How in the world does the Left respond to the astonishing speech delivered by Dr. Benjamin Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast? Easy: they mutter that it was rude for Carson to make such a ringing defense of individual liberty, and offer such powerful criticism of ObamaCare, with President Obama sitting right next to him.
Liberal pundit Kirsten Powers contented herself with saying Carson was “incredibly rude,” but in an appearance on Fox News’ The Five, Bob Beckel (who is not noted for gracious good manners or adult levels of verbal restraint) said Carson’s speech was “disgraceful” because the prayer breakfast was supposed to be a “bipartisan” event. Presumably he meant to say “non-partisan,” rather than “bipartisan.” Beckel added, “I thought it was inappropriate, it was mean, and so far out of place I can’t believe it.”
Meanwhile, over at CNN, Candy Crowley – who came so gallantly to Obama’s rescue during the second presidential debate with some false talking points about Benghazi – asked her State of the Union panel if they found Carson’s remarks “offensive.” Crowley gasped “Whoa!” in shock after rolling a clip of Carson, striving to get her guests in the right mood of surprise and umbrage that anyone would dare to disrespect her beloved President. The clip she showed was Carson describing the concept of fair taxation in terms of the religious concept of the “tithe,” which he noted does not scale up or down based on the wealth and success of those who offer it. Perhaps this made Barack Obama uncomfortable – he did seem to be squirming a lot during Carson’s speech – but Obama is not the author of the progressive tax system.
As reported by NewsBusters, the only guest who seemed willing to rise to Crowley’s bait was Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who said Carson’s speech was “inappropriate” and somewhat incoherently accused Carson of practicing “political correctness.” Note to Rep. Schakowsky: by no stretch of the imagination can a single person offering dissent from the ruling orthodoxy be accused of enforcing politically correct ideological conformity on anyone.
CONGRESSWOMAN JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D-ILLINOIS): Well, I think that there’s a political correctness that he was trying to use to appeal to a conservative audience. I think it’s really, not really an appropriate place to make this kind of political speech and to invoke God as his support for that kind of point of view. But I think most of all the kind of message that he was giving shows a real empathy gap of where the American people are right now, and I think it’s reflective of where many of the Republicans and Tea Parties are right now that we need to have an economy that works for everyone.
If Schakowsky’s words are taken at face value, she’s saying that Republicans and the Tea Party lost in an empathy gap because they want an economy that works for everyone. Or did she intend to criticize them because they ostensibly oppose such a wonder? The Tea Party and conservatives are noted for criticism of a corrupt, centrally planned economy that doesn’t work for anyone, unless they have the right political connections.
But obviously, what she’s really upset about is Carson daring to speak powerfully of beliefs that strongly differ from the President’s ideology. There appears to be a new standard in effect that criticizing this dearest of leaders to his face is wrong… promoted by people who would have celebrated anyone who offered potent dissent in the presence of George W. Bush as an epic hero. Carson didn’t attack Obama from the stage or speak with any sort of inappropriate partisan hostility. He’s a model of clarity and good humor. That’s one of the reasons his speech was so effective. A clear sign of its effectiveness is this feeble response from the Left, which can’t think of anything to say except “how dare you!”
And let us not forget that Barack Obama is not at all above using Biblical verse and speeches before religious groups, including this very same National Prayer Breakfast, to push his leftist agenda. I don’t recall much outrage from liberals over Obama’s sermons on Christ the Tax Collector, and there was nothing “bipartisan” or “non-partisan” about them.