Obama and the Special Olympics

Obama (sans teleprompter) and Leno yuked it up on the Tonight Show last week.  This is a good thing, because we need a few laughs after watching the stock market over the past few months.  And, after all, the less time Obama spends in Washington, the fewer federal programs he will create to spend more of our (future) tax dollars on.

Unfortunately, without a teleprompter, Obama has a tendency to say ... well ... stupid things.  (We have already documented a number of those, so I won't rehash that issue.)  Last week, Obama insulted the most vulnerable and defenseless group of Americans with an unfortunate crack about the Special Olympics.  (He was joking about his poor bowling skills, in case you missed it.)

The Washington Times editorial board defended the harsh remark, saying that although is comment was in poor taste, he meant no harm.

"The fundamental right of freedom of speech in this country applies to presidents as much as anyone. Obama is allowed to say impolitic things as long as they don't hurt the country....  Most importantly, the President has real problems to address beside hurt feelings.  The PC police need to relax and learn to take a joke."

I have several problems with this defense of Obama from a major news organization.

First, I wonder if the same standard would be applied by the paper to others with regard to free speech. Suppose, just hypothetically, that someone, let's say Don Imus, would have said something "impolitic" that didn't hurt the country, like calling a sports team a bunch of "nappy haired ho's" or something like that. Would the Times have been so quick to rush to his defense?  Did the Times give George W. Bush a lot of leeway for making grammatical mistakes?  Hmmm ... let me think about that.

Second, I find it interesting that the times thinks the President "has real problems to address" so he doesn't have time to issue an apology to people he may have insulted, but he has plenty of time to appear on 60 Minutes, Leno and travel around on a "PR tour" to distract America from the horrible job he's doing. How long does it take to say "I'm sorry.  I shouldn't have said that." Probably less time than it took me to type it.

Third, I haven't seen anyone address (even in the few blogs I've read regarding the issue) the fact that that Obama was all over Imus about his "impolitic" remarks.  A couple of years ago, junior Senator Obama slammed Don Imus for his insensitivity and called for him to be fired by NBC. Obama said that if anyone on his staff had made such an insensitive comment, they wouldn't have a job.  Pot, meet kettle.

I don't disagree with the Times that the fundamental right to free speech applies to everyone. But the Times clearly doesn't want to make the distinction that it makes for others ... that free speech is one thing, and appropriate speech is something else entirely. Some people can't say some things. The Times would never have given George W. Bush a pass had he made the same comment.

Not that we didn't already know this, but this is more evidence that the MainStream Media is in the tank for Obama.  And they will continue their defense of Obama unless and until the tide of public opinion turns.