Our awful, awful political press

[randy_byers]

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?

Comments

[daveon.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to watch actually. I saw an old episode of The West Wing Season 7 where Santos is planning what he'd do in government and his running mate tells him he has, at best, 18 months, in which to do something.

Obama seems to be more focused on legacy and Shit_That_Needs_Doing at the moment over re-election. This is refreshing, and might mean that he doesn't get re-elected. But changing the shit that's been changed is going to be really hard now.

I'm also impressed about how the worst economic crisis in a half century has managed to become his fault, and that he's made it worse. Even though all the data shows it's improved since a few months after he got in.

He's not perfect, but I have to remind myself what the alternative was.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

I actually don't believe that Obama is going to go down in flames -- although the fate of Kevin Rudd in Australia is certainly sobering -- but the inability of political reporters to see what is going on right in front of their faces is a never-ending source of amazement to me. Although I don't know why it still amazes me, because they spent Dubya's years unable to call waterboarding torture because of fear that their own careers would go down in flames. There's a word for that, isn't there? Yeah, that's it: despicable.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

The real problem with Kevin Rudd wasn't issues with polling -- while his polls were down, they were above the level Howard had for most of his government -- but that most of his parliamentary colleagues disliked him and his personal style of government (very centralised) a great deal, and grabbed the opportunity to rid themselves of him as soon as they could.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

So what do you think Gillard's chances are at this point? Is she a better party leader than Rudd was?

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Much. While not everyone likes Gillard politically, she is personally popular. Rudd was a workaholic and control freak, prone to micro-management and a bunker mentality. Gillard talks to the rest of the party a lot more, and is also far more conciliatory and open to negotiation generally (Rudd is notorious for flying off the handle).

Gillard is also a very good public performer, very sharp and spontaneous. I think she is going to wipe the floor with Abbott when it comes to the election debates. The election will have a few bad spots, but I think the ALP will win without too much drama.

Mind you, I think Rudd would have won the election. But Gillards chances are very solid. The big question is what will our Senate look like - I'm expecting a boost for the Greens, who I'm hoping will take the Senate balance of power.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Dave. So would a boost of Green power in the Senate make it easier to pass a climate bill? Looks like cap and trade is dead here for now, but there's still stuff that could be done to expand the use of renewable energy, increase energy efficiency, etc.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

The answer is, in general, yes, but it is a bit more complicated, and has a messy history. The Greens refused to support the previous bill, because they thought it was too weak, and are likely to press for a reasonably serious commitment that won't be popular with the industry lobby etc. So, it depends on what strategy the government takes -- if they make a fairly strong commitment, the Greens will probably come on board, but the Greens might not be helpful if they try something minimalist.

Rudd was very against negotiation with the Greens - and to be very pragmatic, he had a point on this issue at least. ALP+Greens was not enough, he needed Independents as well to outvote the Libs, which was almost certain not to happen, so a bipartisan effort with the Libs (or at least significant vote leakage) was really the only chance to pass it. And a proposal that the Libs would vote for would almost be certain to be too weak for the Greens.

The combination of Gillard and the Greens having Senate balance of power is probably the best bet - but it very much depends on what strategy the two parties take on the issue.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

I'm not even convinced of the accuracy (or impartiality) of those polls -- I think the majority of Amercans realize(d) that we need considerable improvement in the health-care delivery system. What we've gotten, it seems to me, is some possible slight improvement in the health-_insurance_ system -- the Insurance Companies will soon have to insure everyone... who can afford their premiums. And you can bet that the "No Deficit [except for warfare expenses]" people are going to assure that Our Sacred Tax Money is not going to be used to help many poor people buy (expensive/adequate) health-insurance coverage.

Sadly, I am no longer as enthusiastic about President Obama as you seem to be -- he talks a good Talk, but he seems to Walk as a slightly-liberal-in-some-respects Neo-Conservative. Somehow, "a little bit better than the alternative" doesn't strike me as being what our country really Needs right now, though it's probably the best we're possibly going to get (& how long that will continue is uncertain). *feh*

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Best wishes in your efforts to organize a better system, Don. I don't think I have much else to say to my leftist friends anymore. We seem to live in different worlds.

[ron-drummond.livejournal.com]

Hear hear! Bless your foul mouth anyway. I particularly love the fact that you list "fuck you" as one of your tags.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

It'll be interesting to see if I ever use that tag again!

[dalmeny]

I noticed this too yesterday, in accounts in the Australian press of Obama's banking reforms. I had to read three different articles before I found one that even briefly outlined what the reforms were. It was frustrating and depressing.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Policy is boring, I guess. I also have to remind myself that the long waves of American history are less depressing than the short waves. You just have to blur the atrocities.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

The US press is indeed awful.

When I'm feeling serious I sometimes read economist Brad De Longs blog. He has a long running and frequent series of posts (mostly links to particular press stories) that include the line "Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?", and it can be quite sobering - even the supposedly serious side of US journalism frequently publishes pieces that are simply directly untrue, and repeat some political line uncritically. Obsessed with polls and procedural issues, almost incapable of seriously tackling policy debate in manner that isn't brutally partisan, the US press corps is uniquely awful. And it seems determined to report on politics as a manner that entrenches partisan debate and obscures what is actually being decided. Bleah.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I simply don't watch any TV news, because it is uniformly awful. (As others have observed, it's pretty sad when the best news show on TV is a comedy show.) I do read bits of the New York Times online, but it's depressing how bad even it is. The only place you can find good analysis of policy is on the wonky blogs.