NYT’s Peter Baker panned for questioning GOP concern for Obama’s safety

, , , , ,

http://twitter.com/#!/jtLOL/status/517340038615416832

The New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker wonders what’s up with all the Republican interest in getting the Secret Service back on track and strengthening security around the White House following the latest fence-jumping and entrance into the White House:

The complicated politics of the Secret Service furor. http://t.co/Xr7IL1rBs6

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) October 1, 2014

From the article:

WASHINGTON — President Obama must be touched by all the concern Republicans are showing him these days. As Congress examines security breaches at the White House, even opposition lawmakers who have spent the last six years fighting his every initiative have expressed deep worry for his security.

As Charles C.W. Cooke pointed out at National Review, Baker also wrote “it would not be all that surprising if Mr. Obama were a little wary of all the professed sympathy.”

NYT: Say, Why Don’t Republicans Want President Obama to be Killed? http://t.co/ds2Q6Lftk4

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 1, 2014

What’s so unusual about people wanting the president and White House to be safe?

Shorter @peterbakernyt: GOP is faking concern for POTUS safety -> https://t.co/zwA0bPAIsr Pretty disturbing projection upon GOP, buddy.

— William J. Miller (@WilliamJMiller) October 1, 2014

Disturbing, perhaps, but not very surprising:

I presume @peterbakernyt considers there are two modes for the citizenry: a) You support a president unconditionally; b) You want him dead.

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 1, 2014

No, you mean complicated politics for you RT @peterbakernyt The complicated politics of the Secret Service furor. http://t.co/Y2Wv4B7Nv8

— S.M (@redsteeze) October 1, 2014

@redsteeze @RBPundit To give @peterbakernyt the benefit of the doubt, he may actually get it, but remember his audience.

— Roger Abramson (@rogerabramson) October 1, 2014

Do you assume repubs secretly want their opponents dead bc that's how you feel about your opponents? @peterbakernyt http://t.co/kDEUlLD3Yp

— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) October 1, 2014

@charlescwcooke Well, that's how he probably felt about Bush, so @peterbakernyt thinks everyone else is the same.

— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) October 1, 2014

@peterbakernyt You #whiteLiberals are more concerned with what we THINK of Obama, and less concerned with his actual SAFETY.

— Jrzy Jack (@JWilliamPope) October 1, 2014

@peterbakernyt lol…how the hell are you still employed??

— Nicole Renée (@SeaGlass4Nicole) October 1, 2014

@peterbakernyt Since you are shocked that GOP Congressmen want Obama safe does this mean you wanted Bush to not be safe?

— Huckleberry Friend (@portdauphin) October 1, 2014

Republicans are obviously in a no-win situation here:

@peterbakernyt this article is ridiculous. If R's weren't outraged you'd say they want Obama killed. R's can never get fair treatment in NYT

— Carol McIlwain (@carolfoxlover) October 1, 2014

***

Related:

Later, alligator: Shamed Secret Service director Julia Pierson resigns

‘BURN!’ Is this zinger from Secret Service hearing the ‘quote of the day’? (Spoiler: You will fist pump)

‘You got to go, lady’: Time for bumbling Secret Service director to hit the road?

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2014/10/01/disturbing-projection-nyts-peter-baker-panned-for-questioning-gop-concern-for-obamas-safety/

Leave a Reply