Media Industrial Complex Has Meltdown Over Constitutional Government (Andrea Mitchell Haz a Sad)

Did you watch Andrea Mitchell today? Oh, boy. Did she ever get a case of teh sad after President Obama's address in the Rose Garden. She - and notably, this Ret. Col. Jack Jacobs, commentator on MSNBC - had a total meltdown. Together, Mrs. Greenspan and Mr. Jacobs cooked up theories ranging from an Obama-Kerry discord to a "reversal" that Mitchell kept referring to on the part of the president, to executive weakness to stabbing the Syrian rebels in the back.

Jacobs was beside himself that for some bizarre reason, John Kerry could no longer be trusted by world leaders as speaking for the president (because somehow, some way, Jacobs imagined a part of Kerry's speech yesterday where he said that the president had made up his mind to order a strike without Congress' buy-in, though Kerry actually said just the opposite) Mitchell a potshot at the president for going golfing after making the speech. Yeah, how dare that mulatto go golfing after messing up all my war reporting plans?

They - and media hanchos everywhere - cooked up every theory they could think of, except one: that when the president, and Sec. Kerry, and everyone else in the administration were telling you bumbling fools in the media that the president hadn't yet made a decision, they were telling the truth (I know, I know, gasp!). It never even seems to register with the talking heads. No, even when they are being told clear as day that the president hasn't made a decision, they know that the president really has, and it's the decision they think he's made, and if that doesn't pan out, OMG, reversal!!!!!!

I mean, God forbid you actually believed the president when he told you he hadn't made a decision and he was really looking at all options on the table. God forbid you actually believe the President of the United States when he told you that this response is meant to be a response to the use of chemical weapons, not a helping hand to one side of the Syrian civil war. God forbid you actually believe the president when he says that as a Constitutional scholar, he wants the Congress to have buy-in. God forbid you actually are forced report the real news rather than figments of your imagination. God forbid. Right?

Look, I get it. After all, President Obama just screwed up Mitchell's own R&R plans. She and her studio was all ready to report war theater for the next week - with much of the graphics and rhetoric already written and the guests already booked - and now they have to change that. They have to cover - horror of all horrors - a national and Congressional debate about military action and the grotesque conduct that Syria engaged in. Heck, she probably even had to rework her script today. Why does the president insist on making pillars of our media do actual work to earn their millions in salaries while they pretend like they are just like the rest of us? How very annoying of this president.

I get it. As much as you all like to pretend that you are flies in the President's situation room, the best you can do is a cheap knock-off. But just because your reporting about the drum beats and imminent missile strikes fell apart, that's no reason to bash the president. Just because you want to get ahead of yourself and get things utterly, nonsensically, comically wrong after being consistently told by the White House the truth (that the president had not yet made a decision) doesn't mean that the president and his administration has to answer for your loss of credibility. Just because you all suck at your job (journalism), doesn't mean the president is required to suck at his (governing).

The fact is that all this frantic freakout is being caused by two things: they cannot believe that the president needs to be taken at his word when he says he hasn't made a decision on something, and secondly, they find the idea of Constitutional government completely foreign. We even heard how this is a bad idea because presidents since Reagan have used the military to launch strikes without Congressional approval (because, you know, nothing went wrong during Reagan's use of the military), even though this president made the judgment that he could as well and decided to put the Congress on the record anyway, to ensure that we stand together on a momentous decision like this.

I understand it makes more work for our vaunted "reporters." They have to cover Congressional dymanics, who in Congress is thinking what. But aren't they paid to do exactly this, their job?


Like what you read? Chip in, keep us going.