U.S. News: “Obama’s flip-flops for the public good”

Via Ace, who sees this for the naked ex ante rationalization of tax hikes that it is. The worse the coverage gets, the more I think that the one silver lining in having Obama serve two terms will be watching the media discredit itself for twice as long. Even lefty magazines now admit openly how deeply in the tank the press is for its hero. What will it be like in 2016? What credibility will be left?

Overall, however, Obama has been praised for his flexibility, not condemned for his flip-flops. One reason, pollsters say, is that he seems such a contrast to the still-unpopular Bush, who was the opposite–stubborn and set in his ways. “When presented with a tough problem where a change of course was called for, Bush just dug in. He felt that it was weakness to change his mind,” says a senior Democratic strategist. He cites Bush’s positions to limit stem cell research, oppose legislation expanding healthcare for children, enact partial privatization of Social Security, and pursue the Iraq war. In contrast, he says, “Obama is willing to change course if he feels it’s needed. The American people will still support him if he is not seen as doing it for political reasons.”…

In the end, Americans will understand and accept a president who changes course, as long as he does it for the public good or to acknowledge new realities, not for crass partisan reasons or to curry favor with particular interest groups. But there is hell to pay if a president breaks a fundamental promise and can’t justify it. Perhaps the best example is George H. W. Bush, who violated his “read my lips–no new taxes” pledge from the 1988 campaign. Partly as a result, Bush lost his re-election bid in 1992.

I.e. lying to get elected = “pragmatism.” Incidentally, is promising not to raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year “a fundamental promise”? I’ve got a crazy hunch we’re going to find out it’s not, just like we’ll find out that inexplicably changing one’s position on whether soldiers in Iraq have died in vain is due to something other than “political reasons.” Seriously, not that I’m not any paragon of integrity, but I’m willing at least to defend even people who have smeared my business on national television when I think they’re right. Neither Michelle nor Ed nor I have held back from knocking the GOP when warranted either (as a cursory glance at the comments to many posts will prove), even though it’s against our political interest to do so. How can it be that big media is even more slanted than we are when we’re an overtly partisan right-wing site? How low can they go?

Actually, this low. Click the image to watch.

Blowback