New York Times' Bai pretends GOP obstructionism doesn't exist
September 10, 2010 12:23 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Times political writer Matt Bai, who claimed this week that Obama had missed an historic opportunity in 2009 when he failed to take advantage of a "teachable moment" regarding long-term economic investment, recently answered reader questions online.
One person ("Paul") asked Bai about the rather astonishing and unprecedented brand of obstructionism that Republicans have been practicing, to the point where the White House has found in virtually impossible to find Republican members of Congress willing to reach across the aisle on any issue. (Thereby hindering Obama's agenda.) The reader suggested that given the GOP's party line refusal to cooperate, shouldn't Obama have been more combative with his political enemies?
Here was Bai's response, which seemed to perfectly capture today's Beltway CW on the topic [emphasis added]:
Well, Paul, seems to me that beating up the opposition is probably a decent political strategy when they outnumber you. Blaming them for a lack of progress when you control every legislative body larger than the Peoria City Council just sounds like whining.
Blaming Republicans for their obstructionism "sounds like whining," according to Bai. And besides, Democrats control Congress and the White House so they should be able to get done whatever they want, the writer suggested.
Wow.
Is Bai really claiming that because there are more Democratic members in the House and the Senate that Democrats have free reign to do whatever they want? Is Bai really claiming that Republicans in the minority (not to mention the GOP Noise Machine) have been powerless to foil Obama's agenda, that the only thing stopping him is his own lack of imagination, and Republicans have been mere bystanders since Inauguration Day?
Amazingly, I think that is what Bai's suggesting.
The writer clearly leaves the impression that if Obama had proposed "retooling the education system, installing universal broadband, upgrading rail lines and electrical grids," Republicans would have either A) supported him or B) been powerless to stop him.
I guess Bai's been watching a different game unfold for the last 20 months.
Liberal media is the most successful Republican lie.
I guess there are three flavors of Conservtives. I always thought there were just two:
Liars - Those who benefit economically for the RW agenda and thus the BS propaganda that sells it.
and
Buyers - Those stupid enough to believe the BS propaganda that sells the RW agenda, but who are NOT rich enough to really benefit from it.
But I guess there is a THIRD: WHORES.
These are the people who see through the lie, but when offered enough money to be rich enough to benefit from the RW agenda, they sell out and carry water for the liars.
They're really just a special sub-class of liar. Kind of a "new money" breed. They had to be PAID to BECOME liars, by the "old money" that was already in the club.
--------------------------------------------
And I'd better cut it off at three, or I'll stating sounding like Michael Palin in the Spanish Inquisition sketch!
Thank you, MMFA, for helping me realize that I'm not a tinfoil-hat-wearing loon.
Look at Ed Henry's question to President Obama in today's press conference today!
Ed Henry asks the "Ed Henry Honorary Question in Salutation of Stupidity in Reporting" -- "Isn't it a failure of your administration" that you haven't captured Osama bin Laden? I'll give POTUS much credit for not reaching into the audience, grabbing Henry by the neck, and tossing him in the clink down in Gitmo for asking such a silly question. After POTUS answers Ed Henry then asks "Do you think [your failure to get bin Laden]" will force America to endure "nine more years" of fear from terror. Honestly, I don't know how POTUS managed to answer the question without just doubling over and laughing at Henry's inanity.
Besides, the Dems NEVER had 60 votes. They had as much as 58 for a short period of time before Ted Kennedy passed away, with 2 Independents.
It was amazing, really, to read Bai's piece. It was, of course, well written. It was simply the content that was amazingly (intentionally) obtuse. You have to wonder.
Qui bono?
And we also repeatedly read that objecting to real offenses is whining! It's not.
Obama specifically mentioned this problem today in his 80 minute news conference with reference to his inability to get even uncontroversial appointments easily through Congress' approval process.
Filibusters, silent hold, offering an endless stream of amendments to bills they have absolutely no intentions to support (to the point of voting against their own amendments, no less); the obstructionism isn't anything that's been kept hidden. They've been boasting about it, and, furthermore, proudly saying that they absolutely intend to shut down the government if they gain control after the elections.
The only thing we're learning from this particular "teachable moment" is that there are certain political writers that are all too eager to dish out a big bowl of garbage even in some of this nation's most prestigious news outlets.