Since the consensus seems to be that Obama’s inaugural address was actually a statement of a bold, progressive vision for his second term, it’s not a surprise that some in the corporate media are upset. (See Dana Milbank and David Ignatius in the Washington Post, for instance.) The preference in the elite media is for centrism–as defined according to their own peculiar partisanship scale; deviations to the left are considered particularly bad news, and that’s what they detected yesterday.
That worldview can creep into straight news reports too, of course, where Obama’s words are seen as particularly injurious to Republicans, who presumably already feel bad enough as it is. In USA Today, Susan Page wrote (1/22/13):
“We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit,” Obama said. But “the commitments we make to each other — through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”
The contemptuous reference to “a nation of takers” was a slap at Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who was secretly videotaped during the campaign as dismissing the “47 percent” who were “dependent upon government,” and at his running mate, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who has contrasted the country’s “takers versus makers.”
It’s hard to know what makes that “contemptuous.” It was something that the Republican vice presidential candidate said. It’s hard to imagine that a reporter would be permitted to write that Paul Ryan expressed “contempt” for half of the country.
In the New York Times, Richard Stevenson writes (1/22/13) this about Obama’s supposed leftward drift:
To some Republicans, it is what they warned of all along: a president who ran as a centrist proving to be an unreconstructed liberal. It was no doubt hard for some of them to accept a scolding for treating “name calling as reasoned debate”–a phrase in his Monday address–from a man who won re-election by excoriating Mitt Romney as a job-killing plutocrat.
He’s got a point; Obama should never have called Romney…that thing he doesn’t appear to have ever called Romney (which nonetheless would have had at least some basis in reality). This feels like yet another effort to present polarizing political rhetoric as a problem on “both sides.” Given the tenor of the Republican critique of Obama–questioning whether he was really born in this country, arguing that he’s a secret socialist or claiming that he is bringing death panels under the guise of a center-right healthcare reform plan–it’s hard to fathom how anyone could sympathize with Republicans wounded by a critique of Romney that Obama didn’t seem to make.
A stronger case could be made, according to progressive columnist David Sirota (Salon.com, 1/22/13), that the Obama administration has done a lot of name-calling–but it’s been directed at its progressive/left critics.
Thank you so very much for paying attention to, and calling out the bias, I hear everyday from all media sources. It rankles me that so much can be done with a slip and a slap that colors the way folks will think about an issue. Sometimes it’s subtle, sometimes not, but this is important. I love your site.
I didn’t find Obama to be particularly contemptuos of the GOP, although they deserve all the contempt they’ve earned since the days of Nixon and up to today. I hope that in the coming months as the right-wingers continue to obstruct in order to keep this nation in the hands of the billionaires, Obama will come out swinging. Make no mistake about it–the GOP is nothing short of bullies, liars, and cowards, and any statements that lead to their demise, be it from the president, or others will be a godsend!
Sadly, What is supposed to be the G.O.P., is the G.O.P.; not the “Grand Old Party of the former, but Goofy Old Pointyheads of todays “moral majority/tea party/whatever they call themselves. The party has gone so far to the right, that it no longer is right, on the right track or heading in the right direction. Even Newt (the Nut) Gringrich agreed with Obama, and even said himself “he did not find it Contentious”.
If the party has gone so far off course that someone like Newt, who used to be the ‘road sign’ – as in “The bridge is out this way, turn back”- of the gone too far right, is now more in line with “I am not a liberal but I play one on TV”, then they have literally lost the compass heading in anything to do with morals or rights….
Both of my Father-in-laws were the ‘hide bound” of the Old elephant party, but they were honest, hard working, and would pay for your work, and moaned about taxes, but felt we should all pay less. One of them, an Old time republican (born in the 20’s, came from Ohio, Settled in Orange County Calif during the 50’s, moved to the East bay in the 70’s, liked folks like B1 Bob Dornan) even said that “Newt makes nearly want to Vote Democrat” and did so with a tear in his eye.
Now, this is not say that only the ‘right side of the ship of state’ is alone in being totally off course; from time to time the Left is not helping either, playing into the hands of the Right, and not always innocently either. This leaves us with one real option; one that has been expressed at KPFA and F.A.I.R for years; one that was espoused by Ralph Nader himself; Vote for anything but the two parties. Wisconsion got a load of that one, when they elected Jesse, but for a while those politicain got thier crap together when they realised that it could happen.
If these people can act like morons and try to drive us off the cliff with their nonsense, then we can just fix their little “tea party” by not showing up and going elsewhere and just to thier ‘Rivel’ they selected. The current crop of twisted sisters (LImbagh, Beck, Hannity, etc) need the Demo’s to act a certain way, and we the voter support that by only looking at “two parties”. Not saying this is going to be simple or easy, but lets also not forget that ‘eliminating particular parties who no longer work for the majority’, is American as Apple pie, and as old….
One word…..COLLECTIVE!He wants to change Americas course from the Reagan vision of self reliance to the Obama vision of a nation built on the idea that an empowered government can solve all your problems. Class warfare, and separatism will be his only monument.That and a crumbling economy.Platitudes about every special interest group he could conjure up was his only answer to the problem that in the end will kill us.Gov spending ,borrowing and printing of money.He got his tax hikes.They will run the government(not touch the debt)for 7 days!A true dyed in the wool ,home spun American nincompoop.He proved himself far below Carter these last 4 years (and that says a lot).He will be worse the next four.His learning curve has been nil.I thought he would at least have a few new lies in his bag of tricks.Not a one did I see.He actually told the truth.He thinks global warming,gay marriage,racism and the such are the real problems.His wife’s eye rolls were perfect symbolism.Elitist arrogance.Problem is….he needs the right(an equal branch of government) to accomplish anything.It is a shame.He is a good speaker.If he just had two ideas to rub together
Oh I would like to thank Nancy Pelosi for keeping her crazy eyes in her head.I always expect them to fall out and just roll away as she flails about for them..And crazy uncle Joe Biden for not laughing and laughing at inopportune moments.And Mrs Obama for saying it was the second time in her life she truly “proud” of her country(ok made that up)Also the remarks from the right were all respectful concerning his daughters.Can you imagine if it were Sarah Palin,or a conservative woman.
@ michael e: You often accuse various Democrats, as well as your many detractors on this site, of name-calling, and yet your comments here are usually rife with it. Today, for example, we have “nincompoop” (Obama), “elitist” (Obama), “crazy” (Pelosi), and also “crazy” (Biden), followed by the opinion that “the remarks from the right were all respectful concerning (Obama’s) daughters.”
While I have no objection to name-calling (it’s often amusing), I suspect that your inconsistency on the subject may explain your enthusiasm for certain current positions and initiatives of Republicans that many other observers regard as out of touch with the wishes of the electorate and in some cases destructive to our democratic form of government.
It appears that you assume Republicans can do no wrong, and accordingly, you defend everything they do. Similarly, you assume that you yourself can do no wrong, so others are name-callers, but you, of course, tell it like it is, and all other right-thinking people are certain to agree with you.
‘US questioning the president’s extra-judicial drone war as “Cheeto-eating people in the basement working in their underwear.” ‘ Better than Barbarack Drone NUTSis “bug-splatting” children from trailer-module charnel rooms a world and souls away from their victims. How do these Obamanable monsters of depravity differ from this:
http://www.sott.net/article/257117-Drunk-uncle-chopped-up-18-month-old-niece-then-roasted-body-parts-in-the-oven-while-looking-after-toddler-for-her-mother ?
If Obama is too mean to Republicans, what do we call what Republicans are doing to him?
Obama is not mean. But Republicans deserve nothing but meanness. They are selfish and dishonest. – George Beres
Why is Obama the only spokesperson for the Democratic Party or agenda? The Republicans, on the other hand, have many people criticizing Obama; Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, Prebeis, every GOP governor, Limbaugh, etc. I don’t hear anyone else defending the Dums agenda.
Republic-anti Party
Anti-labor,anti-union,anti-teachers,anti-welfare,anti-food stamps,
anti-poor people,anti-women’s rights,anti-gays,anti-Latinos,anti-blacks,
anti-Asians,anti-Obama,anti-Democrat(ic) Party,anti-opportunity,anti-
job training,anti-on and on. Who’s too mean?
According to all the challenges Obama’s govervment face, certainly the next four years office challenges his limits in all directions. In my opinion, Obama could strengthen the United States’ global leadership in a favorable degree.
If only their fears would come true.
Considering that his opponents repeatedly and openly stated that their goals were to neuter him, and and to make him a one term president, one shouldn’t be surprised if he was less than pleasant to them. After his first term and looking at his cabinet appointments, anyone who really sees President Obama as either a liberal, or as some wild-eyed, leftist socialist instead of the center right, Wallstreet worshipping shill that he is, should seek help.
@PLEASEHEAD
Democrats have been using plays straight out Karl Rove’s Republican play book and it is driving the Republicans crazy. Ever since Bush II the presidency is a puppet position manipulated by “behind the scenes
puppet masters who pull all the strings.” Until the divided masses get together and retake the power we will get nothing but corporate media candidates. Don’t look back [Obama, Reid, Palosi].
That Obomer sure is mean, eh? How about that priceless shot of sad old clown Boner dutifully clapping for his sometime golf partner?
John Q……I think Joe Bidons endless and inappropriate laughter during the debate marked him as “odd’ at the very least.Calling him or Nancy P crazy may be a bit far……Though Im being honest in saying Im not sure.I would not say that about Obama or Clinton(H) lets say ,though i mightily disagree with them.As far as calling Obama a nincompoop….well Ok it is not like what people called Bush but I do suppose it is wrong and disrespectful.Calling him an elitist is simply telling the truth.And As far as thinking Republicans are always right(Im not one)may i say that Boehner and Gov. Christy have also both been acting like” nincompoops” these days.There are plenty to go around.