Obama Breaks From Bush's Divisiveness?

It's hard to take the mainstream press seriously these days, especially when the bulk of "leading" political news stories are nothing more than hopped-up op-eds. This afternoon's case in point? Liz Sidoti at the Associated Press, "Obama Breaks From Bush, Avoids Divisive Stands" (double links, here and here, for posterity):

Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush's unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.

"What an opportunity we have to change this country," the Democrat told his senior staff after his inauguration. "The American people are really counting on us now. Let's make sure we take advantage of it."

In the highly scripted first days of his administration, Obama overturned a slew of Bush policies with great fanfare. He largely avoided cultural issues; the exception was reversing one abortion-related policy, a predictable move done in a very low-profile way.

The flurry of activity was intended to show that Obama was making good on his promise to bring change. Yet domestic and international challenges continue to pile up, and it's doubtful that life will be dramatically different for much of the ailing country anytime soon.

RTWT, at the link.

I rarely write about AP's journalism, but this one cries out for some deconstruction.

Bush policies, on Afghanistan, anti-terror law enforcement, Iraq, as well as domestic programs like tax relief, were not "divisive" upon initiation, and even programs like warrantless wiretapping - which generated tremendous backlash among extreme-left partisans - enjoyed majority support across the general public. And on the war, as I noted some time back, "since 2003 there's never been a majority in public opinion that supported an IMMEDIATE withrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq (see Polling Report).

Sure, Bush governed firmly and held steadfast to his beliefs, which was in fact a blessing for our nation and the Iraqi people, as I noted in my recent Pajamas Media essay, "George W. Bush’s Legacy: Moral Vision."

In contrast, Barack Obama's starting out explicitly partisan, with his repudiation of 25 years of pro-life family planning programs in rejecting the Reagan administration's "Mexico City policy," which banned taxpayer funding for international abortion providers.

Note too that Gallup reported Wednesday that "Americans Lean Against Closing Guantanamo." But Obama's frozen the military commissions there as the first step in closing up shop, apparently unmindful that the American states in the federal system and our international allies do not want dangerous terrorists as guests at their prisons (for more on this, see "Obama Gives Terrorists A License to Kill").

So, tell me ... what's so un-divisive about that? Indeed, President Obama himself must be worried about some partisan division, or he would't be trying to shut up his political opponents.

The Associated Press story is just part of that huge media-propaganda chatter that some pass off as "journalism."

Ain't it a crying shame?