NY Times Super Thrilled With Obama’s Weird Election Loss Press Conference

While most pundits, news outlets, reporters, etc, even liberal ones, were wondering what in the heck is wrong with Mr. Obama, what alternative world he lives in, how detached he is, regarding his press conference Wednesday on getting shellacked, the NY Times editorial board loved it

Mr. Obama’s Offer to Republicans

President Obama refused on Wednesday to submit to the Republican narrative that his presidency effectively ended with the midterm elections.

He said he will not agree to the repeal of health care reform, as many Republicans demand. He will not sit around doing nothing while they look for the courage to enact immigration reform. He will continue to demand a higher minimum wage and new spending on public works, and expansion of early education programs.

“Obviously, Republicans had a good night,” he said, a quiet admission that his party got drubbed, losing control of the Senate, as well as at least 14 House seats. But he said he hopes to meet regularly with Republican leaders and work on areas where there is mutual agreement.

Strange that the Times doesn’t mention that Obama barely meets with his own Party members in Congress, and hasn’t bothered meeting with either them or Republicans regularly over the past 6 years. Why would he change now?

“What’s most important to the American people right now, the resounding message not just of this election, but basically the last several is: Get stuff done,” he said. “Don’t worry about the next election. Don’t worry about party affiliation. Do worry about our concerns.”

Get. Stuff. Done. That is so incredibly deep. A great plan, eh? Of course, he hasn’t really bothered with this the last 6 years, either.

Republicans ran on no message except that Mr. Obama was always wrong, and voters on Tuesday said they were angry with the country’s direction and political gridlock, taking their fury out on the president’s party because he is in charge. (As he noted, two-thirds of eligible voters didn’t even show up.)

I don’t remember the Times saying the same thing in 2006, when that’s exactly what Democrats did. I’m sure if we dug up an editorial from them for the 2006 midterms, we’d probably see them being thrilled and holding Bush responsible. As far as the two-thirds thing, that was a nice slap at Americans, and, furthermore, roughly three-fourths of US citizens did not vote for Obama in 2012. So, I guess he has no mandate, right?

Under those circumstances, Mr. Obama was justified in sticking with what he called “the principles that we’re fighting for,” which got him elected twice: creating job opportunity by expanding the economy, the top issue on the minds of most voters. There is no need to backtrack on goals like a higher minimum wage or expanded health insurance when most voters say they want those things.

Good grief. All the exit polls showed that people were sick of Obama and sick of his policies. He said his policies were on the ballot, and his policies lost. He and the NY Times want to continue those policies.

Mr. Obama said he would never agree to end the mandate, which would gut the health law, and there is no reason he should. Voters said they wanted the two parties to stop bickering and work harder, not erase the progress made in the last six years.

Interesting. The Times puts the burden on the GOP, even though the Democrat run Senate has been devoid of serious legislation for years. There’s been no actual budget during Obama’s term. Harry Reid avoids tough votes in order to protect Obama (though, as minority leader starting in 2015, I bet Reid is less inclined to do anything for Obama anymore). The House has sent dozens of economic bills to the Senate, all of which are tabled in committee. The NY Times is cheerleading for Obama to ignore the results of the midterms, and for Obama to keep on with his failed agenda.

Let’s flip over to Dana Milbank

“I hear you,” President Obama said to the voters who gave Democrats an electoral drubbing in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

But their message went in one presidential ear and out the other. (snip)

It’s true that voters are disgusted with both parties, but they were particularly unhappy with Obama. In exit polls, 33 percent said their votes were to show disapproval of him (19 percent said they were showing support). In The Post, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s chief of staffall but blamed Obama for the loss.

But Obama wasn’t about to acknowledge fault, or the need for change. He allowed that, as president, he has “a unique responsibility to try and make this town work.” But his solution was to defer responsibility: “I look forward to Republicans putting forward their governing agenda.”

No one should be surprised by Obama deferring responsibility: he’s done it his entire time in politics, and particularly when the buck is supposed to stop at his desk. It’s what he does best.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “NY Times Super Thrilled With Obama’s Weird Election Loss Press Conference”

  1. beachrat says:

    It’s not just what he does best — it’s the only thing he does.

  2. david7134 says:

    I am not sure that Obama really has control of the presidency. Certainly all presidents have advisors and men around him that direct the actions of the administration. I know from sources that Hillary actually ran the cabinet meetings rather than Bill, her favorite name for him when he spoke up was “dick head”. But with Obama I think that he is just a mouth and has no ability, thus the lack of meetings with Congress.

Pirate's Cove