Your Head-Pat Media At Work: Gloria Borger Goes in for Special Two-and-a-Half Hour Meeting With Obama, Types Up His Talking Points, Presents It As "Analysis"

A clatch of super-liberal commentators met with Obama. Olbermann, Maddow, Dowd, Gwen Ifil, Eugene Robinson.

And Gloria Borger.

Needless to say, The One’s entitled to talk to whomever he wants, but playing pattycake with MSNBC’s primetime stars does further raise the question of why Beck and Hannity are problematic “opinion” shows while Olbermann and Maddow aren’t. And yes, that question is entirely rhetorical.

Well. Look what Borger came out of that Monday meeting with. (Link Fixed.)

Borger: Republicans snipe instead of offering solutions

Borger: Republicans have opposed Obama's work on health care, economy, war
GOP arguments against president are way to avoid taking responsibility, she says

So far we already have a strong echo of Obama's "mop" speech.

She says Republicans have gained politically from opposing president But, she says, GOP will need substantive arguments to beat Obama in election

By Gloria Borger
CNN Senior Political Analyst

Editor's note: Gloria Borger is a senior political analyst for CNN, appearing regularly on CNN's "The Situation Room," "Campbell Brown," "AC360°" and "State of the Union With John King," as well as during special event coverage.

And she just met with Obama, dictaphone at the ready. They don't mention that.

Gloria Borger says Republicans complain about Obama as they look for ways to avoid responsibility.

(CNN) -- Every president believes, upon election, that his term of service will be transformative. Some, like Barack Obama, actually campaign on the idea: that his brand of leadership and force of personality are so persuasive that they will change the way the world (aka Washington) does business. "We are the hope for the future," the candidate told a crowd before his huge wins on Super Tuesday last year. "[We are] the answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided."

How has that worked out for the new president?

No Republican votes in the House on the economic stimulus package; a handful in the Senate.

No real help in the House on health care reform; a single GOP vote, so far, in the Senate.

On Afghanistan, GOP applause when he sent more than 20,000 troops at the beginning of his term. Now, Republican predictions of outright catastrophe if the president doesn't send 40,000 more ASAP.

The math is a simple GOP political calculation: The economy? Obama owns it. Afghanistan? It's his war.

...

Sure, some GOPers complain that Obama let the liberals hijack his agenda -- and, in some instances, they're right. But mostly, their arguments have just been a rationale as they look for ways to leave no fingerprints. It's always easier to run to the hills and shout "no" from safe terrain.

Republicans have predictably gained some political traction with their "he's-a-big-spending-liberal" Obama narrative. And there's no doubt that House Democrats from moderate districts are increasingly at risk, given the burgeoning deficit.

Sill, Republicans haven't exactly been reborn, either. Consider this: A new Washington Post/ABC news poll Tuesday reports that only 20 percent of Americans now consider themselves Republicans -- the lowest number in 26 years. That's not exactly a national vote of confidence.

What has that to do with her thesis, here? Note she calls it "predictable" that Republicans have had some traction calling Obama a tax-and-spend liberal -- as if we're merely calling him that, but he isn't guilty of the charge.

And then she notes the deficit. In two words. Count 'em: "Burgeoning. Deficit."

And where you'd expect she'd now rebut those charges -- given that she's not willing to credit them with any substantive validity whatsoever -- her rebuttal comes in the form of repeating the WaPo silliness about only 20% of the public identifying as Republicans.

What does a party's relative popularity have to do with the validity of the charges it's making?

So now comes the tipping point. It's almost one year, and Obama's economic plan has been hostaed. The result? While Wall Street and some banks are coming back, the jobs and home loans are not. It's trouble for the Democrats.

As for health care and Afghanistan, more trouble ahead. Assuming the president gets some kind of reform by Christmas, it won't be everything he wanted, but it will be more than enough fodder for Republicans to rip apart, piece by piece. For deficit hawks, it will inevitably cost too much. For seniors, there will be complaints it will raise Medicare costs. And on and on.

Afghanistan is another conundrum preoccupying the president. Send more troops, and liberal Democrats are horrified. Send fewer than 40,000 troops for at least $40 billion -- as requested by the generals -- and Republicans will tag Obama as a weak commander in chief. (Some of these are the same Republicans, by the way, who don't want to add a penny to the deficit.)

Why is only the "horrified" reaction of liberals' legitimate? She mentions that as if that political calculus is perfectly relevant here. But then she immediately demeans Republicans for tagging Obama as a "weak commander in chief" if Obama balks at doing what is necessary to win a war.

Republicans are dicks for wanting to win a war. (And hypocritical, too!) But, on the other hand, liberal senators would be "horrified" if we tried to win the war, so, you know, liberals have the edge here.

The problem set is enormous: How to set a broken economy on a path of growth while fixing high unemployment.

The solution, on the other hand, was simple: All we had to do was pass Obama's spendulus, and we were promised this "enormous" problem set would go away.

Oh? What's that? Now it's much more complicated than that?

Oh. Well. Gee, I guess it's the Republicans' fault Obama had to promise his Spendulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%.

How to fix a broken health care system with 46 million uninsured.

Off-message, Gloria. Even NPR is sending around memos telling their reporters not to claim 46 million, as that figure includes illegal aliens, and the Democrats are now pretending they won't insure illegal aliens.

30 million, Gloria. 30 million.

Oh well I guess Obama slipped and said "46 million" again.

How to fix a war in which it may already be too late to succeed.

Um, the Republicans have a plan -- it's McChrystal's plan, put forward by the man Obama hand-picked for the task. So this seems to go against your general thesis that all Republicans do is say "No."

Sad how the calculations work, though. The more complex the political problems, the more simple the opposition math: If it's tough, disappear.

Again, Republicans are urging Obama to follow McChrystal's recommendations. The fact that this "horrifies" liberals does not change that fact.

Obama finds anything he doesn't want to, or can't, handle (a list of things that grows on a daily basis) too "complicated" to solve.

That may work for now and the midterm elections. But when it's time to challenge Obama, there's more simple arithmetic to consider: It's hard to beat something with nothing.

Obama whines about FoxNews' "biased" coverage, and the media say nothing, as the rest of the media knows they offer this kind of biased, partisan "analysis" every single day.

Every. Single. Day.

Borger's piece isn't particularly remarkable, except for the suggestive timing of it coming out right after her chat with Obama, in which he surely whined about every Republican who won't "help him with the mopping."

The Head-Pat Media puts this crap out there every day. And then they have the gall to call FoxNews partisan?

It only seems partisan to them because it's the opposite of the partisan messaging they engage in every single day.

When Obama and his Liberal Spirit Squad talk about Republicans "offering solutions," what they really mean is "Republicans should offer their votes." Because that's what is wanted -- votes. Not input, not constructive criticism, just the rubber stamp of their votes.

And, of course, Borger goes through this whole essay without noting that Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of Congress and don't need a single Republican vote to pass anything they want, including defeating any and all filibusters.

But Democrats won't pass this. Thus the need for Republican votes. And just the votes, thank you -- Democrats want their at-risk members to be able to vote against this horror so that they can get re-elected. They want Republicans to vote for this obscenity so that they don't have to.

Republicans do have ideas about health care. Obama just isn't interested in listening.

Last month, he promised in his big prime-time speech that he would take a look at tort reform and including that in the bill.

How's that "taking a look" coming, Sport? I have not heard a single peep from the White House or any Democrat about how this "taking a look" is progressing.

But, you know: Republicans are intransigent and can only say "no."

Obama, on the other hand, is willing to "take a look" at Republican solutions like tort reform.

And he'll keep looking and looking and looking, just like he's looking and looking and looking into the McChrystal report.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

posted by Ace at 05:45 PM

| Access Comments