NY Times Blames President Obama for GOP Intransigence

[TomCADem]

Maddowblog notes a column by NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd that repeats a common corporate media trope of blaming Democrats for the actions of Republicans, thus giving Republicans a free pass. Yes, Republicans ignored 90 percent of the American people, but it is President Obama's fault that they ignore their constituents.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/

When the Senate minority killed expanded background checks last week -- and in the process, stopped the entire legislative effort to reduce gun violence -- I thought it would put to rest the assertion that Congress would function more effectively if only President Obama would "lead" more. Alas, I thought wrong.

By the rules of the Beltway punditocracy, Obama did everything right: he took his message to the public, to the media, and to lawmakers directly. The president leveraged public opinion, accepted compromises, activated his electoral operation, and remained focus on achievable, popular, mainstream goals. The Republican filibuster prevailed anyway.

In a column that's remarkably difficult to understand, Maureen Dowd is blaming Obama for the GOP's intransigence.
Unfortunately, [Obama] still has not learned how to govern.

How is it that the president won the argument on gun safety with the public and lost the vote in the Senate? It's because he doesn't know how to work the system. And it's clear now that he doesn't want to learn, or to even hire some clever people who can tell him how to do it or do it for him.

It's unbelievable that with 90 percent of Americans on his side, he could get only 54 votes in the Senate.

[TexasTowelie]

1. I saw part of the discussion about this article on Morning Joke yesterday.

Scarborough says that President Obama isn't being enough of a tyrant to get his way on this issue and thus gets dismissed by Democrats such as Heidi Heitkamp. He wanted the president to call each of the dissident Democrats and tell them that he would veto any legislation that they introduced in order to get his way, then put similar pressure on Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. The Morning Joke said that President Obama is a weak leader and tried to contrast him to G. W. Bush who still managed to get his way with funding the wars while Pelosi was Speaker of the House.

[Demit]

2. Your post title is strange. It wasn't a NYT editorial position. It was a columnist.

It was a column by their increasingly off-the-rails columnist. Actually, the Times has presented a number of editorials calling out Republican intransigence. I don't disagree that they're a member of the corporate media in many things, but you can't pin this one on them.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. .

.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. This was an idiotic article IMHO

President Obama shouldn't be held responsible for the failure of Republicans to do their jobs, particularly when some of them promised to vote to support expanded background checks and then filibustered the bill anyway (i.e. Jeff Flake). What universe is Dowd living in where President Obama has NOT tried to work with Republicans to get votes for his legislation and where the Republicans turned right around and voted against him? How is that HIS failure?

[JoePhilly]

5. The media makes basically 2 totally opposite arguements each and every time.

For any situation in which the GOP won't compromise, the media selects from the following arguments as to why "Its Obama's fault".

Argument #1: Obama is so hated by the Congressional GOP, that he should stay out of the debate on most issues and let the Dems in Congress try to work things out with the GOP because the GOP will nto compromise with Obama, ever.

Argument #2: Obama isn't leading enough and if he just (a) had more social events with the GOP, or (b) got really really tough with them, they'd be willing to compromise more.

And no matter which course Obama takes, its the wrong one, and Obama is to blame for the GOP's unwillingness to compromise.

In this case Dowd is happy to take position 2b.

Of course the potential that the correct argument is Argument 3, that the GOP won't compromise on anything, ever .... is totally missed.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. And no matter what this president does, these two opposing, inconsistent themes are always there.

It's one of the reasons why I will never turn my back on this president. He gets it from every end.

[JoePhilly]

9. YUP ... and that's been true since day one.

He's a socialist and a corporatist.

He's a wimp and a thug.

He's an intellectual elitist, and he's in over his head.

The media (and some on-line) play both ends against the middle. And I mean that literally. The arguments are structured to anger those in the middle who lean right, and get them to vote against (or be against) whatever Obama is for, and so that those who lean to the left will get frustrated and give up.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. You nailed it

I'm so sick and tired of everything being laid at President Obama's feet. People should be throwing rotten fruits and vegetables at the GOP Senators whom filibustered the background check bill to even to come to vote and they should especially be throwing them at Senator Jeff Flake who wrote a letter vowing to support the bill and then helped filibuster it.

Instead, however, people like Dowd seem to be wanting us to throw them at President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate (esp. Harry Reid). Argument #1 always REALLY irritates me b/c using that one illustrates a PROFOUND level of disrespect for the office of the President. As crummy as George W. Bush was and regardless of how illegitimate his (P)residency was, the Democrats did not stop doing their jobs and working with him, especially following 9/11. Republicans may not like President Obama on a political level- or even on a personal one- but he was legitimately elected TWICE and they still represent their states and the country as a whole and, as such, love the President of the United States or hate him, he's still the President and deserving of at least a modicum of respect. Using your dislike to avoid doing your job simply should not be acceptable. Period.

[Arkana]

7. While LBJ's time on the Hill gave him the upper hand in negotiations,

it also gave him the stubborn bullheadedness that kept us in Vietnam LONG after we should have left. He could have won another term if he'd just read the writing on the wall.

I'm fine with Obama not being "feared" on the Hill if it means he's capable of changing his mind based on new information.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. And him being "feared" wouldn't be a great thing either IMHO

It's not even a characteristic of being a "good" leader IMHO. Only tyrants use fear to control their populace. President Obama isn't a tyrant.

[Beacool]

11. The NY Times is not blaming Obama.

It's Maureen Dowd who wrote in her column that Obama hasn't learned how to govern. I guess that her candidate of choice has disappointed her.

[Doctor_J]

12. He must shoulder some of the blame

90% of America wanted this measure, and he didn't do enough to sell before it happened. Most presidents with a 90% mandate on any issue could get it done.

He is great at campaigning and giving comforting speeches, but his record as a leader is not very good.

[One of the 99]

13. Thanks for the BS GOP talking points.

It's like when they say a rape victim was asking for it.

[Doctor_J]

14. Yeah, sort of

[AtomicKitten]

15. TPM: "Why Didn’t Obama Use The Fairy Dust?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022734953

[Tennessee Hillbilly]

16. --

The gun background check bill never had a chance to pass the Repug-controlled House anyway, and some democratic senators from conservative states who are facing re-election next year would be hurt politically if they voted for it. The circumstances will make it hard enough for us to hold onto the senate majority as it is. The President has to take all of these factors into account. And even though the bill failed this time, his courage in promoting it, along with the resultant public debate he created, have improved the chances that it could pass at some time in the future.