Friday, July 16, 2010

Media Lost When It Comes To Obama

John pretty much sums it up.

I just don't understand when I read stories like this from good reporters in the NYT:

If passage of the financial regulatory overhaul on Thursday proves anything about President Obama, it is this: He knows how to push big bills through a balky Congress.

President Obama has said that he believes the agenda he has pursued is “the right thing to do for America.” But Mr. Obama’s legislative success poses a paradox: while he may be winning on Capitol Hill, he is losing with voters at a time of economic distress, and soon may be forced to scale back his ambitions.
He knows how to push big bills through Congress?
Mr. Obama has done what he promised when he ran for office in 2008: he has used government as an instrument to try to narrow the gaps between the haves and the have-nots. He has injected $787 billion in tax dollars into the economy, provided health coverage to 32 million uninsured and now, reordered the relationship among Washington, Wall Street, investors and consumers.

But as he has done so, the political context has changed around him. Today, with unemployment remaining persistently near double digits despite the scale of the stimulus program and the BP oil spill having raised questions about his administration’s competence, Mr. Obama’s signature legislation is providing ammunition to conservatives who argue that government is the problem, not the solution.
He's done what he promised during the campaign?


Take the stimulus. The reporter notes that Obama "has injected $787 billion in tax dollars into the economy." Yes he has. And it wasn't enough, he knew it wasn't enough, and now we have nearly 10% unemployment as a result, hurting Democrats' chances for re-election in the fall, and dooming the country to a listless recovery for years to come. How is that something to laud? Is it better than nothing? Yes. But so is the doctor who gives the patient only half of his needed cancer meds. It's certainly better than nothing. It's also malpractice.

When the economy is on death's door, you don't push for half of what you know is needed. The President did just that. It's what he does on most legislation, and most of his promises. He pushes for half, or at least something far less than what he promised. He pushes for half from the outset. Not at the end when you might have to compromise, but from the beginning. And that's his problem, and the reason, at least one of the reasons, so many Democrats and Independents are unhappy with him. He comes off weak.
Either the media is truly stupid, or they think the rest of us are. Or both. The problem with the left and progressive liberals who supported Obama and his "agenda" prior to his election is that we have soured on him these first two years. He's a half-assed president, that doesn't have the cajones to push for what he promised. It's an old song we've been singing for about a year now. But, like John states in his post, to have the NYT try to equate Obama's actions as accomplishments, when in fact, they are sell-outs, especially when the Democrats have the majority, is irresponsible. Well, except when your audience is the stupid people. And in this case, the targeted audience are the stupid people that actually believe Obama has accomplished something, when what he's accomplished is one compromise after another.


Arno said...

A real "liberal/progressive", that guy Obama. The fighting reincarnation of Franklin Roosevelt, he. Pffbbbpbt.

Carrie said...

Pfffftttt. Passing Arno a double shot of Patron with some stout! \=/