Obama Hosts Chinese Leader (Or, Translated Into Rightblogger: Obama Sells Out America to Communists, Pianist)
We've also racked up an impressive trade deficit with our valued partner. And China holds $895.6 billion in U.S. Treasury debt, along with millions of jobs that might have gone to Americans. Hooray for free trade!
But never mind all that -- for rightbloggers the history of Sino-American relations began with Hu's visit, when President Obama sold America down the river by letting the Chinese invade the White House and sing their America-hating songs.
Official meetings between U.S. and world leaders are like icebergs, with some showy stuff on top and the real action under the surface. Presumably after their public displays of affection Obama and Hu got down to cases about their respective countries' economic dealings -- like China's recent, unexpected sell-off of some U.S. debt.
One of the summit's theatrical set pieces related to human rights, with Obama saying that China's unfortunate approach created "an occasional source of tension between our two governments," and Hu promising to do better. After decades of this sort of thing (say, what did we actually do about Tiananmen Square, anyway?), we are less than enthused; we've seen what happens to U.S. Presidents who actually try to do something about foreign human-rights abuses, and so has Obama.
Newspapers reacted to the happy-clappy as you might expect ("Obama Pushes Hu on Rights but Stresses Ties to China" -- New York Times). And so did rightbloggers. But they didn't take the world-weary approach we favor; they just came up with a countervailing brand of bullshit.
The Angry Arab News Service*, for example, explained how the Times' headline "propagandizes on behalf of Obama": In the copy that followed the headline, AANS noted, the Times said, "President Obama on Wednesday gently but pointedly prodded China to make progress on human rights..." AANS leapt in with a laser pointer: "And then the headline in in the inside (hard copy) pages (in continuation of the front page article)," they said, "becomes 'Obama presses' China on human rights. How could gentle mention be equated with pushing and pressing?"
Having appropriated Saul Alinsky, it seems, conservatives have moved on to the linguistics of Noam Chomsky. (*Update: Or so we thought -- we are informed that AANS isn't conservative -- merely anti-Obama-Administration! Easy mistake to make. Let's see how the more reliable rightwing brethren reacted...)
The Washington Examiner's Julie Mason headlined, "Obama careful to avoid criticism of Hu during state visit," and reported, "Obama, bestowing full state visit honors on Hu, is under fire from both parties at home for so elaborately hosting a leader accused of repression, censorship and disregard for democratic rights and principles in China."
Look at this photo from the White House's Flickr stream! It shows Hu (China) bigger than Obama (America)! It's a message, people! Just like Michelle's dress!
Both parties? Mason explained: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Tuesday called Hu a 'dictator' before walking it back and saying it wasn't a good choice of words." Wow, Reid called Hu a dictator, then reneged? That's it -- Obama's definitely getting primaried in 2012.
At Human Events, Rachel Marsden declared that Reagan never "threw a ball for Mikhail Gorbachev during the Cold War" because Reagan wasn't "morally confused." (Placing flowers on the graves of SS officers at Bitburg was presumably a sign of Reagan's moral clarity.) Jennifer of Cubachi compared "the slobbering Obama and his administration gave to China's dictator Hu Jintao" with the "tough stance" taken by a real statesman, Donald Trump.
Ben Shapiro had a fascinating conspiracy theory: Why, he asked, was Hu going to Obama's hometown of Chicago after his White House meeting? Some observers thought the trip was to make trade deals, but Shapiro had a spicier angle: "Hu is visiting Chicago," he said, "because he is likely meeting with Obama's campaign, which is located in Chicago... During the 2008 election cycle, foreign money flooded into Obama's campaign coffers from countries, including Thailand, France, Austria, Germany..."
Shapiro seems to be talking about allegations that Obama's campaign solicited foreign donations, which were often repeated but never proven. (We're surprised he didn't include Iran and Saudi Arabia among the nefarious contributors.) Shapiro went on to explain why the Chinese would favor one running-dog Presidential candidate over another: Because "Obama has made America's economy almost completely reliant on China's... Obama has already outsourced America's debt to China. Why not outsource his re-election campaign, too?" Apparently Santayana was right, but incomplete: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it incorrectly to their readers.