Republicans are whinging about “how the media didn’t mind much when Barack Obama halted immigration, why are they making a fuss about the Trump refugee pause.” The whine amounts to one of those tit-for-tat, vacuous, non-arguments. It’s not an arguments of substance.
In fact, I dearly hope the Washington Post is correct and that it’s “facile” to “claim that Trump’s refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011.” Why my hope? Because, I don’t know about you, but I despised Obama’s immigration policy. If Trump is merely doing what Obama did, then that’s not a positive thing in my book—and it’s not an argument in defense of Trump’s welcome ban.
Moreover, if Obama already did what Trump intends to accomplish with his executive travel ban—then he wasn’t so bad, now, was he? See how the non-argument above can be turned on Republicans? If Obama already did what Trump is doing about refugees—and I hope not—then Republicans and their media were guilty of ignoring BHO’s “great merits.”
Yes, that’s what happens when you make a you-pulled-my-ponytail-first “argument.”
But since we know full well BHO was G-d awful—that he increased immigration overall, refugees and illegal aliens—it’s obvious he never came close to fulfilling the Trump promise of a Muslim immigration moratorium.
So what is the whine about? Is it to point out that mass media prefer Obama and didn’t hold him accountable? That’s a no-brainer! Better to offer a substantive defense of Trump’s positions on their merit than to keep disgorging dumb case after another to the tune that, “Hey, our guy is just like the other guy, it’s just that the media don’t like him for no reason.”
Our guy is not like Obama and I hope the media continue to hate him. That’s one measure of how well the president’s keeping his promises.
