Our awful, awful political press

I've stopped writing much about national politics, because I'm so sick and fucking tired of everybody's political opinions, including my own, that I could puke. And this tired NYTimes article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Obama Pushes Agenda, Despite Political Risks," is a perfect example of what is so sick about the political press in this country. She spends the whole article talking about the political risks of Obama's policy agenda in the past two years without once trying to analyze whether in fact the policies are good for the country. She compares Obama's push for health care reform in the face of bad polling to Bush's defense of the occupation of Iraq in the face of bad polling: "It is an argument that sounds eerily similar to the one Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, made to justify an unpopular war in Iraq as he watched his own poll numbers sink lower. Mr. Bush and his aides often felt they could not catch a break; when the economy was humming along — or at least seemed to be humming along — the Bush White House never got credit for it, because the public was so upset about the war."

You know what, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, fuck you. Health care reform is going to make our country stronger. The Iraq debacle made our country weaker. One thing was worth the political risk, and the other wasn't. It's really not that difficult to see, is it? Yet all you want to look at is whether it's damaging to Obama's political career or not. Fuck you. Think about your fucking country, you fucking dimwit. Obama could go down in flames tomorrow, and we would still be better off because of what the White House and Congress have done in the past eighteen months. How eerily similar is that to Dubya, you fucking idiot?