Americans had an opportunity this last election cycle to control the power of Big Media and the Big Media Party by rejection of Big Media tool Barack Obama. But Big Media won.
The Big Media Weasels and the Big Media Party are now turning on their tool – Barack Obama.
The Big Media broadcast networks are increasingly angry with limelight needy Obama for costing them money. The announcement that Obama would bamboozle the nation on Tuesday evening took the network anger public. “At a time when we’re struggling not only financially but to build audiences, this doesn’t help on either front,” one network executive said. “These repeated interruptions — and the rumor of even more to come — really make it difficult to build audience flow and loyalty. We will all lose one or two million dollars for this.”
A “network insider” confessed to being a star struck tween in love with Obama and his “policies” but that love ends with the loss of money: “I believe in the president and his policies, and as broadcasters we have a responsibility to provide the airtime,” said another network insider. “But these frequent primetime requests are wreaking serious havoc with our schedule and our advertisers. Ratings are down everywhere and the airtime is costing us all significant dollars when we can least afford it.”
Big Media selected then elected their tool Barack Obama and now Obama is costing them money. No sympathy from us.
We have even less sympathy for the Obama Hopium addled addicts who now complain about the power of Big Media. The Obama Hopium addled addicts empowered Big Media and rejoiced as that power was aimed against the qualified and experienced Hillary Clinton. Now the Big Media leash will be yanked against lapdog Obama.
Some extra-foolish Obama supporters based their support for Obama on the disgusting fact that Obama was a Big Media “darling”. These fools surrendered themselves, policies, politics, the primaries, the general election and the entire political system to Big Media. Now Big Media will yank the chain and on occasion, only to benefit themselves, tell the truth about Obama the clod. The Hopium addicts will now complain about Big Media as it slaps at lapdog Obama. Those that empowered Big Media have no one to blame but themselves.
We had the opportunity to to rid ourselves of the Chris Matthews’ of the political world or at least make them less significant. Now they are more powerful than ever. Obama supporters are entirely to blame for the ugly control Big Media now exerts over all our lives.
* * * * *
Recently we noted that an article critical of Obama written by Howard Fineman in Newsweek was a signal to Big Media cohorts that it is now OK to show Obama and his Hopium addled fan club who is really in charge. Yesterday we posted excerpts from a Michael Wolffe article in which he laughed at Obama’s lack of communications skills. Today it is the New York Times‘ turn to turn on the always turning Obama.
In office two months, he has backpedaled on an array of issues, gingerly shifting positions as circumstances dictate while ducking for political cover to avoid undercutting his credibility and authority. That’s happened on the Iraq troop withdrawal timeline, on lobbyists in his administration and on money for lawmakers’ pet projects. [snip]
For now at least, Obama’s deviations have served only to invite occasional cries of hypocrisy from some Republicans and infrequent grumbles of disappointment from some Democrats. He has popularity on his side, and it seems people mostly are chalking up his moves to much-needed flexibility at a difficult time.
But the shifts could take a toll over time if they become a persistent pattern and the public grows weary. His overall job-performance marks could suffer and jeopardize his likely re-election campaign in 2012. People could perceive him as a say-one-thing-do-another politician and the Democratic-controlled Congress could see him as a weak chief executive.
The New York Times imitates Big Pink and tries to catalog Obama lies, though the Times can’t help but make excuses for Obama:
Obama’s moves and maneuvering for political cover run the gamut.
He spent most of the campaign promising to bring combat troops home from Iraq 16 months after taking office, though he left himself wiggle room.
After directing his commanders to map out a responsible pullout, President Obama adjusted that timeline to 19 months and said 50,000 troops, about one-third of the current force, would remain.
While campaigning, Obama frequently swiped at lobbyists, saying, ”When I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.”
Then he took office and had to fill thousands of positions. He did allow former lobbyists to join his administration. But he imposed ethics rules barring them from dealing with matters related to their lobbying work or joining agencies that they had lobbied in the previous two years. In several cases, he has made outright exceptions.
Obama the candidate pledged to curb spending directed at lawmakers’ pet projects; they’re known in Washington as ”earmarks.” Obama the president signed an ”imperfect” $410 billion budget measure that included 8,500 earmarks.[snip]
As for politics, Obama campaigned as a new-style leader who chastised partisanship and renounced divisiveness in Washington. But as president, Obama’s White House aides wasted little time pouncing on Republicans and mocking conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh as the GOP’s leader.
On fiscal matters, Obama the candidate urged Americans to tighten their belts. Once in office and saddled with recession, though, he signed a $787 billion stimulus measure and outlined a $3.6 trillion budget plan that will plunge the nation deeper into the red. But again he paired the proposal with a new promise, to cut the deficit by more than half by the end of his first term.
* * * * *
The New York Times will make excuses for Obama but Americans, especially crucial independents, are increasingly horrified by Obama and his Hopium addled Dimocrats:
In the new National Public Radio poll conducted by the Democratic polling company Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and its Republican counterpart, Public Opinion Strategies, 42 percent of the 800 likely voters surveyed March 10 to 14 said that if the next congressional election were held today they would vote for the Republican candidate; an identical percentage of respondents said they would vote for the Democratic one. For several years, Democrats held a substantial lead on this question.
Democrats still outnumbered Republicans in terms of party identification in this poll by 6 points, 45 percent to 39 percent. Democrats also favored their own party’s congressional candidates 83 percent to 7 percent. But voters who call themselves independents gave GOP candidates the edge by 14 points, 38 percent to 24 percent. And self-identified Republicans supported their own party’s candidates 85 percent to 3 percent.
Republican pollster Glen Bolger, who worked on the survey for Public Opinion Strategies, says that this is the first time since 2004 that he has seen independents favoring Republicans on the generic ballot test. Although he concedes that poll participants agreed — by margins of 6 to 11 points — with Democrats more than Republicans on each of the issues tested, he contends that the generic question’s results are “evidence that voters, particularly independents, are worried that they overcorrected in the 2006/2008 elections combined, and now have more of a liberal slant to government than they want. They want change but with checks and balances.” [snip]
If Republicans really have pulled even or slightly ahead among independent voters, that is a very ominous sign for Democrats, an indication that Obama’s talking the talk of bipartisanship isn’t sufficient and that he and the Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill have to walk the walk.
Bad news indeed as independents walk away from Obama Hopium addled Dimocrats.
* * * * *
The New York Times today also published a long article about Obama’s Communication Breakdown which reads Big Pinkish:
“It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger,” President Obama said on Thursday of the banks he’s chosen to bail out. “You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk [to] them, ease that finger off the trigger.”
It may be the world’s shortest-lived gaffe: the brief outrage it spawned was of course entirely subsumed by the uproar over his comment to Jay Leno that his attempt at bowling was “like the Special Olympics or something.”From giving contradictory statements on the economy to making gaffes about the Special Olympics, team Obama has lost the communications magic that propelled it to the White House.
We will address the myth that Obama ran such a wonderful primary and general election campaign this week. For now, back to the Times’ catalog of Obama boobery:
Besides, minor stuff often contains hints at the larger picture. [snip] “The story of the day often catches the president flat-footed or on the defensive — and regularly undercut by fellow Democrats. To Obama’s dismay, he is learning that successful presidential communications is only in part — often a fairly small part — about personal eloquence.”
The MSM didn’t seem to make much of the Special Olympics joke — The Times’s initial online story on the “Tonight Show” appearance didn’t even mention it , nor did The Washington Post’s news article on the president’s California swing – but one Special Olympian and plenty of folks in the blogosphere took note.
“So how do you categorize Obama’s statement?” asks Patterico. “Poor judgment? Thoughtlessness? Or TELLING IT LIKE IT IS?!?! Don’t get me wrong; I wouldn’t really countenance the disabled flying into an outrage over this. But I do think — like the “putting lipstick on a pig” comment — that it shows Obama has a tin ear sometimes. And that he’s often a poor communicator, despite all we’ve heard to the contrary.”
Americans have heard Obama is a great communicator and that he ran a brilliant campaign but neither is true. Both myths were Big Media puffery.
“One almost gets tired of saying it, but one must say it, still: Can you IMAGINE what the press and the Dems would do with that, had Bush said it,” adds the Anchoress, with a heavy sigh. “President Bush was no cool cat, but he was a master of self-deprecating humor. I give Obama credit for trying it out…but maybe he’d better practice it more! Patterico notes that the press is playing it down. That’s not surprising. It was a failed attempt at humor, and you know what? I’d love to ignore it, I really would. And I’ll start ignoring these Obama gaffes just as soon as the press gives them the same unending coverage they gave to Bush’s. When the double-standards end.” [snip]
As for the suicide-bomber line, the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol is less alarmed by the bad taste than by what it might say about the president’s outlook on terrorists: “Is the president’s view really that the way to deal with suicide bombers is to try to “ease them off” the trigger rather than to shoot them if possible before they act?”
TOTUS (TelePrompter Of The United States):
In terms of pure miscommunication, however, no event compares to the president’s appearance with Prime Minister Brian Cowan of Ireland, during which a Teleprompter malfunction caused Cowan to repeat parts of the Obama speech and the president to thank himself for inviting everyone to the event. This brought not only the expected complaints from the right about the president being pre-scripted, but even spurred some wag to give the speechmaking device its own blog.
Insults to our good friends and ally Britain:
Still, Nile Gardiner of The Telegraph thinks that, all in all, the luck of the Irish held.
The contrast between the White House welcome this month for the Irish and British Prime Ministers could not have been greater. Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach of Ireland, is hardly a world figure, but he received the kind of red carpet treatment in Washington that would normally be reserved for royalty.
The Irish PM has no influence whatsoever over the policies of the United States. Yet he was greeted for a 40-minute meeting in the Oval Office on Tuesday by not only the president but also Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Jim Jones. In addition, Obama hosted a lavish dinner party for 400 guests in Cowen’s honour to mark St. Patrick’s Day, where both the U.S. and Irish leaders spoke (teleprompter fiasco aside). At Michelle Obama’s request, the White House fountain was even turned green to mark the event.
When Gordon Brown was received at the White House at the start of March he was denied a press conference as well as an official dinner and was treated in a humiliating, demeaning fashion. Brown may well be a lame duck at home, but he is still the representative of 60 million Britons and a nation that has sacrificed blood and treasure alongside America time after time. The whole affair was hugely insulting to the British people.
For many, the ultimate symbol of the dissing of Gordon Brown involved the ritual exchange of presents: while the Browns came bearing “an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet” as well as books and outfits for the First Children, Sasha and Malia, the Obamas responded with a 25-disc set of classic American moves, which The Daily Mail’s Ian Drury called “as exciting as a pair of socks.”
While, again, this seems minor, insult was added to insult this week when it turned out that the regional-coding system applied to DVD’s rendered the movies unplayable at 10 Downing Street.
The Corner’s Mark Steyn doesn’t think Giftgate ends here:
I haven’t run into Gordon Brown in over a decade, but my memory of the last time I met him in a TV green room is of a glowering misanthropic type who enjoys nursing a grudge. What doesn’t go around (in the DVD player) comes around. When the president and his Teleprompter visit London for the G20 summit in a couple of weeks, it would be a tragedy were Barack Oprompta to rise for his big speech to find nothing but the words “Wrong Region” flashing on his screen (although I’m sure the Queen would be very polite and string along and make all the swells stand up and join the toast to “Ron Region”, whoever he is).
The New York Times continues to catalog Obama boobery:
Trivial stuff? Perhaps. But there are plenty of similar failures to synchronize on issues that nobody thinks are unimportant. According to VandeHei and Allen of the Politico, Lawrence Summers, the president’s chief economic adviser, “provided lifeless academic reasoning for why there was little Obama could do to prevent the payouts” to A.I.G. executives. Yet the next day, President Obama was in front of the microphones insisting that the Treasury would “pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses.”
Matthew Continetti of Weekly Standard gave his take on the flip-flop:
Why did Obama shift so quickly? Here are two reasons. One, the administration may finally be learning that, while it can still blame the economy on Bush (for now), it does own the bailouts. And any populist furor over the bailouts won’t just be directed backward at Bush. It will also be projected forward onto Obama and Geithner.
Second, any day now the Obama administration will reveal the details of and begin to implement their bank rescue plan. That plan requires the government to provide leverage for private financial institutions. The private institutions will put up some money, sure. But, to get them to do that, the government will have to put up A LOT of money. Another trillion, perhaps. And that means public support is absolutely necessary. Public support that may slip away if the AIG problem isn’t resolved soon.
Well, we’ll see about the rest, but he was certainly right about the trillion.
As for my assumption that nobody could find the A.I.G. situation unimportant, there were a couple of exceptions. First, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The Times that the bonus kerfuffle “is a big distraction” in efforts to fix the economy. Then David Axelrod, the strategic genius of the Obama campaign, told the Washington Post that “People are not sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about AIG, … they are thinking about their own jobs,” which not only didn’t tie in very well with the president’s “every single legal avenue” approach but seemed oblivious to polls like this one.
This left the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent shaking his head: “Again, this just seems weird politically,” he wrote of attempts to pretend that folks aren’t outraged about the issue “at a time when Republicans are moving aggressively to paint Obama as too passive on the issue and position themselves as the outraged and heroic defenders of the taxpayers?”
“It’s not ‘weird’ — it’s panic,” responds Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin:
The entire crew is drowning in a public feeding frenzy of their own making. So they are throwing out whatever argument pops to mind. The contracts can’t be changed! Oh, we’re going to do everything we can to stop this! Oh, who cares!?
And then the president gets into the act, comparing AIG execs to suicide bombers. Is that really the right metaphor for the leader of the Free World?
You sense even their widely admired political skills are buckling under the weight of events and the scrutiny that goes with occupying the White House. It’s a good thing they don’t like big government or spending money, or we’d really have to worry about them getting in over their heads.
Not only are they “over their heads” Obama is not qualified and inexperienced and it is showing every day with every boobery:
On another front, remember when during the campaign John McCain said that “the fundamentals of our economy are sound” and Barack Obama shot back with ““Senator McCain, what economy are you talking about?” Well, what economy was Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, talking about on Sunday when she said that “The fundamentals are sound”? The same one as Peter Orszag was talking about a week earlier when he said that “fundamentally, the economy is weak.”
Don Surber tries to figure out what has happened since McCain’s comments last September that might have brought on Romer’s optimism:
What has changed? Is it the 3,000-point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the full 2 points increase in the unemployment level from 6.1% in September to 8.1% in February?
All I know is President Obama has bad-mouthed the economy for 6 months, which undermines investor confidence. His willingness to spend trillions we do not have on junk we do not need is frightening the Chinese, who own much of our debt.
Instead of answers, we get partisanship.
The Obama plan seems to be do the wrong thing and then blame Republicans if it fails.
But you know something? McCain was right. The fundamentals were there in September to ride this worldwide recession out. The recovery would have begun by now, if Obama had not pushed fear and if Obama had not borrowed another trillion.
I am optimistic that the economy will rebound. Obama will take credit. But his new, expensive, socialistic programs are fundamentally unsound and we shall pay for all this in the long run.
The mixed messaging continued with the conflicting stories of Secretary Geithner and Chris Dodd, the Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee, over who exactly was responsible for ensuring the A.I.G. bonuses in the bailout legislation.
E.D. Kain at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen seems to think Geithner came out looking the worst.
I have to say, of all the changes the new Administration has implemented so far the Treasury is the least comforting – which is probably the absolutely worst possible thing Obama could have done at this point (within reason). Geithner is not a reassuring figure and things like this just make the whole operation look bad. I guess I have a hard time understanding why more hasn’t been done to at least keep up appearances. Half of this is illusion. The government needs to provide the illusion of confidence if they lack the real thing. This isn’t happening. People are nervous, and rightfully so.
And Michelle Malkin thinks the steamroller is still picking up speed:
Can he get anything straight? TurboTax failed him. So, apparently, did Outlook calendar.
Hapless Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner claims he didn’t find out about the AIG bonus issue until March 10. This was contradicted by AIG president Edward Liddy’s testimony before Congress earlier this week. Liddy was right. Geithner was wrong. And it’s all on videotape. DealBlog this morning referenced a House hearing on March 3 in which Geithner was directly questioned about the specific bosnues, a full week before Geithner claims he was made aware of the impending controversy. C-SPAN archives has the clip
So, in terms of job security, where does this leave the top T-Man? On Leno, Obama said that “I think Geithner is doing an outstanding job.” Andrew Sullivan says “I smell a Treasury secretary whose technical skills far surpass even minimal political sense.” But if you’re really curious, this is the place to look.
The Times laughs at Democrat on Dimocrat violence:
So, the president has at least unified his party on that point, right? Well ….. “Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has said the gloomier CBO forecast would require “adjustments” to Obama’s budget, though he declined to specify what changes would be necessary,” reports The Washington Post. “To reduce the deficits, Democrats could dial back Obama’s spending plans or find new sources of revenue.”
Allahpundit, making common cause with, of all people, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, is curious about Conrad’s “adjustments”:
Adjustments in numbers or adjustments to the whole grand Great Society II scheme? Only the former, promises Obama budget guru Peter Orszag, vowing not to sacrifice The One’s health care/energy/climate change/education agenda. To which I say, we’ll see about that. Robert Reich lays it out plainly: “The Wall Street bailout is starting to look like the most expensive tax-supported fiasco in history… The president cannot afford to lose the public’s confidence that his administration is a careful steward of the public’s money. The public was willing to go along with a large stimulus package. But it won’t go along with a second stimulus, and certainly not another TARP. And until the public feels confident that its money isn’t being thrown down a rat hole, it may balk at other ambitious undertakings such as healthcare or education or the environment.” Indeed, which means all that stands between Obama and a congressional revolt is the bank-healin’ mojo of … Tim Geithner. Good luck, Barry.
It’s Americans we are worried about as the Big Media Weasels Turn On Boob Obama.