their minds, he’s done the yeoman’s work — at real political risk — of flipping the politics of taxation to make the GOP’s once bulletproof position a vulnerability.

It’s been an ugly process. But if his only second term accomplishments are to temper Republicans’ hostility to raising taxes when revenues are too low, and to diminish their enthusiasm for “starving the beast” the next time they come into power, it will be a real testament to leadership.

President Obama criticized for Afghanistan trip

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Right-Wing Claims Obama’s New Campaign Slogan Reveals His Secret Communist And/Or Fascist Allegiances

By Alex Seitz-Wald/Think Progress

One word; seven letters; so much nefarious hidden meaning. The Obama campaign’s new slogan, “Forward,” may seem like a typically oblique and anodyne piece of political branding — but thankfully, right-wing bloggers are here to reveal its true meaning, and predictably, it involves socialism and Hitler.

The president’s reelection campaign unveiled the slogan yesterday in lengthy new web video, and while the obvious subtext is that presumed GOP nominee Mitt Romney would take things backwards, there is so much more.

Breitbart.com’s Joel Pollak explained that the ‘Forward’ “borrows…from decades of communist iconography.” Pollak checks off a litany of scary historixcal world leaders whose lineage Obama is supposedly following, from Marx, Stalin, and Mao, to Benito Mussolini, to Thabo Mbeki, the former president of South Africa. “Communist leaders frequently used — and still use — the word ‘forward,’” he notes.

The Washington Times also sees a “rich association with European Marxism,” quoting at length from Wikipedia to prove the point.

Meanwhile, ever-hyperbolic blogger Jim Hoft went straight for Hitler, writing that ‘Forward’ was a “marching song of the Hitler youth.” He added a helpful illustration of Hitler Youth wearing Obama pins.

Even the generally more staid Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard sees only one conceivable precedent for ‘Forward’: Mao. Along with a picture of Obama appearing to bow to Chinese President Hu Jin Tao, Kristol wonders, “So if ‘Forward’ is the slogan for the Obama campaign, would ‘Cultural Revolution’ be the slogan for the second term?”

Never mind that the fascist Hitler fought a war against communist Stalin, and killed leftists domestically — Obama is apparently uniquely able to bridge this ideological divide with a single word.

Of course, any reasonable observer knows Obama is not a communist or a facist, and that it’s ludicrous to ascribe so much meaning to a single, extremely common word. (It’s the 642th most common English word out of 868,000, according to WordCount.org, which put it in the top 1/10th of a percentile of commonality.)

It’s also the state motto of Wisconsin, so unless Kristol et. al. are willing to concede that Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the state’s 6 million residents are abiding the communist/fascist threat, the attack on Obama falls a bit flat.

Some on the left tried to make a similarly anachronistic claim about then-presidential candidate John McCain’s slogan in 2008, “Country First,” noting that it was similar to slogans used by American fascists in the 1930s, especially aviator Charles Lindbergh’s America First Committee. But that claim was as hollow and reaching as the charges against Obama’s current slogan are.

Using Tragedy As A Political Weapon

by Simon Maloy/Media Matters

One of the more macabre elements of the conservative response to President Obama's comments on the Trayvon Martin case has been the surge of what-about-ism. After the president gave his statement on Martin (which was primarily one of empathy for the slain boy's parents), the right began combing the obituary pages to find examples of recently killed young Americans and demanding to know why the president weighed in on one Florida teenager's death but not other murders. ("He commented on Martin, but what about...")

The point of the exercise is not to promote awareness of the violence epidemic plaguing the inner cities or the disproportionate number of young African Americans who find themselves victims of violent crimes. It's to use these tragedies as a weapon against the president.

Breitbart.com served up a particularly gross example of this phenomenon yesterday, highlighting the shooting death of 6-year-old Aliyah Shell in Chicago to attack Obama: "No mention of Aliyah from the president. No public outpouring for a young mother who sat untangling her daughter's hair as shots rang out. Nothing."

They argue that this can be explained -- and I'm not joking here -- by Saul Alinsky:

Why? Why would the president weigh in on this specific case at this specific time?

It's not about wrong or right. It's not about justice. It's not about Trayvon Martin. 

"The despair is there; now it's up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change."- Saul Alinsky

An interesting quote to consider, from the man who shaped the minds of those who shaped President Obama.

The simple, non-Alinsky answer for why the president weighed in was that the controversy over Martin's death had become a national story and he was specifically asked about it by a reporter. Trying to explain why the Martin killing became a national story while Aliyah Shell's did not would require more time and space than I have here, but it owes largely to the fact that Martin's killer, George Zimmerman, has neither been arrested nor charged. Two Chicago gang members are currently in jail and awaiting trial on first-degree murder charges for Shell's death.

It's also worth noting that while Shell's murder hasn't attracted much national attention, it has had a pronounced effect on Chicago politics. Mayor Rahm Emanuel publicly commented on the young girl's death and in the aftermath "renewed his demand for a citywide gang strategy," per the Chicago Sun-Times. To focus solely on the national coverage is to miss the broader picture.

Salon's Alex Pareene has a sharp run-down of why conservatives are demonstrating some uniquely horrendous behavior with regard to the death of Trayvon Martin, part of which I'll highlight here:

President Obama was careful to limit his comments on the Martin story (which were made in direct response to a question from the press, and not, say, prepared remarks) to a personal message of empathy for Martin's parents and a call for everyone to take the situation and the investigation into it seriously.

[...]

It is a simple fact that when the president takes a position on something, anything, roughly 50 percent of the nation then decides to take the opposite opinion. Once Obama spoke out, caring about Martin became a "Democratic" issue, and Republicans felt not just free but obligated to fling all sorts of shit.

That's as concise an explanation as can be made for why Breitbart.com would exploit a young girl's death as part of the tired Obama-as-Alinsky smear. The callous irony is, of course, lost on them --  they're using the tragic death of a child to attack a political figure for allegedly using the death of a child for political gain.

Obama derangement syndrome

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Derangement Syndrome: Fox Now Mocking Summer Jobs For Teens

by Chelsea Rudman/Media Matters

Fox News has a simple rule when it comes to reporting on President Obama: pretty much anything he does is bad. Obama derangement syndrome has inspired the right-wing media to attack Obama's tie color, his choice of burger condiment and the way he celebrated Halloween (and Hanukkah andEaster and Christmas).

Today, Fox News attacked Obama for his youth summer jobs program because in addition to paid jobs, the program will include unpaid internships. Fox & Friends co-hosts repeatedly implied that the White House has somehow been hiding this fact and is using unpaid internships to "make the numbers look good." Here's co-host Steve Doocy in a tease for a later segment on the story:

DOOCY: Then -- first the president used "created or saved" to make his jobs record look bigger. Now he's got a new strategy: Counting unpaid internships to make the numbers look good. Story straight ahead.

During the segment, the co-hosts again suggested that there was something nefarious about the program's intent to create unpaid internships; Doocy even claimed that the program is the administration's attempt to "entice the young people to vote for them again":

DOOCY: The Obama administration trying to create jobs. You know, during the last election, they promised those young people when you graduate from college, we're going to make sure that you have jobs. Hope and change and it's all going to be waiting for you.

ERIC BOLLING (guest host): They were faking it?

DOOCY: Fast forward to today. There aren't that many jobs out right now. And in fact, apparently the way the administration is going to entice the young people to vote for them again is they are going to have a summer jobs program. They are saying that private business is going to ante up something like 180,000 jobs, which, when you look at the economy, is not that many but apparently only about 30 some percent of those jobs you can actually get a paycheck. The rest of them are unpaid internships.

ALIYSN CAMEROTA (guest host): Right. That's not really a job. If you're -- an internship is different if you're not being paid than what people generally consider a job but, of course, you can still get experience but it's different than what they had said previously.

DOOCY: Experience don't put beans on the table!

CAMEROTA: Yeah, baby needs a new pair of shoes. Yes.

But the White House never "count[ed] unpaid internships to make the numbers look good." The official White House press release on the program, released January 5, specifically stated that "employment opportunities" created would include "paid jobs and internships."

From the press release (emphasis original):

Today, the White House announced Summer Jobs+, a new call to action for businesses, non-profits, and government to work together to provide pathways to employment for low-income and disconnected youth in the summer of 2012. The President proposed $1.5 billion for high-impact summer jobs and year-round employment for low-income youth ages 16-24 in the American Jobs Act as part of the Pathways Back to Work fund. When Congress failed to act, the Federal government and private sector came together to commit to creating nearly 180,000 employment opportunities for low-income youth in the summer of 2012, with a goal of reaching 250,000 employment opportunities by the start of summer, at least 100,000 of which will be placements in paid jobs and internships. Today's announcement is the latest in a series of executive actions the Obama Administration is taking to strengthen the economy and move the country forward because we can't wait for Congress to act.

Reports from The Hill and USA Today also noted that the program will include both jobs and internships. The Hill specifically noted that of the "180,000 'work opportunities'" the program will create, "[s]ome 70,000 jobs are paid."

Fox & Friends also used the segment as an opportunity to attack the president's record on job creation:

BOLLING: Can I just throw this out here? Remember when the stimulus was going to -- they were trying to pitch us on stimulus, sell us on stimulus? It was going to keep unemployment -- yada, yada, yada. It was also going to create four million jobs. Well, when they realized that number was going to be unattainable, they said you know what? Make that "create or save" four million jobs. This is just another attempt by the administration to kind of hide what's really going on behind the scenes. Reality is, we've lost 1.7 million jobs under Obama.

Bolling is distorting President Obama's jobs record and the effects of the stimulus. Various independent estimates suggest the stimulus boosted employment by 1 million to 2.5 million jobs, and boosted the GDP by between .8 and 2.7 percent.

What Fox News is attacking is a program to decrease teen unemployment -- a goal most people usually find admirable. As USA Today reported, the program is a "private-federal government partnership" that has already secured commitments from "AT&T, Bank of America and Starbucks." You would think that a partnership that will boost employment in the private sector would be something Fox News could get behind. But if Obama's done it, Fox News has decided, it must be a bad thing.

Watch:

Right-Wing Media: Obama Ruins Nation's Holidays

From Media Matters

Right-wing media have recently attacked President Obama for celebrating Hanukkah too early and for displaying too many Christmas trees at the White House. Right-wing media have long attacked Obama for how he observes holidays, including Thanksgiving, Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Easter, Ramadan, and even Halloween.

HANUKKAH

CHRISTMAS

THANKSGIVING

VETERANS DAY

MEMORIAL DAY

EASTER

RAMADAN

HALLOWEEN

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For His Holiday Observances

HANUKKAH

Fox Nation: "Obama Celebrates Hanukkah At The White House ... Two Weeks Early." On December 8, Fox Nation linked to an Associated Press article about Obama hosting a White House Hanukkah party under the headline, "Obama Celebrates Hanukkah at the White House...Two Weeks Early." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 12/8/11; The Associated Press, 12/8/11]

Hoft: "Obama Celebrates Hanukkah... Two Weeks Early... Lights All The Lights." In a December 9 Gateway Pundit post titled, "Obama Celebrates Hanukkah... Two Weeks Early... Lights All the Lights," blogger Jim Hoft wrote, "It's OK. It's just a Jewish Holiday. Obama celebrates Hanukkah two weeks early and lights all the candles." [The Gateway Pundit, 12/9/11]

For more on Obama's observation of Hanukkah, SEE HERE.

CHRISTMAS

IBD's Andrew Malcolm: "As Americans Struggle, The Obamas Make Do With 37 Christmas Trees." In a December 12 Investor's Business Daily post, conservative commentator Andrew Malcolm noted that the Obamas "installed 37 different Christmas trees" in the White House and further wrote:

How simple, politically astute, symbolically helpful and cost-effective it would have been for the Obamas this year to say that in sympathy with so many struggling countrymen, they were curtailing holiday decorations to match the sacrifices of others. [Investor's Business Daily, 12/12/11]

Hannity: The Obamas Are "Living It Up" With White House Christmas Decorations. During the December 12 broadcast of his Premiere Radio Networks show, Sean Hannity read from Malcolm's post and claimed that the Obamas were "living it up, with almost 40 Christmas trees in the White House."  [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 12/12/11, via Media Matters]  

For more on Obama celebrating Christmas too vigorously, SEE HERE

Fox's Hayes: "The Average American Is Going To Look Up And Say, 'Well, Why Is My President Taking 17 Days Off When We've Got Unemployment Still At Nearly 9 Percent?' " During the December 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Sunday, Fox News contributor Steve Hayes said that Obama's 17-day Christmas vacation is not a "problem on substance" but that "[t]he message it sends, I think, has to be worrying to the White House." From Fox & Friends Sunday:

HAYES: The message it sends, I think, has to be worrying to the White House. This is a president who said he would keep Congress in Washington because there was so much work to be done, and yet he then announces that he's going away for 17 days. It's the kind of thing that the average American is going to look up and say "well, why is my president taking 17 days off when we've got unemployment still at nearly 9 percent?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends Sunday, 12/4/11, via Media Matters]

Big Government: "Barack Obama Will Take A 17 Day Vacation In Hawaii Over The Holidays. Can't Let A Payroll Tax Extension Get In The Way Of A Few Rounds On The Links." From a December 3 Big Government post:

Friday, President Obama reacted to the Senate's failure to pass his gimmicky Payroll Tax Cut Extension:

"We need to get this done. And I expect that it's going to get done before Congress leaves. Otherwise, Congress may not be leaving and we can all spend Christmas here together."

Apparently, Congress will be adjourning to Hawaii, because the White House announced tonight that Barack Obama will take a 17 day vacation in Hawaii over the holidays. Can't let a payroll tax extension get in the way of a few rounds on the links. Nice work if you can get it. [Big Government, 12/3/11, emphasis in original]

For more on right-wing media attacking Obama over his Christmas vacation, SEE HERE.

THANKSGIVING

Fox's Todd Starnes: "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address." In a November 24 post on his Fox News Radio site, Todd Starnes complained that Obama "did not include any reference to God" during his Thanksgiving address and that Obama's remarks "were void of any religious references although Thanksgiving is a holiday traditionally steeped in giving thanks and praise to God." [Fox News Radio, 11/24/11]

Limbaugh: Obama "Try[ing] To Hijack Thanksgiving Week With A State Dinner." During the November 24, 2009, broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, host Rush Limbaugh asked, "Do you ever remember a big, White House state dinner during Thanksgiving week?" He then claimed that Obama was "try[ing] to hijack Thanksgiving week with a state dinner." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/24/09, via Media Matters]

VETERANS DAY

2011: Drudge: "Obama Late For Wreath-Laying Ceremony At Arlington Nat'l Cemetery." On November 11, the Drudge Report claimed that Obama was "late for [the] wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington Nat'l Cemetery." From Drudge:

[Drudge Report, 11/11/11]

2011: Hoft: "Good Grief. Obama Arrives Late At Tomb Of The Unknown Soldier?" In a November 11 blog post, Hoft, citing Drudge Report, claimed that "Barack Obama was late at the Tomb of the Unknown today in Washington. Unbelievable." [The Gateway Pundit, 11/11/11]

2010: NY Post Claimed, "Bam AWOL On Vets Day." In a November 11, 2010, New York Postcolumn, Charles Hurt wrote that Obama "honored our veterans from afar by laying a wreath during a ceremony at an army base in South Korea." He then claimed:

That is a distance from here matched only by the chasm that has opened up between him and the voters who elected him two years ago.

This aloofness of his really is becoming a problem. [New York Post, 11/11/10]

For more on Obama's observations of Veterans' Day, SEE HERE and SEE HERE.

MEMORIAL DAY

Beck: Obama "Has Decided Not To Honor Our Troops On Memorial Day." During the May 26, 2010, broadcast of his Premiere Radio Networks show, Glenn Beck claimed:

BECK: The president has decided not to honor our troops on Memorial Day and go to -- can you find out the last president that decided to take a vacation and then go to a Paul McCartney -- come back for a Paul McCartney concert, but not for the laying of a wreath on Memorial Day? Maybe this has happened before. I don't recall it. [Premiere Radio Networks,The Glenn Beck Show, 5/26/10, via Media Matters]

Malkin Contributor Doug Powers: "Boy, I'm Starting To Think That West Point Speech Wasn't From The Heart." In a May 25, 2010, post on Michelle Malkin's website, Doug Powers wrote:

President Obama went to Arlington Cemetery to lay the wreath last year, but this year Obama's handing the wreath to Plugs [Vice President Biden] and heading off to the more welcoming political climes of Chicago.

[...]

Obama will however make it back to Washington in time next week to honor Paul McCartney, who has sacrificed so much for the freedoms we enjoy.

Boy, I'm starting to think that West Point speech wasn't from the heart. [MichelleMalkin.com, 5/25/10]

For more on Obama's observation of Memorial Day, SEE HERE AND SEE HERE.

EASTER

Kilmeade: "President Obama's Plan To Make [Easter] Energy Efficient. Are You Kidding Me?"During the March 30 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade teased a segment by saying:

KILMEADE: Coming up straight ahead in the next hour, nothing says Easter like a green egg. President Obama's plan to make the holiday energy efficient. Are you kidding me? Laura Ingraham at the top of the hour with her opinion. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/30/11, via Media Matters]

Hannity Guest: Obama's Not Issuing An Easter Proclamation "Le[ft] People Thinking That He Is Either Hostile Or Indifferent." During the April 25 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity, guest and Republican strategist Nancy Pfotenhauer said that Obama's failure to issue an Easter proclamation was "[a] mistake, a political error of such magnitude that it almost defies explanation. I mean, it leaves people thinking that he is either hostile or indifferent." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/26/11, via Media Matters]

For the truth about Obama's observation of Easter, SEE HERE and SEE HERE.

RAMADAN

Fox & Friends: Obama Did "Nothing Big" For Christianity's "Most Sacred Holiday," But Issued A "Lovely Statement Regarding Ramadan." During the August 11 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson, as well as guest host Peter Johnson Jr., attacked Obama's statement honoring the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. During the segment, Carlson claimed:

CARLSON: OK, and some people said they might have an issue with the fact that he didn't issue a proclamation for Easter. So some people are saying, is this an outreach to the Muslim world, and why isn't there outreach to the Christian world. [Fox News, Fox & Friends,8/2/11, via Media Matters]

For more on Obama's statement regarding Ramadan and "proclamations," SEE HERE.

HALLOWEEN

Hoft: "Obama Goes Trick-Or-Treating ... They Handed Out Fruit." In a Gateway Pundit post titled, "288,000 Lose Power in Earliest Snowstorm in a Century... Obama Goes Trick-or-Treating," Hoft wrote:

An historic early season snow hit the New England area today knocking out power to at least 288,000 homes. It is the earliest snow in New York City since the Civil War.

Meanwhile... Obama went trick-or-treating.

[...]

They handed out fruit. [Gateway Pundit, 10/29/11, emphasis original]

Drudge: "Treat Or Trick: Obamas Pass Out Halloween -- 'Fruit'?..." An October 30 Drudge Report headline read:

[Drudge Report, 10/30/11]

For more on Obama's celebration of Halloween, SEE HERE.