Here are some of my objections to this quote from Chuck Schumer. Obama belittled all sorts of people who agreed with him, even from other branches of government. And then, Obama tended to make an end-run around them through executive order. (Look it up for yourself; don’t take my word for it.) No U.S. President has shaken the “roots of the Constitution” more than Schumer’s beloved Obama did (George W. Bush ran a close second). I’m not convinced that the job of the Attorney General is to “stand up to that president.” His job certainly is upholding the law. If that requires going against the President, I suppose that’s what he needs to do. But Schumer is actually asking for the U.S. Attorney General to go against his own job description—which is exactly the problem we suffer from with nearly all of our Federal Government: Presidents who overstep their bounds, Senators who overstep their bounds, Congressmen who overstep their bounds, Judges and Justices who overstep their bounds—not to mention all the bureaus and bureaucrats who overstep their bounds beyond all imagining. On top of this, Schumer makes a statement that is said as an insult (his clear meaning) but has no real discernible value in this conversation. Schumer says Sessions is “not independent of Donald Trump.” Well, duh. Donald Trump is the President and Sessions is the Attorney General—by definition they are not independent of one another.
But this quote from Schumer is expectedly lacking in objectivity and is not the real problem with this article. The problem with this article is that the Washington Post is lacking in objectivity. There is a complete expectation in American society today that politicians will lack objectivity. Politicians are so, well, political, you know. But the Press—the hallowed, all-knowing, inerrant Press—we still expect it to be objective. This article is far from it. It is clear from the outset of the article which way it leans, and the what-ifs the article poses—the pure conjecture of some of the scenarios—are blatant well-poisoning. And the article ends with this about Dianne Feinstein:
After throwing in some (very brief) quotes from supporters of Sessions in what is a clear effort to pretend impartiality and objectivity, the article ends with three full paragraphs about Sen. Dianne Feinstein, quoting without objection, without counterpoint, without even analysis—and this esteemed publication wants us to believe that they deserve to be heeded regarding the news of the day? Why should we care how many calls and emails Feinstein received regarding Sessions? Oh, and tug at my heartstrings with the story of this doctor marching for this or marching for that. Oh, well, clearly this perspective on Sessions must be accurate, because, well, this good-hearted doctor said so. A news organization cannot claim objectivity when their articles are so full with such obvious bias, such blatant abuse of the principles of rhetoric with the clear purpose to deceive by shading truth with one-sided analysis. Here is how the article should end, if there’s any honesty in it:
Please note that I have not said I support the nomination of Sessions or stated any position beyond a critical analysis of the article itself.