So the same pundits who attack Obama for allegedly being standoffish and out of touch with rank and file Americans are attacking him for appearing on “The View,” which is arguably the ultimate in populist fare and adored by millions of rank and file Americans. Whereas if “The View” had invited him and Obama had declined on the basis that it was too undignified a forum for a sitting president, the conservative pundits would have been all over it, declaring that he was a snob who felt he was too important to be on a show that he had no trouble visiting when he was running for office.
One is left to wonder if there’s anything the guy could do that wouldn’t draw fire.
PAD
• 
John Stewart made a similar remark a week or so ago. Politics has just become this hyporcritical circus meant to disctract “normal” americans.
After 20 years of caring and voting, I can honestly say that I give up and I hope to just survive the decisions made by these horrible people.
“One is left to wonder if there’s anything the guy could do that wouldn’t draw fire.”
No, there isn’t. This has been an edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
I would say “Drink a nice tall glass of ice water”, but I’m sure someone could turn that around too…
“Ice water? Yeah, right – probably that French bottled water, that’s what those elitists drink. Good ol’ American Coca-Cola not good enough, huh?”
And if he drinks the coca-cola Jonathan mentions, he’ll be accused of encouraging obesity.
Not to mention alienating all those god fearing pepsi drinkers…
Exactly. And the same would be true if a Republican were President, as the pro-Democrat pundits treat GOP leaders the same way…and have for decades. Gotta love the two-party system, doncha?
Par for the course, unfortunately. If Obama were to personally develop a cure for cancer, the right-wing media would be attacking him for putting cancer treatment centers out of business.
Well cancer treatments cause autism you know. 😐
The funny thing is, I said the exact same thing a few years ago on this very blog. Of course, I was talking about Bush at the time.. but er…
It’s the politics of the blog age. Attack, attack, attack. The internet has made dìçkš of us all.
Fox News criticised Obama for appearing on “The View” rather than accepting an invitation to appear at the Boy scouts of America’s 100th Anniversary celebration. On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart said words to the effect of, if Obama had visited the Boy Scouts, Fox News would have criticised him for trying to indoctrinate the youth of America.
So yeah, whatever the guy does, he can’t win. At least when it comes to the right-wing pundits.
So true.
All this ‘cutting off the nose to spite the face’ – anger against this president – despite his achievements in only little less that two years in office – reminds me of when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball and Hank Aaron broke the Babe’s home run record.
The vile letters (IIRC are housed in the Baseball Hall of Fame) and harsh treatment those men received was just as brutal.
Although all presidents go through this type of conflict – it’s that ‘no win – no matter what he does’ factor you mentioned that is especially depressing.
Notably, though, Ben Stein was generally positive about the appearance, and he’s been pretty viciously partisan in recent years.
That was Stein’s appearance on The Joy Behar Show, correct?
If so, I noticed that too. He came off sensible as if he really had no problem giving – as the saying goes – ‘the devil his due.’
No.
And every president in my lifetime has had the exact same problem regarding criticism by pundits on the opposing side. You’re dámņëd if you do and dámņëd if you don’t.
But that’s politics.
Bush had the exact same treatment.
Yeah, I totally remember when all the lefty cable news talking heads were demanding that Bush be impeached for dereliction of duty after 9/11.
No, it wasn’t exactly the same.
It was incredibly rare when bush did something I supported, but when he did, I didn’t criticise him anyway. Or keep my mouth shut. I was vocal in the praise, because I hoped if people were vocal in their encouragement of certain types of behaviour, we might see more of it.
President Obama on the other hand, is criticised reflexively. And often with no substance behind it, other than partisan hatred.
Our Prime Minister was applauded for reading a top ten list on the Late Show.
I think every I’ve talked to who saw it was just embarrassed.
Situation would have been different if he’d actually been on for an interview though.
“One is left to wonder if there’s anything the guy could do that wouldn’t draw fire.”
In my experience, that’s pretty much the status quo for every president since LBJ.
Every Democratic president, certainly.
.
PAD
Every president, Republican or Democrat.
Please. The press coddled Reagan, and after 9/11, the notion of criticizing W. was declared to be treasonous. Furthermore the mechanisms in place for attacking Democratic presidents are far more pervasive and efficient.
.
PAD
The press coddled Reagan? I’m sure that’s news to every anchor and member of the Washington Press Corps back in the day. I doubt Sam Donaldson would agree with that characterization. Clark Clifford’s comment about Reagan being an “amicable dunce” seemed the accepted narrative in the press back then. When Iran-Contra broke out, one member of the press corps went so far as to say, “We haven’t had this much fun since Watergate.” When Reagan and Gorbachev started their meetings, Gorby was portrayed the sane man who was saving the world from Reagan’s Armageddon.
.
Yes, W. did have a brief period of insulation from bad press similar to what Clinton received after the OKC bombing. It didn’t last long for either.
.
The mechanisms for attacking Democrats are the Net, conservative talk radio and the opinion block on Fox News. I wouldn’t say they were any more pervasive than the Big 3 and CNN.
.
Furthermore, with exception of Rush Limbaugh, every conservative outlet was afraid to criticize Obama for the first seven or eight months of his administration. The fact that Obama’s poll numbers are tanking says more about the ineptness of his administration than it does about his critics. Entering office he had more political capital than any other newly elected president could dream of and he quickly squandered it.
Furthermore, with exception of Rush Limbaugh, every conservative outlet was afraid to criticize Obama for the first seven or eight months of his administration.
.
Seriously?
.
Hannity and Beck and O’Reilly and Malkin and Redstate and …
.
All were completely uncritical of Obama for months?
.
Please.
.
“Furthermore, with exception of Rush Limbaugh, every conservative outlet was afraid to criticize Obama for the first seven or eight months of his administration.”
.
Malcolm, I’m going to assume that this is some form of strange attempt at humor because the only way you could honestly believe this is if you had completely lost your mind.
.
Most of the conservatives in the media didn’t even wait for him to get elected before they started attacking him (with many things that weren’t even based in fact.) What you’ve posted has no relation to reality whatsoever.
Entering office he had more political capital than any other newly elected president could dream of and he quickly squandered it.
.
You mean the capital of claims that he was only elected because he was black, that he was a Muslim terrorist, and wasn’t even an American citizen? You know, the stuff that’s still being thrown about after almost 2 years?
.
The only ‘capital’ that any president has had recent was Bush after 9/11.
.
Yeah.
He had a 78% approval rating when he took office. Isn’t that capital? Don’t you think he wishes he had it back?
Isn’t that capital?
.
And if you look, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that some of those in Congress with the worse approval ratings are those that have been in Congress the longest.
.
In the end, approval ratings don’t mean a whole lot.
.
Not only that, but the notion that Obama ‘squandered’ any such capital I find to be a bs one as well. How exactly was the capital squandered when Obama took over an economic situation that nobody in their right mind would want? Well, save McCain, since he was oblivious to how badly things actually were.
I would bet that those in congress with the “worst’ approval ratings have considerably better approval ratings among the only voters who matter–the ones who vote for them.
.
It doesn’t matter if ted Kennedy was disliked by a lot of voters–in Massachusetts he won handily.
.
Obama, on the other hand, is a national candidate and having his latest USAGallup polls at 41% is not a good sign and probably goes a long way toward explaining why so many democratic politicians discover, to their regret, that they have other engagements when he comes to town.
.
In the end, approval ratings don’t mean a whole lot.
.
I disagree. Presidents are able to accomplish a lot more when they are popular than when they are not. If Obama were still at 78% ratings he could get recalcitrant congressmen to go along with stuff they may not entirely want to, with the promise that he would lend his popularity to them for fundraising and personal appearances.
.
As for whether he “squandered” it, that’s a matter of opinion. There were certainly many missteps along the way, as well as overexposure…it astonishes me how tired of Obama many seem to be after less than 2 years. But that may be more a matter of our internet culture.
Presidents are able to accomplish a lot more when they are popular than when they are not.
.
True. But then, according to Gallup, Bush II had a 90% approval rating 10 days after 9/11 . His father had an 89% in 1991.
.
But the next best after that since Nixon? Jimmy Carter had a 75% approval rating in 1977. Best for Reagan? 68%. Clinton? 73%. Obama had 69% right after his inauguration.
.
Yet, Bush I lost re-election, Reagan and Clinton did not.
.
So, while it may be a factor, it probably isn’t the most important one. 🙂
But I thought the question was of capital and using (and losing it). I’ll bet that all of the presidents mentioned were able to get a lot more done when they were riding high than when they were hitting their lows. It just makes sense.
.
fritter it away on inconsequentials and you may lose the opportunity to be in a position to do the requisite arm twisting it takes to get things done. I doubt that, to name an obvious example, anyone is exactly cowering in terror at the prospect of getting an angry phone call from the once powerful Charlie Rangel.
Ok, and how is criticizing Bush treasonous different that criticizing Obama racist?
“One is left to wonder if there’s anything the guy could do that wouldn’t draw fire.”
There never was. Even if the man was doing *everything* right, they’d just make up straw-man complaints about him. Oh, wait, they’re doing that anyway (see: birth certificate)…
Wildcat
“the opinion block on Fox News”
What other kind of block does Fox News have?
“One is left to wonder if there’s anything the guy could do that wouldn’t draw fire.”
It seems pretty unanimous that there is not… so WHY WON’T HE DO SOMETHING ANYHOW??? I mean, he knows that whatever he does, it’s going to draw fire… and there is NO compromising with the “other side” (not all Republicans, granted, but including some Democrats as well.
If he cannot please all of the people all of the time, he may as well go ahead and do the things that they accuse him of anyhow, and get some action done. Some people out there need to whine and complain about something, or they’ll just explode. Obama has to worry about running a country in trouble… he doesn’t have time to worry about unavoidable criticism.
.
I remain,
Sincerely,
Eric L. Sofer
x<]:o){
The Bad Clown…
A wise man said that you cannot reason with a rabid jackal, but you’ll have an easier time with a jackal than a pundit.
Not to be soft on Bush (a man I loathe), but as they say, you make your own luck, and Bush certainly believed in making his own press coverage.
It’s not that the Left is that much more forgiving of a right-wing President, it’s just that the Republicans were a lot more skilled and ruthless at propaganda. They managed to make it so that any criticism of Bush equated treason, in a particularly sensitive time of American history. That is genius.
The Democracts just don’t have that kind of opportunism.
But even that Bush magic didn’t last forever. Eventually, Bush-bashing became mainstream, so not even the supreme ability of Rove’s spin-doctors was able to suppress the opposition for very long.
Didn’t they (during Pres. Bush’s time in office) use some kind of ‘loyalty pledge’ (can’t remember actual name) that had to be signed by people when he had public appearances to screen out detractors?
Not familiar with the origin – did it begin with Pres. Bush or before his time?
I thought the criticism of the President appearing on The View was a bit sexist. There was no criticism regarding sitting and former presidents appearing on Jay Leno or David Letterman, both of which are outright comedy/variety shows. The View actually does discuss politics. As Jon Stewart mentioned, it’s hardly Jerry Springer. In many ways, it’s not even Oprah — and Bill Clinton has appeared on that show, as well.
Granted, I think it’s just less an issue of the President appearing on The View and more an outright “dámņëd if he does” perspective. Once that happens, it indicates that there is a hatred of someone that goes beyond anything reasonable.
And yes, many liberals had a similar reaction to President Bush. This does not effectively balance things out so much as underscore that political discourse in this country has degenerated into tribalistic one-upmanship.
“One is left to wonder if there’s anything the guy could do that wouldn’t draw fire.”
Nope. But it’s been that way forever, no matter what party was in office. SSDD. *shrug*
I’m beginning to accept such behavior as par for the course in fandom, where the same people that decry creators for trying something different (JMS’s current direction on Wonder Woman) also complain when things retell the old story (the Thor film has him banished by Odin to learn huimilty). It’s stupid, it’s contradictory, it’s hypocritical, but that’s fandom. And if that kind of thinking remained in regards to entertainment it would be easier to deal with.
Politics should not be entertainment, and shouldn’t be getting the same poorly thought out criticism.
only 30 something responses? Usually when PAD has put something political on his blog he has gotten around 32094809324 responses within a 24 hr period.
I think this just goes to show that people are tired of politics, politicians, palin, pundits, pollsters and the President.
I applaud your alliteration.
Obama went on the view because he knew, other than Elizabeth, he would get softball questions and mostly flattery. It was a waste of time.
D.N.,
“Fox News criticised Obama for appearing on “The View” rather than accepting an invitation to appear at the Boy scouts of America’s 100th Anniversary celebration. On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart said words to the effect of, if Obama had visited the Boy Scouts, Fox News would have criticised him for trying to indoctrinate the youth of America.
So yeah, whatever the guy does, he can’t win. At least when it comes to the right-wing pundits.”
.
Oh, bûllšhìŧ. Addressing an organization like the Boy Scouts should have on such an important milestone would have been a no-brainer, except for some on the rabid left who praised Obama for skipping them because they consider them too Christian or anti-gay.
.
The real shame is that the narrative has been that he skipped the Boy Scouts to go on “The View” – what, Barbara Walters would have said, “No. We’re booked for next week if Obama decided to appear at a later date? – but what really prevented him from appearing was going to fundraisers. If this was Bush and he spurned a similarly revered group, the Dwindling Three networks and the rest of the MSM would be raising holy hëll.
Malcolm,
.
“Furthermore, with exception of Rush Limbaugh, every conservative outlet was afraid to criticize Obama for the first seven or eight months of his administration.”
.
Every other point you made was valid, but this statement is ridiculous. Fox and right-wing personalities/radio hosts have held Obama’s feet to the fire since Day One, most of them fairly and validly, but still..you don’t think Malkin, Lowry, Coulter, Beck, the Drudge Report, National Review, The Weekly Standard, Hannity, Newsmax, Human Events, Andrew Breitbart or the Washington Times have been holding Obama to account since Day One. That statement deserves to be taken less seriously than Joy Behar
“One is left to wonder if there’s anything the guy could do that wouldn’t draw fire.”
‘There never was. Even if the man was doing *everything* right, they’d just make up straw-man complaints about him. Oh, wait, they’re doing that anyway (see: birth certificate)…
Wildcat’
.
Jesus Christ. That is such bûllšhìŧ. O’Reilly and virtually anyone with the slightest bunch of credibility rejects the birthers, yet like a robot toy that says the same three or four phrases it is continually brought up by his defenders as proof that he hasn’t gotten a fair shake.
.
You want loons or straw men arguments? How about the buffoons who wear “Bush Knew” t-shirts to COMIC conventions for god’s sake. Of course, no one would ever think about giving anyone with such loopy ideas like that 9/11 was an inside job a position as powerful as Green Jobs Czar or anything – oh, wait….
Craig,
“The only ‘capital’ that any president has had recent was Bush after 9/11”
.
Incorrect. Even Bush himself had capital after his re-election and gaining stronger control of Congress. But he squandered it by ineptly pushing Social security reform.
.
Clinton had it twice. When he was the fresh face and he squandered it over gays in the military and ineptly pushing healthcare reform. And even more when he was re-elected, with much more of the vote, and we all know how he squandered that. Just like Gingrich quickly squandered the capital he had on dumb mistakes. No, Newt was not a President, but he was a transformative figure and he blew a lot of possible achievements by overreaching.
“One is left to wonder if there’s anything the guy could do that wouldn’t draw fire.”
.
Capture Osama Bin Laden? Only Sheila Jackson Lee and Dennis Kucinich might not give him props for that..and maybe Code Pink…and MoveOn.Org…
Well, there were those during the Bush years who kept claiming that we HAD captured Osama and were just waiting for a politically opportune time to announce it. So if crazy conservatives take that page from the crazy liberal handbook they might criticize Obama for that. One would hope they would see how idiotic they would look now (as their opposites would have looked then) but who knows?
D.N.,
“Fox News criticised Obama for appearing on “The View” rather than accepting an invitation to appear at the Boy scouts of America’s 100th Anniversary celebration. On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart said words to the effect of, if Obama had visited the Boy Scouts, Fox News would have criticised him for trying to indoctrinate the youth of America.
So yeah, whatever the guy does, he can’t win. At least when it comes to the right-wing pundits.”
.
Oh, bûllšhìŧ. Addressing an organization like the Boy Scouts should have on such an important milestone would have been a no-brainer, except for some on the rabid left who praised Obama for skipping them because they consider them too Christian or anti-gay.>>
Jerome,
It’s not bûllšhìŧ. I’ve watched Fox for a few minutes by accident, and it’s like a parallel world run by Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, where all the hosts are nasty blonde ex-cheerleaders. And the so-called MSM has no ‘liberal bias,’ considering it’s owned by corporations.
-Neil
Assumes facts not in evidence–you would have to prove that being owned by a corporation precludes something from espousing liberal causes (The new York Times and Fox news are both corporate; are they equal in their POV?) and that corporations are by definition inimitable to liberal dogma.
.
A number of years ago Rupert Murdoch bought the Village Voice. By your logic it must have been transformed from a far left rag to a far right one; in truth, it stayed pretty much the same.
.
There may or may not be liberal bias in the media but the fact that corporations are in the mix is not terribly pertinent. If you think so you are likely to be shocked when you discover how many liberal politicians are happy to line their pockets with corporate cash.
Corporations themselves are not inherently conservative. Last I knew, Fortune 500 companies donate more to the DNC and their various candidates than they do to the Republicans.
Generally speaking, corporations (and many other big lobbies) donate to whoever they think has a good chance of winning. Often this means donating to both major candidates.
.
This is the fourth comment I’ve written for this column, but so far none of them have registered for some reason, even after a few days. (I know comments sometimes experience a delay before showing up.)
I’ll be checking back later to see if this is here. I can’t figure out what’s wrong. I haven’t said anything I’d expect PAD to block.
Yeah, my comment got through! I wonder what was stopping me before.
Oh well, back to your political fighting– sorry for the interruption.
Bill,
Since I work in the media, the most important thing at this point to most in the business are keeping our jobs and meeting deadlines. Most reporters don’t spend much time pondering how to slant the story nor do editors. Murdoch has decided the right is how he can make his money. I find it funny that most of the stuff the people on Fox news rail against…..are parts of broadcast shows on the Fox network. And Malcolm, all that means is that both political parties are inherently corporatist.
-Neil
I do not doubt the integrity of most people in journalism. Of course, bias is not always something one consciously and deliberately does.
.
Personally, and this is strictly my own opinion here, a lot of what is causing people in the field to fear for their jobs may be from the perception–quite correct in many cases–that conservatives are disregarded (at best) or treated as inherently motivated by evil (at worst).
.
certainly making a deliberate attempt to cater to a more liberal audience did not work for Newsweek. What really astonishes me is that they ever thought it would. Seems to me it would have made a lot more sense to really go balls to the walls as a “just the facts” investigative journal, leave the partisan opinion to the cable news, internet and talk radio crowd. Of course, it’s obvious now that any idea would have been better than what they ultimately did. (and the recent sale seems to have no other purpose than to keep the employees employed for a few more massively money losing years until the heirs of the 91 year old guy who bought it decide it isn’t worth throwing money at).
Bill,
You are totally wrong. It’s that people are becoming too stupid to read and cutting the info in newspapers doesn’t help. Nothing to do with the slant of things. But nice try!
Well, I can’t hope to win against such a well reasoned argument.
As someone who reads constantly but wouldn’t pick up a standard newspaper for free, I can tell you that the problem as far as I’m concerned is that most investigative journalism — excuse the expression — isn’t worth šhìŧ.
Is this because most journalists have gotten lazy and complacent, more concerned with access and not pìššìņg anyone off than presenting reality? Is it because corporate owners are slashing budgets and pushing ad space over content? Is it because readers tend to favor things with blood and sexiness and which back up whatever they’re already thinking?
Hëll, I dunno. All three trends are hugely evident. But 90% of everyone in each of those groups will insist that the problem falls completely on one or both of the other two and is in no way a reflection on themselves.
Good points, Andy. I may be wrong–totally wrong! about this but I suspect that Edward r Murrow would not have been caught dead frolicking with the Vice president and Chief of Staff in a squirt gun fight. Just a hunch.
.
On the other hand, some reporters have made the official transition from reporting on politicians to being on their staff and I guess I can’t blame them for trying to ingratiate themselves to potential future employers. Pretty embarrassing to those journalists who deserve the name, I would think.
Is this because most journalists have gotten lazy and complacent, more concerned with access and not pìššìņg anyone off than presenting reality? Is it because corporate owners are slashing budgets and pushing ad space over content? Is it because readers tend to favor things with blood and sexiness and which back up whatever they’re already thinking?>>
Andy, it’s a combination of all those things. Investigative reporting has gone dead, which means unless a story on either side is dropped into a reporter’s lap, nothing will be checked out. It seems the National Enquirer and The Daily Show are the only ones left doing this. And staffs have been slashed; we’re a paper outside NYC which barely covers any of the local pro sports teams and relies on AP for our ‘beat writers.’ Bill, sorry I was harsh, but the whole ‘liberal media bias’ is something that gets me POed.
Well, your reply here is a hëll of a lot more sensible than just blaming everything on the increased stupidity of the public.
.
I think the “liberal media bias” meme may be overstated (and I’ve always maintained that in the long run it can work against the people it supposedly helps–ignoring a liberal congressman’s corruption will only make them more corrupt and come to no good end) but it isn’t as though it is entirely made up. A favorite game on conservative websites is “Guess the Party” where they take a news story about some Politician In trouble and note that if they are a republican that fact is made clear while, too often, if the are a Democrat that fact is not deemed worthy of inclusion. Now, assuming–and it is an assumption on my part–that if one researched this and it turned out that in fact Republican malefactors are identified as such more often than their Democratic partners in crime, what possible explanation other than bias could there be?
It’s hard to talk about bias when Bush in a few years went from a guy that could do no wrong to a guy that could do no right. I think the media just tried to give people what they wanted. Dude is popular, we praise him. Not popular anymore, lets bash him.
There are a few issues that evidence a clearer bias, though. Except for the most right-wing media, everybody always seems to take the Palestinian side in the news, while not being all that charitable to non-Palestinian Muslims. Go figure.
Bill,
Your own bias for looking for such things? 🙂
Could be! But one that seems to get lots of positive reinforcement!