Here are a couple of fine examples of the way to behave if you want your newspaper to go from being one of the nation's finest news sources, to nothing but a sick joke:
Jo-Ann Armao, Washington Post: "By staying in Hawaii, the president has sent the message that the situation really isn’t all that serious, that things can proceed just fine until he’s back. And isn’t it that kind of reasoning that emboldens our never-vacationing enemies into thinking Christmas Day is the perfect time for them to strike?"
Did you, or any of your fellows there at the WaPo, have anything remotely similar to say, Jo-Ann, when our last president spent a third of his term on vacation while the nation collapsed around him? No? Well then, maybe you should just shut up when Barack Obama takes Christmas off.
But wait, there's more:
Washington Post: "Republicans are jumping on President Obama's response to the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner as the latest evidence that Democrats do not aggressively fight terrorism to protect the country, returning to a campaign theme that the GOP has employed successfully over the past decade."
"But if the public remains concerned about the safety of air travel and about international terrorism, the Republican attacks on Obama could be "very influential," said Andrew Kohut, a veteran pollster and president of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
"I don't know if it has legs, but it certainly has potential if it has legs," Kohut said."
The attack could be "very influential." It has potential if it has legs. I see.
What the hell does that even mean? So, you have, once again, ginned up an excuse to present Republican attacks on Obama as fact, based on two utterly meaningless statements which themselves were based on no apparent evidence whatsoever.
What a way to contribute to our nation's discourse.
And no, I am not going to link to this trash. You know where you can find it if you need to waste your time.
10 minutes ago