New York Times Editorial—This Election Was Not About Obama

posted at 10:06 am on November 5, 2009 by Rovin
[ Elections ]    printer-friendly

It’s Time to Dust Off Those Life Preservers And Face The Cold Waters Below

This New York Times editorial contains the typical rhetorical spin most of us have come to expect from the grey lady.  The Times has, (in their prototypical fashion), “read their own tea leaves”, projecting their interpretation of the Nov. 2nd election results.  Ironically, while the Times sends a warning to their re-elected mayor, they see no reason to include the president, or the similar signs ahead for the Democratic Party.  In fact, the Times go out of their way to exclude Mr. Obama while at the same time making the feeble attempt to define/dissect the Republican Party.

“In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg narrowly won a third term. It is impossible to link that to President Obama — who nominally endorsed the Democrat, William Thompson Jr., but left little doubt that his affection lay with the mayor. Mr. Bloomberg won on competence. Voters who said they cared most about experience and knowledge of the city’s problems voted heavily for him.

The closeness of the race contained another message for Mr. Bloomberg: Tone down the arrogance. Voters who said they most valued a leader who understood them went overwhelmingly for Mr. Thompson. If the mayor wants to create a legacy of leadership to match his legacy of competence, he needs to be less imperious and listen more closely to his constituents.”  LINK  (emphasis mine)

How many ways could a similar message be conveyed to President Obama?  And why wouldn’t the Times over the past year remind Obama to “tone down the arrogance”, especially when the president has attained neither legacy, (to date), that could define leadership or competence.  While the August townhalls and nation-wide tea parties sent a clear message to the White House that a strong portion of the electorate is concerned about the overwhelming domestic spending policies, President Obama steers his ship—full steam ahead—without a hint of “listening more closely to his constituents”.  Like the Titanic heading straight for the iceberg, Obama is heeding none of the warnings laid out in front of him.  But why heed these warnings when the Times chooses to also ignore them:

“That election was not about Mr. Obama, although he is probably regretting the three visits he made there. It certainly was not a referendum on Republican orthodoxy, since Mr. Christie did not run as a social conservative. And while Mr. Christie did run a traditional anti-tax campaign, most voters polled on the eve of the election said they did not know much about his views.

In Virginia, Republican Robert McDonnell also avoided trademark social conservative issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. His two main pledges were to create jobs and fix the public transportation system. He handily beat R. Creigh Deeds, even in the state’s more Democratic and liberal precincts.”  LINK

Can you see how craftily the Times absolves the president of any culpability, while at the same time defining social conservatism as a liability?  Neither Christie or McDonnell campaigned on social conservative issues—-therefore they were elected.  With the state of the economy, (and the projections of Obama’s current and future spending policies), I would admit fiscal conservative Republicans will not need to project their social policies as a top priority under these conditions to get elected.  But I do believe that on the national level of next years election cycle, it would be folly to completely eliminate/alienate a strong base of social conservatives, (that are also fiscal conservatives), as the only vehicle to get elected.  The Times would have you believe they can not be connected, and would love to see the Republican Party split itself in two over the argument.

While the Times chooses to completely ignore the Maine referendum that protected and re-affirmed the state of traditional marriage, (for the thirty-first time)—a social policy that brought record numbers of voters to the polls—they did manage to define the priority of the liberal left, and make no bones about how they plan to resolve their spending practices:

“So what does this all mean for next year’s election? Above all, it means that voters want their leaders to focus on sound policy making, not party orthodoxy. And the No. 1 issue in every poll is the economy.

That means that Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress should not draw the wrong conclusion and get timid about vital tasks like health care reform or more stimulus spending to ensure that any recovery also creates more jobs. At some point, they are going to have to bite the bullet and raise taxes to pay for all of this.”  LINK  (emphasis mine)

Like the Titanic, has this sunk in yet?  Full speed ahead.  To hell with the warnings.  Pass the largest spending entitlement in the history of this nation.  Pass another stimulus/porkulus bill to complete the re-distribution process to pay off their electors and their special interest.  Pass all these programs and have the taxpayers feel the full brunt of government intervention and unfunded generational debt.

Just remember—the term “recovery”— in the case of the Titanic, meant collecting the bodies already expired.

Blowback

You must be logged in to post a comment.