News

NY Times Blamed Reagan/Bush for LA Riots, But No Blame in Baltimore

ReaganBush460

NY Times Blamed Reagan/Bush for LA Riots, But No Blame in Baltimore

Is President Obama responsible for the Baltimore riots? If you take a look at how The New York Times portrayed the reaction to the Los Angeles riots of 1992, apparently so.

For those who came in late, in 1992 one Rodney King was arrested by Los Angeles police after a high speed chase.  King was later found to be legally intoxicated under California law as well as having traces of marijuana in his blood. The arrest was captured on videotape. The police were seen beating King — and, as with Baltimore and today’s case of Freddie Gray, all hell soon broke loose when the officers were acquitted. Unlike Freddie Gray, Rodney King did not die, and in the day eventually emerged amid the riots to plead for calm.

Today, as the events in Baltimore unfold – now with formal charges including murder brought against six Baltimore cops –  there is one striking aspect that is not present as it was in Los Angeles.

That would be blaming the President of the United States.

Yes, that’s right. As Los Angeles burned, the media was quick to finger the real culprit as then-incumbent Republican President George H.W.Bush. Not to mention his predecessor, Ronald Reagan – then four years gone from the White House.

Headlined the New York Times on May 6, 1992:

CLINTON, IN ATTACK ON PRESIDENT, TIES RIOTS TO ‘NEGLECT’

The story said, in part:

“….Gov. Bill Clinton said yesterday that the riots in Los Angeles resulted in part from ’12 years of denial and neglect’ of festering social problems under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

 

….Mr. Clinton said the real cause of the riots included ’12 years of denial and neglect’ of social problems under the Reagan and Bush Administrations.”

Got that? Clinton’s charge was front-paged. The Times made a point of putting the-then Democratic presidential candidate’s accusation about the Los Angeles riots and what he said was the real reason behind them on the front page as if The Gospel itself. Which, in the way of liberal media, it was.

Now?  After Baltimore erupts over the death of Freddie Gray? With Obama, not Reagan or Bush, in the White House? With progressive Democrats in charge of Baltimore for almost five decades straight? And the last four of five liberal Baltimore mayors being black – two women and two men? And one of those liberal mayors — the white Martin O’Malley — now out there running for president as the new JFK?

Now there’s nothing but silence from the Times about just who is responsible for what surely must be the “denial and neglect” in Baltimore that has occurred in the Obama era and after the eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency. In fact, to do the math, fifteen of the last twenty-two years have seen the White House occupied by either Clinton or Obama.

So what’s up with this?

The answer isn’t hard to understand. What’s at stake in Baltimore – and in various cities around the country that have, like Baltimore, been run by liberals for decades – is liberalism itself. When all those protestors stand in front of cameras and complain about the system or no jobs or lack of opportunity or good schools or crime and gangs? They are citing the end result of decades of liberal policies that have had an iron grip on these cities. There is no way in the world that the liberal media – the Times in this case – will contribute to the bonfire by blaming Obama or Clinton much less the liberalism that has run Baltimore lo these several decades. More

Previous post

Fun Facts About Hillary Clinton’s First Democratic Challenger for President

Next post

Why Doesn’t the White House Want to Help Immigrants Assimilate?

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.