Some of the media commentary around the debt ceiling bemoans the state of the partisanship in Washington. Much of the chatter is about a supposed failure to compromise. As Josh Marshall argues, “this is simply false, even painfully so.” By any reasonable standard, the White House and the Democratic leadership have made an array of drastic compromises in order to win favor with Republicans–who are basically refusing to go along, since denying Obama any kind of “victory” is a key part of their electoral strategy for 2012.
But in corporate media, “balance” is essential. So both “sides” must be held responsible, never mind the facts. I was struck by this comment from host Christiane Amanpour on ABC‘s This Week this Sunday (7/24/11):
This week with tempers flaring, the rhetoric has boiled over. Exhibit A, the war of words between two Florida congressmembers, Republican Allan West and Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Wasserman-Schultz fired the first shot on the House floor, criticizing West for supporting a debt deal that would cut Medicare.
West’s response, a furious e-mail to his colleague when he said, “You are the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the U.S. House of Representatives. You have proven repeatedly that you are not a lady and, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me.”
So how does Washington move past this partisan rancor?
Excuse me? Wasserman-Schultz criticized West’s support for a particular bill. She didn’t say anything outrageous–which is why ABC didn’t air a clip or even quote from her speech, the one where she “fired the first shot.” West’s intemperate “you are not a lady” response would suggest he’s the one with the problem here. But you can’t say it that way. Just like you’re not supposed to say that Republicans are refusing to support Barack Obama’s very Republican budget offers.
This is fairly typical of mainstream press coverage of the debt ceiling “crisis.” It’s hard to find anything outside the partisan news shows that reflects what has actually happened, or that bothers to explain to the public what the debt ceiling even is. The alternative to raising it is a disastrous default (something else the television press has barely conveyed until the last few days), and there’s virtually no chance either the Republican leadership or the very Big Money interests that controls both parties are going to allow that to happen. There was no reason to offer Republicans anything in exchange for their cooperation on this, but, as usual, Obama’s course of action was to immediately cave; he has repeatedly offered up massive cuts in Social Security and Medicare that are absolutely anathema to his party, his base, and to the overwhelming majority of the public, in exchange for minor revenue increases. Because of the latter, Boehner and the Republicans preemptively refuse every offer, then tell the public Obama doesn’t have a plan, just speeches. And all the press can tell the public is that we have an impasse because of the “partisan rancor on both sides.”
classicliberal12: Yours is an accurate summary of our situation: a bought-off Congress, a spineless President, and a so-called journalists who give rational proposals and lunacy equal weight. Which of them has failed America the most? By far, the mainstream press.
ankara escort bayan classicliberal12: Yours is an accurate summary of our situation: a bought-off Congress, a spineless President, and a so-called journalists who give rational proposals and lunacy equal weight. Which of them has failed America the most? By far, the mainstream press.
@ankara escourt bayan: I wouldn’t call offering to slash Social Security and Medicare in exchange for minor revenue increases a rational proposal on the President’s part. I’d call it caving in to the Republicans in the worst way.
Good analysis, folks, but I don’t think the President is caving; he wants, more than anything else, to cut a deal and then be seen as the great Conciliator (it seems to actually pain him to occasionally blame the Republicons for truly outrageous behavior and lies). What we mistake as caving is him actually thinking he’s doing a good deed. He’s also going after the magical, chimerical “independents” –you know, the low-information voters. who just want less yellin’ and screamin’. They hate “partisanship,” and so does our President. Look fo the Democrats to ultimately go along with a deal that doesn’t raise one nickel in revenue and slashes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as well as other vital things that benefit the vast majority of Americans. The Baggers are so stupid they don’t even realize they’re going to get on a silver platter what Dubya, only a few short years ago, could only dream about.
I have noticed that when a Republican wins the presidency, the media tells everybody that the new president has a “Mandate” and has the “Right” to impose a “Right Wing” agenda.
But, when a Democrat wins the presidency, it is said to be an accident of sorts. The election was won because the candidate was a super salesperson and not really genuine or deserving.
The media tells everybody that the new president does not have a “Mandate” for change but rather has a mandate to co-operate with the Republicans. That the new Democratic president must “Get Along” and act in a non-partisan manner.
A Democratic president is only “Tolerated” and not “Congradulated”.
The “Liberal Left” is always told that “Compromise” is necessary. It is described in the media as “Realistic” Compromise. And that was after getting tacit consent (“Permission”) from the “Right Wing”.
When the “Right Wing” wins an election, it is called “Morning In America” …. A “Contract With America” …. Every “Right Wing” leader is said to have a “Determined” personality. Very Committed to his ideals and ideas.
The “Liberal Left” is not allowed to be “Determined” …. The “Liberal Left” must be “Deferential” to the “Right Wing” in order to be successful.
A “Leftie” leader is said to be a “Good” Leader and a “Good” politician.
A “Right Wing” leader is said to be a “Strong” and a “Determined” leader.
Calm
I haven’t listened to mainstream nightly news for a long time. They are just too biased in their reporting. I look for other sources, pro and con, like “FAIR”. Then, I make my own decisions.
Misrepresentation again. The Republicans put forward their ideas.It was called cut cap and balance. Great start. Dems refused to even discuss it.So the b plan(Boehner’s)WAS the compromise!Nothing after three years on paper with the Dems, so with time running down it was up to the right to argue among themselves.Obama wanted to have this finished before election time(he was in a panic over it).He wants no balanced budget,and higher taxes.Um thanx for the input president duffus now could you pa-lease sit back down.. Who stood their ground?THE TEA PARTY.No wishy washy political holding on for dear life to their jobs there.They called the president a liar when he said we would default on our obligations. They told the Dems their ideas were more of the same, and they told the Rs that spending and taxes by any other name is still a filthy rose.I cant tell you what to expect from Obama .He is jello.Or the right. They still think you can ask these spending madmen to slow down nicely and have a chance in hell. But the tea party seems to have that thing that is in such short supply in the muck of washington……. CONVICTION! Those things they were sent to washington to clean up— they mean to do.I read everywhere after the tea party revolution that in no time flat they would be compromised by the beltway. Well it is obviously not that time yet.
You are absolutely right about this, although it would have been nice if you had mentioned a few more things.
First of all, Wasserman-Schultz did not even mention West by name, calling him “The gentleman from Florida” (as his later comment would prove he’s not).
And, another part of his response in an E-MAIL was ” If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up.” Say it to his face, like he sent an E-MAIL?
The real problem here was that the press has not, for the most part, covered all the other egregious things West has said, both before and after he was elected. A large portion of his comments are bigoted, sexist, and oddly enough, racist against black people. If the ‘left-wing media’ wasn’t in bed so much with the right-wing, maybe West would get the bad press he truly deserves.
A pox on both their houses!
Can America be any more humiliated and trashed?
Let’s see, when the fastist corporations have brought us low and desperate enough, they will ‘offer’ their ‘leadership’ and the those brought to desperation will agitate for all of us without piles of money to be their serfs and servants……and, being easily browbeaten and deceived, they will have their way…….not knowing that they will be owned by the ‘company store’ unto the third generation. And those of us with good sense will be sold out too…….
As I said, A pox on both their houses! The one group for not standing up for our country and the other for being willing to make captive all but their own economic class.
Unregulated capitalism is no friend of small d democracy.
Em Hoop.
You make the classic and oft used mistake of tying” unregulated capitalism”to lawless capitalism. Regulations are the imposition of government into the market place. Usually for the sole purpose of controlling and siphoning off the profits made within the free market. Libs would have you believe it is to create and enforce an equal playing field(we know it is to forcibly create an equal result)But that is separate from the laws of the land ,that all businesses big and small must adhere to..
What you wrote above sounds like the sad beliefs of class warfare.