Media Disenchantment with Obama – Is the Adulation Finished?

Not entirely, but it is certainly waning in a big way.

Of course, The New York Times is holding fast.  To wit, the President’s frequently repeated false statements regarding the viability of insurance coverage prior to Obamacare occurred because he “misspoke”.  

  

Evidently, that dependably leftist newspaper would characterize a blatant lie as merely a misstatement of the truth if the person uttering it were politically agreeable.

 

Other charter members of the liberal media have proven to be less charitable.  The Washington Post and CBS News, in particular, have been quite skeptical of late regarding White House veracity.  Even newer members of the media, such as Jon Stewart’s Daily Show (Comedy Central Network) – usually a staunch supporter of the left – have become quite sarcastic in their commentary on the Administration’s “Affordable Care Act” rollout.

 

Don’t be misled.  They’ve hardly “seen the light” and decided to move to the right.  But media members formerly trumpeting Barack Obama are feeling mighty embarrassed.  Part of the reason may be the recognition (finally!) that our President and his team have a casual relationship with the truth (“Fast and Furious”, Benghazi, wire-tapping and health insurance promises, for instance).

However, I suggest that the obvious incompetence in the White House is a far greater cause of the media’s new-found jaundiced eye. 

Most of the press applauded – and did what they could to support – Obama’s election in 2008 and 2012.  They did so not only because of his liberal/left ideology but also as a result of their belief in his first campaign slogan “yes we can!”.   Obama was viewed, not merely as a fellow liberal, but more importantly, as a president who would be able to implement the liberal agenda.

 

They hoped and expected that he would not only make agreeable promises but actually be able to carry them out with the cooperation of the government controlled by the Democratic Party for the two year period after the 2008 election.  The disaster which is Obamacare has dashed their hopes.  Promises, as the saying goes, are cheap.  The last president who proclaimed himself a liberal was Jimmy Carter.  (Bill Clinton was too smart for that trap.)  We all know how that ended.  Incompetence leaps to mind.

 

Obama was supposed to be different.  He was young, bright, well- educated, and a minority, to boot, who would assuage the guilt of white liberals.  How could he fail?

 

But he has.  So the general media is cutting its connection.

The liberal media may despise conservatives but their attitude toward the incompetent Obama Administration which they have so faithfully supported is now a mixture of anger and contempt.  Their hopes have been betrayed.  Obama will pay.

The Cost of Blind Faith and Arrogance

Do you remember what then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in early 2010 when questioned about the details of the pending health care legislation?  To paraphrase, “we have to pass it to see what’s in it.” 

Fellow Democrats all fell in line, including self-identified moderates such as North Carolina’s Todd Heath and Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Unbending allegiance to the Obama agenda by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reed was to be expected.  But what about others who were supposedly more independently-minded?  How could they so shameless abdicate their duties as legislators to understand what they were supporting?

 

Is the answer that they were under the “spell of Obama” like fans at one of the President’s campaign rallies?

As one who has followed politics for decades and worked in Congressional offices many years ago, I prefer to think not.  Adulation is for the naïve.  Sure, some of those serving Congress are such, but not many.  Most of them are regular people trying to do what seems right (which, not coincidentally, often coincides with self-interest).  But isn’t that largely true of the rest of us, too?

Was there a national emergency that compelled all Democrats to fall into line?

 

Eighty years ago, during FDR’s first term and the depths of the depression, there was a sense of understandable urgency.  Thus, radical legislation such as the National Recovery Act was pushed through a heavily Democratic Congress on a fast track.  It is unlikely, accordingly, that many legislators knew the details of such laws, either, before voting in favor.

But where was the emergency requiring the unread passage of Obamacare?  Evidently, the Administration’s rush was precipitated by the realization that the Obama luster was of uncertain duration.  Who could predict when the tarnish would appear?

For those Congressional Democrats suffering from liberal arrogance (plainly most), recent news on Obamacare constitutes well deserved comeuppance.  Alas, they’ll be unlikely, as true believers, to heed the lessons of humility:  hubris leads to disaster.

For others, one hopes they feel shame and embarrassment.  In the future, maybe, they will be more conscientious in the performance of their legislative duties.

Defending the Indefensible – Obama’s Apologists Wiggle in the Face of the Truth

Recently Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson (a fervent Obama apologist) was asked for his reaction to the irrefutable evidence that President Obama had been wrong in saying time after time that no one would lose health insurance he wanted.  Robinson paused, smiled and said that the President was basically right he just shouldn’t have been “so categorical.”

Before even White House spokesman Jay Carney picked up the theme, CNN anchors were remarking that no matter the President’s “inaccuracy” those losing their policies would be able to get better ones under the Affordable Care Act.

So what’s the problem?

Later, the Administration added yet another explanation.  Since the insurance companies were doing the canceling and not the President, he wasn’t at fault. 

Ah, truth can indeed be difficult to explain away.

The President is a graduate of Harvard Law School.  Any lawyer can tell you (myself included) that words are indeed our stock in trade.  Precision matters.  Do not say “no one will lose his insurance” when the truth is some will, particularly when some equals many millions of people.

 

Somehow, that doesn’t sound like a rounding-up problem or a mistake in being too categorical.

Whether the substitute health policies offered an individual are superior to a cancelled policy is rather beside the point.  The choice promised by the President was a mirage. 

Whether the President was lying in saying so is a question bearing on his integrity and character.  For Americans, it’s enough to know they weren’t told the truth.  Why not?  Because the Administration was going to do what was deemed best for Americans regardless of the peoples’ wishes?  That would seem undeniable.

For Jay Carney to lay blame for the cancellations on the insurance companies is disingenuous (a polite way of saying he was being misleading), at best.

Insurance companies are compelled by Obamacare to cancel policies which do not provide the coverage mandated by the new law (including maternity care for infertile applicants!). 

Is the President a Liar?

That is a harsh label to apply to anyone. 

Often it is used to describe a person who simply makes a statement that is not true.  But that is incorrect usage unless the person making the statement knew it was false when uttered or written.

Undeniably Barack Obama spoke falsely in June of 2009 when he said that under his proposed health care law:  “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

He said much the same thing many times thereafter including during the 2002 presidential campaign.  And it was untrue every time.

In the summer of 2010, in fact, federal regulations were written that made clear that Obamacare mandated a minimum level of coverage.  Insurance policies that did not meet that standard would have to be canceled.  Did the President not know that?

Sure, it’s possible, but unlikely.  It seems incredible that someone, somewhere in the Administration didn’t alert the President to the inaccuracy of what he was repeatedly saying.
 

So let’s assume he did know.  That doesn’t mean that he believed it.  Certainly he wouldn’t want to.  After all, Obamacare was highly controversial from the very beginning.  He knew he’d have to work hard to sell it to the American people.  Having to say that millions of people would lose health insurance policies that they wanted to keep would not be helpful politically. 

Particularly arrogant people – and President Obama is certainly one of those – can convince themselves of all sorts of things… including that they can do no wrong, and lying would be wrong, wouldn’t it?

Old political hands will remember the case of Senator Gary Hart, a prominent Democrat with his eye on the presidency.  In 1987, on the eve of his announcement of candidacy, he was accused of being involved in an extra-marital affair.  He responded by telling the New York Times that the allegations were untrue.  “Follow me around.  I don’t care.  I’m serious.”

But involved he was.  Witnesses and photographs soon surfaced supporting the rumors.  He soon withdrew his candidacy and faded from the national political scene.
 

Had Gary Hart been crazy to taunt his accusers in light of the facts he knew?  People not sharing Hart’s arrogance (most of us) would say “of course”.  But Hart wasn’t crazy.  He simply occupied an insular world of his own making in which he could do no wrong.

Such people are not confined to the political realm.  Hollywood and Wall Street come readily to mind.

So maybe Barack is not lying in the conventional sense.  Perhaps, as noted conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer put it, “the President is lying to himself”.

A cynical, more accurate view may be that the statements were intentional from the beginning.  Given the press’s adulation, Obama may have figured that the damaging news – the truth – wouldn’t come out until too late to do him, or the so-called Affordable Care Act, any harm.

Whichever the case, it is clear that the President’s word is untrustworthy if his political standing or policy is involved.  Truth will give way to his interests.  Obamacare, cutting spending, Syria, Benghazi… are prior examples.  The next three years should be no different.