Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama, Slayer of the GOP

The coverage of the latest wave of public-opinion polls has focused mostly on President Obama's ostensible political weaknesses. But the more important story may be the increased marginalization of his Republican opposition.

Three major polls out in the past week tell the same story: Of a Republican party that is widely disliked and mistrusted -- and that is becoming essentially irrelevant. Notably, on the single most polarizing aspect (the "public option") of the biggest political issue of the moment (Obama's proposed health-care overhaul), the public overwhelmingly supports Obama's position.

Republicans have essentially no power in the House. And even in the Senate, their ability to effectively block Obama is minimal without the cooperation of a handful of unreliable center-right Democrats.

In fact, the only real power Republicans have left is granted to them by a media culture that consistently clamors for bipartisan solutions, even as one of the parties increasingly represents a shrunken minority of hardened extremists.

Overall, public support for Obama remains very strong -- particularly considering all the unpleasantness he's having to deal with. The new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds his approval rating at 65 percent, with majority support for his handling of the economy, health care, international affairs, the threat of terrorism, the situation with Iran and global warming. His public support is slightly less than 50 percent in two areas: the budget deficit and the auto industry bailout.

By contrast, the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 36 percent of the public, down from 51 percent three years ago, and the lowest in Washington Post polling history, but for a one-time blip in late 1998 on the eve of the Republican House's impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Obama leads Congressional Republicans by wide margins when asked who they trust to handle the deficit (56 to 30); health care reform (55 to 27); the economy (55 to 31); and the threat of terrorism (55 to 34).

Yes, even while the poll coverage would have you believe that the deficit is Obama's big political vulnerability, it it actually the one issue the public most trusts Obama to handle -- at least when the alternative is putting Republicans in charge. The utter hypocrisy of Republicans lecturing Obama on the deficit is apparently not lost on the public.

Last week's New York Times/CBS News poll found Republicans with only a 28 percent favorability rating, the lowest ever in that poll. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News found only 23 percent of the public feels either very or somewhat positive about the GOP -- down from 44 percent four years ago, and an all-time low from that poll as well.

Don't forget the trend Nate Silver and others blogged about a few months ago, namely that "Republican party identification, which had already been at fairly low levels, in fact appears to have slumped further since Inauguration Day."

And for good measure, Susan Page writes in USA Today that a new USA Today/Gallup Poll finds that over the past two months, "expectations for the future have brightened significantly amid rising optimism about a stock market rebound and economic turnaround."

So how are the Republicans trying to stop the bleeding? Health reform is Obama's biggest legislative priority right now, and the GOP is making its big stand in opposition to a "public plan," which would allow people to purchase insurance from a government-run plan if they weren't happy with the private options.

But according to the Wall Street Journal poll, 76 percent of Americans consider a public option either extremely (41 percent) or quite (35 percent) important. A recent Employee Benefit Research Institute poll found that 83 percent either strongly (53 percent) or somewhat (30 percent) support the availability of a public plan.

Nevertheless, today's coverage focuses on Obama's weaknesses.

"Obama Approval: Trouble Ahead?" says the headline on Gary Langer's analysis for ABC News.

Dan Balz and Jon Cohen write in The Washington Post:

Barely half of Americans are now confident that President Obama's $787 billion stimulus measure will boost the economy, and the rapid rise in optimism about the state of the nation that followed the 2008 election has abated, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll....

The tempered public outlook has not significantly affected Obama's overall approval rating, which at 65 percent in the new survey outpaces the ratings of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton at similar points in their tenures. But new questions about the stimulus package's effectiveness underscore the stakes for the Obama administration in the months ahead as it pushes for big reforms in health care and energy at the same time it attempts to revive the nation's flagging economy.

With more evidence that the weakness narrative is setting in, Chris Cillizza blogs for The Washington Post that Obama's press conference today "lands at a rare weak moment for the Obama White House with a series of domestic and international challenges bearing down on him."

And Michael Falcone and Andy Barr write for Politico:

Eroding confidence in President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and ability to control spending has caused his approval ratings to wilt to their lowest levels since he took office, according to a spate of recent polls, a sign of political weakness that comes just as he most needs leverage on Capitol Hill.

Jamison Foser of Media Matters offers some perspective:

It's generally accepted that the news media obsess over horse-race political coverage at the expense of serious examinations of important issues. Media critics on the left, right, and in the middle tend to agree that there is too much focus on polling and not enough on policy, while many reporters seem proud of their focus on the game rather than the stakes. (Politico is, after all, called "Politico," not "Policy-o," and features blogs "on Politics," "on Hill intrigue," "on Gossip," and "on Campaigns" -- but not "on Policy." ABC News' senior White House correspondent calls his blog "Political Punch." And so on.)

But, he explains:

The media's obsessive focus on politics does not, however, mean their political assessments are of a high quality.... Calling the media's coverage of politics and policy "horse-race journalism" is an insult to horse-race journalism -- the Daily Racing Form isn't in the habit of advising readers to bet on the filly with the broken leg.

And Julian E. Zelizer, writing in a CNN commentary, quite accurately points out that Obama's real political vulnerability "is the tension between the left and center of the Democratic Party."

By Dan Froomkin  |  June 23, 2009; 11:31 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Quick Takes
Next: Obama vs. the News Cycle

Comments

As George Carlin stated: Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.

And as the Rpubs have shown their unwillingness to even consider anything remotely resembling representation FOR the people, I'd be very happy to see bipartisanship on healthcare reform go by the way side. Considering that Congress has their own tax-payer funded healthcare, I find their stance against reform to be duplicitous and aristocratic.

Posted by: cymric | June 23, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, the Republicans screaming that a public option will stifle competition, are either lying or ignorant. In many cases, especially in smaller states, the currently available health insurance is a monopoly. There is no competition, and a public option would, for the first time in recent years, provide some.

Posted by: whizbang9a | June 23, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

No one has ever accused the modern media to be capable of conducting even the simplest analysis on major policy issues. They blast what they don't like and heap un-qualified praise on policies that fit their ideologies. This has directly led to the dumbing down of journalism as a profession, and indirectly to a mis-informed American public.

Re: Obama "slaying Republicans" - what's really important is that people UNDERSTAND what Obama's policies are rather than who opposes them. However, WaPo only focuses on the "fact" that Republicans are not "widely" supported but that Obama's policies are "widely" supported, without offering ANY facts and even the slightest bit of investigation into what the public actually believes or the impact of BO's policies.

Posted by: bmayhewbz@hotmail.com | June 23, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The title of this article, "Obama, Slayer of the GOP" is a misnomer - Republicans did it to themselves.

Posted by: legendarypunk | June 23, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I have less trouble w/ Medicare than any other insurance bank...I mean company.

Posted by: drbarryf2004 | June 23, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Bipartisanship is a multi edged weapon, but it needs to be wielded VRY carefully. As long as the Democrats can plausibly claim that they would like to have the republicans on board, but the Republicans won't even try, the Democrats can drift farther and farther from actual bipartisanship, can get more and more to the left, and still put all the blame for problems on uncooperative republicans. That means, though, that in complicated negotiations like the work being done on the Health Care package, they must be seen to be leaning excessively to the whims of the Republicans. When, eventually, the final package gets nearly universal Republican opposition, and it also, "coincidentally" has a number of titles that are anathema to the republicans, especially a significant government run program for those who CAN'T or WON'T go with private sector insurance, they can make the result look like Republican obstructionism.

The Republicans ably abet this process by being agin' everything, while promising their own plan, which never seems to actualize, merely staying in the vapor ware beta stage. As long as their every offering of a Health Care Plan turns out to be that old Reaganite standby, "Give somebody a tax break and call it a comprehensive plan", the Dems can drift so far left that they make Trotsky look like a charter member of the John Birch Society and still get points for bipartisanship.

It is, though, a subtle process, and it is creeping incrementalism at its most glacial movement, but the Repubs seem totally willing to play their part. As long as they are willing to play their role, we have eight years to keep adding to, amending, amplifying, and extending the Health Care Act of 2009 until it looks like the mansion out in California with its hundreds of stairways to no where and rooms for nothing.

Here's to Mitch McConnell and the health care system he is letting us build over his petulance.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 23, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

It is now patently obvious that there is not a single luminary in the Republican party, albeit they all think that they are.

Posted by: vicsoir | June 23, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry. As soon as people get the bill for Obamas policies, there'll be a resurgence of Republicanism.

Posted by: ronjaboy | June 23, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama's approval is at its lowest. I have seen a dozen articles in the Post where Obama and Emanuel will not push certain issues because they fear the 2010 elections. The opposition is always a counter force regardless of the approval numbers.

Re: the public option. The majority are positive but the majority also admits that they have no idea of the cost. The numbers are going to catch up with Obama sooner rather than later-- whether it be inflation, interest rates, deficits, the refusal of Chinese to buy debt, etc. Obama would be advised to consult Jimmy Carter quickly on how to win a second term.

Posted by: hz9604 | June 23, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I did not support the republicans running up the debt, and don't support the dems doing the same. Sure they're hypocrites, but that does not they're in this instance wrong. It's telling that is always the Kool-Ade drinkers response to such criticism.

Your assertion there exists a media culture always clamouring for bipartisan solutions is laughable.

Posted by: cletus1 | June 23, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

These things run in cycle's. If you remember Bush's popularity was off the charts at the beginning of his first term. People were talking about the Democratic Party never winning another election lol.

Of course no one remembers this since most of Froomkins readers are either children and or amnesiatics, lol.

The Republicans will be back don't worry about that. Politics runs in cycles just like economics.

Posted by: DCDave11 | June 23, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Polls are not to be trusted anymore than any politician or their editorial hacks...no matter which party. Froomkin is no different, he uses other news articles as sources. I guess he is too lazy to do his own research or maybe call a few people outside the DC or NYC area codes to see what they think. Real journalists have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Posted by: staterighter | June 23, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Jeez Dan - careful. One could get fired for disseminating such reality-based information.

Posted by: dmls2000 | June 23, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that the majority of the country wants universal health care, but we still have to hear "The Party of No" call it socialism, and the Democratically controlled Congress sits on it's hands and does nothing.

Interesting that the President calls for cancelling the $62 Billion F-22 Raptor program and the $11.2 Billion Marine One Helicopter Program in order to keep spending down, but "The Party of No" rattles it's sabers, and the Democratically controlled Congress sits on it's hands and does nothing.

Then it's interesting that when the President decides to stay mum regarding the protests in Iraq, "The Party of No" wants to drag the President over the coals for being spineless for failing to make decisions, and the Democratically controlled Congress does nothing because they figure they have to much on their plates with domestic issues, but still does nothing about anything.

From my perspective, "The Party of No" continues on their same old mantra, and the Democratically controlled Congress hasn't figured out that it's a Democratically controlled Congress.

Either that, or all politicians are getting their palms greased and their wallets filled by the "K" Street Lobbyists.

Nawww, politicians wouldn't let money influence what's in the best interest of the people now, would they?

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | June 23, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Media is bored with Obama's popularity. They tell that the masses are obsessed with quick changes, quick action. Actually we don't have the time to worry about the minor political day to day events. We worry about the end results in long range. It is media that is obsessed with horse race items as they try to keep themselves relevant.

Posted by: SeedofChange | June 23, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

While most self-identified Democrats will mostly support Obama and the vast majority of Republicans oppose him, no matter what are his policies or the economy, the opinions of independents is likely to fluctuate over the next few to several years. The key to the outcome of elections in 2010 and 2012 will be
the extent to which independents continue to largely support Obama, with possible disillusionment by many progressives, who are not partisan Democrats, being a secondary factor.

The overall shape of the economy, especially inflation, the stock market, housing prices and employment, will largely determine whether the Democrats decisively continue to control both houses of Congress after the 2010 elections. While the Republicans, deservedly so in my opinion, are lowly regarded by most people, the political fortunes of both parties have often varied since the 1930's.

Many political commentators believed it would take many years for the GOP to recover from their overwhelming defeats in 1964 and thought Karl Rove, George Bush were creating a long era of Republican political dominance in 2002 and 2004.

Obama may be like Reagan in the minds of most independents, being widely liked personally, while many not approving of some important policies, with the likeability prevailing over actual policies in how a majority vote in the next presidential election. Way too early to tell though, the return of high inflation and a credible, relatively moderate GOP candidate then, could give the Republicans a slight to moderate chance of winning the White House.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | June 23, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"As soon as people get the bill for Obamas policies, there'll be a resurgence of Republicanism."

Hah, ha. ROTFLMA. Republicans and fiscal responsibility. That's a good one. Brings tears to my eyes I'm laughing so hard.

Let's recap: Ronald Reagan - adds $4 trillion to the debt. Moniker: The Original Budget Buster. Bill Clinton - leaves office with a $250 billion a year surplus. George Bush Jr.: adds $5 trillion to the national debt. W starts 2 wars totaling some $700 billion so far all paid for with a credit card. And W also added over $950 billion to the cost of Medicare for drug benefits.

Are people concerned about the debt and deficit? You bet they are. Do they know who is responsible for that debt? You bet they do.

Posted by: troyd2009 | June 23, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

No, there's Jindal, the guy who majored in biology as an undergrad and then became a creationist. Now there's brainpower for you. And based on his reading of that speech a few months ago, he's great at bedtime stories too.

Posted by: whizbang9a | June 23, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The republicans aren't being slayed by the President nor the Democratic party but rather by themselves. They are booting out any conservative that thinks and the idiots that are allowed to stay are so dumb there is no way the American people will listen to them much act on anything the republicans say. When was the last time these shouting right-wingers even qouted their messiah Palin?

Posted by: SteelWheel25 | June 23, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry. As soon as people get the bill for Obamas policies, there'll be a resurgence of Republicanism.

------------
This is the thinking that does them in.

The answer is "No."

Obama's plans are not perfect, but at least they acknowledge we, as a country, face emerging problems we must solve to remain competitive.

The Republcains whine, dependent on ancient PR models that have failed, those who advise their use to stupid to uderstand WHY and HOW they are undermining the US...

So, if the press stopped treating this core group of puppet right wing extremists as legitimate opponents, they'd fade?

Or would the Republicans be forced to actually compete with workable ideas rather than canned rhetoric?

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | June 23, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

staterighter: Dan's an opinion writer, not a reporter. There's a difference.

Posted by: whizbang9a | June 23, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry. As soon as people get the bill for Obamas policies, there'll be a resurgence of Republicanism.

Posted by: ronjaboy | June 23, 2009 12:50 PM

You mean like the backlash from bush's 8 years of robbing the treasury, and he never once put the bill for his lil' war on the books so now you say it's O's policies that are hurting us?
At least with O, we're getting something for our money.
You can't say that about the last 8 years of repub spending/profiteering.

Posted by: jime2000 | June 23, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

@DCDave11
Bush was below 50% popularity an going down until the country rallied behind him after 9/11. His popularity declined slowly but steadily, barely winning in 2004 and leaving with the lowest popularity of any president in the last 70 years.

Posted by: srw3 | June 23, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

No whizbang9a, Froom is an EX-opinion writer.

bye bye daniel

Posted by: popopo | June 23, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

staterighter: Dan's an opinion writer, not a reporter. There's a difference
---------
Mkay.

Make your argument, prove your point.

Dan's is an intelligent analysis of trend -- some get it right because they're bright, people who support neocons get it wrong.

And that's because they don't understand causative factor.


I really think you don't understand the function and reasoning behind analysis, btw.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | June 23, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Wrong, popopo. Just because the Post canned him doesn't change his work. Follow him at Nieman Watchdog, and wherever else he lands. It's the Post's loss.

Posted by: whizbang9a | June 23, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Um, what, spammer? Your comments usually don't make sense anyway, and this is more of the same.

Froomkin refers to himself as an opinion writer. That is, he takes what reports and opinions are available, thinks about them, and writes his critique. It's not like opinion writers must follow a particular method of thought.

What is the "function behind analysis"? That's a meaningless phrase. You analyze something you want to understand, for whatever purpose you might have. What's the "reasoning behind analysis"? Analysis is a subspecies of reasoning, you might say.

Posted by: whizbang9a | June 23, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

The weird DC bubble mindset/willful ignorance of the DC news media was apparent even today in the presser, when a reporter kept repeating the question (it actually sounded more like a statement)"Can you promise people that they will be able to keep their existing insurance plan even if their employer decides to switch to the government plan?" HUH? Do people get to keep their insurance plan when their employer switches plans now? I'm constantly impressed with the lameness of the questions asked at presidential news conferences.

Dan, keep it up, you're great.

Posted by: nickthap | June 23, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

In the Democratic party, the leading "thinkers" are typically the politicians themselves - such as Obama, Kennedy, Clinton - who put themselves before the public in electoral political tests. In the Republican Party, the "thinkers" are hopeless people - Rove, Limbaugh, the new Newt - who could NEVER win any election.

Posted by: tribute1 | June 23, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Americans view syphilis more favorably than the modern GOP. If the media concerned itself less with artificial balance and more with facts and analysis, Boehner and McConnell would have to pay for airtime.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | June 23, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

No one has ever accused the modern media to be capable of conducting even the simplest analysis on major policy issues. They blast what they don't like and heap un-qualified praise on policies that fit their ideologies. This has directly led to the dumbing down of journalism as a profession, and indirectly to a mis-informed American public.

Re: Obama "slaying Republicans" - what's really important is that people UNDERSTAND what Obama's policies are rather than who opposes them. However, WaPo only focuses on the "fact" that Republicans are not "widely" supported but that Obama's policies are "widely" supported, without offering ANY facts and even the slightest bit of investigation into what the public actually believes or the impact of BO's policies.

Posted by: bmayhewbz@hotmail.com | June 23, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Sounds as if your own ideology has slipped out here. The Republicans are a pathetic party of NO to ANYTHING that would BENEFIT the American people.

Posted by: mtravali | June 23, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama's approval is at its lowest. I have seen a dozen articles in the Post where Obama and Emanuel will not push certain issues because they fear the 2010 elections. The opposition is always a counter force regardless of the approval numbers.

Re: the public option. The majority are positive but the majority also admits that they have no idea of the cost. The numbers are going to catch up with Obama sooner rather than later-- whether it be inflation, interest rates, deficits, the refusal of Chinese to buy debt, etc. Obama would be advised to consult Jimmy Carter quickly on how to win a second term.

Posted by: hz9604 | June 23, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Why would the public care about the cost, they didn't care about Iraq and the 3 TRILLION dollars it has cost us. Get out of there now and we can pay for everyone's benefits without worry.

Posted by: mtravali | June 23, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I would publish this story on the front page of the New York Times.

Posted by: NeilSagan | June 23, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Gotta agree with Legendary, the Republican Party did this to themselves.

Having wiped out the financial industry, destroyed without a trace the progress towards national fiscal discipline instituted by President Clinton, leaving the nation's housing stock burning down and the globe covered with charred human flesh, it is hard to imagine Republicans could win a single local election ever again, much less a national one.

But no one ever went broke taking the American public for effing idiots with short memories.

Posted by: DrVelocity | June 23, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

It's a wonder that the Repubtard Party of No! still garners 36% supports - obviously from the conservatards and the Repubtards.

Posted by: TalkingHead1 | June 23, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

gosh, you'd never know obama's public support remains so strong judged by the yammerings of the wdc commentariat -- who obsess endlessly over the gop talking points they've been fed. keep guzzling, chip reid, david gregory, et al... your numbers will be polling equal to the republicans -- if they aren't already.

Posted by: mycomment | June 23, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Bipartisanship,, as they say in my old neck of the woods - fuggedaboudit!!Obambi tried, even fed them hot dogs and burgers and what did he get? Eric Cantor, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Oh Really, Boehner and a chorus of naysayers. Obambi needs to pull his troops in line and just steamroll the Rethuglicans and turn them into pavement.

Posted by: bgreston | June 23, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Repugs just don't get it, they are still living in the post 9/11 Bush world, and we've moved on.

Hate, anger and fear ain't gonna work no more for the GOP, they will actually need to govern with ideas.

Posted by: beenthere3 | June 23, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a new improved version of Jimmy Carter. He's hip, cool, and black.

The media built him, and they'll do their best to protect him.

The public will tire of the hype and move on...his legacy secured the second he took office...his experiments in governing likely will go down as failures...like the 60's ideals they were built upon.

Posted by: ram_xxx_ram | June 23, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes. The increasingly irrelevanr repugnicans:

1. homophobic neanderthals
2. tax-phobic cockroaches
3. selfish cowards
4. religious hypocrites
5. mean spirited jackasses
6. hateful mamma's boys
7. sexually repressed perverts
8. anal retentive crybabies
9. self-righteous simpletons
10. misogynists
11. rednecks
12. anti-intellectuals
13. paranoid schizophrenics
13. callous slugs
14. greedy hogs
15. stupid, stupid, stupid

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 23, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes. The increasingly irrelevanr liberals:

1. reverse racists
2. tax-phobic cockroaches
3. selfish cowards
4. hypocrites
5. mean spirited jackasses
6. intolerant
7. prejudiced
8. discriminatory
9. racially biased

Posted by: ram_xxx_ram | June 23, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Since 1968, Republicans have dominated American national politics. For 70% of the past 40 years the GOP has owned the White House. Often, they have controlled the House or Senate. From 1994 to 2006 the GOP controlled the Oval Office, the House and Senate. During those 40 years, Pentagon spending increased exponentially. Regulatory agencies basically closed up shop. Big business was given carte blance to do as they wished to increase profits. And they did. Witness the stupefying profits amassed by Exxon-Mobile. Exxon-Mobile exemplifies another signature of the past four Republican decades: unrestrained mergers of big business into mega-business and the concomitant reduction in competition. Media companies have increasingly been owned by ultra-conservatives like Lowry Mays of Clear Channel, Rupert Murdoch of Fox and even NBC, owned by General Electric, a major make of war machines, a-k-a, 'defense contractor'. This was all punctuated by the egregious excesses of the Bush administration, the price tag for which has yet to be totaled. Then along comes Obama. And all these GOP-friendly power centers are scared out of their wits. Their precious and profitable status quo is being threatened. So, look out America. The Republican-leaning national media will be glutted with countless messages preaching fear and loathing at what Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress are trying to accomplish: a fair deal for the 'average' American working man and woman and more fair society for everyone, young, old, and in the middle. So, be afraid, Americans, of a 'public option' for health care for look at how that has destroyed the societies of all of Western Europe, Great Britain, Canada, and other progressive societies around the world with public health care. Better yet, ignore those fear-mongering lies, and let's join our new president in creating a better, more hopeful society for us all.

Posted by: ctenwith | June 23, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

as interesting as it is to read of obama slaying republicans, how goes it with you, freddie hiatt and controlling shareholders of WaPo?

hundreds (thousands?) of reader complaints and multiple (dozens?) of cancelled WaPo subscriptions later, it doesn't take Nobel prize winning economist (like Krugman) to figure out WaPo made a judgemental boo-boo firing you (their multi-year iraq invasion cheerleading seemed hard to stomach, but now we have this firing outrage to try to choke down).

now that the shiites have hit the fan as it were, why not rub it in their faces in the time remaining?

how's about regular updates on how your employment search is going -- which would surely clump freddie hiatt's panties in a bunch and might even generate some auction action to jack up your future compensation elsewhere? you could even run a contest for readers to guess where you will end up (like that 'Name Bristol's Baby' contest where the winning entries were 'Carport' and 'Chastity').

if you do run a contest for where you're headed next, our first picks would be the Oakland Raiders or Kansas City -- or you could go to New York (by taking kristol's open slot at NYT?) thus leaving washington and WaPo in the wake of modern-day 'Curse of The Bambino'.

good hunting kiddo; Boola-Boola and keep us posted on your progress.

Posted by: ithejury | June 23, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Yes, let's do blame people who were in elementary school during the '60s for their governing ideas 40 years later. Makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. By the way - just what are those "ideas from the 1960's" that President Obama's governance is based on? I really don't recall President Johnson supporting a comprehensive health plan; and boy, the Civil Rights legislation passed during the '60's really sucked.

Or are you complaining about our mismanagment of involvement in a localized civil war? THOSE ideas from the '60's sure stayed around for 40 years, though.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | June 23, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Froomkin makes a very good point. The media is so obsessed with creating conflict even when none is there that they end up propping up the moribund GOP to present them as a competitive alternative to Obama and the Democrats.

The problem for the GOP is that the public has a memory, too. They remember the GOP disinformation campaign that killed off health care reform during the Clinton years, so when the Republicans trot out the same lies this time, the public quickly recognizes the usual snake oil.

The press, on the other hand, is incredibly lazy. They don't really understand the complexities of the health care reform issue, and simply echo back whatever they hear without any analysis.

Obama has astutely recognized this dynamic and has taken advantage of it. By providing succinct explanations for what he's trying to do, he disarms public fears that otherwise would be blown into a panic by sensationalistic journalism and disinformation from the Republicans and the insurance industry.

Posted by: jheath531 | June 23, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

President Obama's honeymoon is ending as Americans grow steadily more impatient for visible signs of "improvement" or "progress" or "whatever you want to call it." It's unavoidable. Regardless of party affiliation or the state of the union, every president has experienced this and Obama will be no exception. Given the economy, two wars, the deficit (for which Bush is largely responsible), and the healthcare crisis, Obama is holding his own remarkably well with regard to his approval rating.

He listens to the public, conveys empathy for the millions of struggling Americans, and works his tail off in trying to repair a broken country. And he does these things, all the while maintaining his composure and self-confidence. You may not agree with his means, his priorities, his politics, or his perspectives, but at the very least, recognize his resolve and dedication.

President Obama has made mistakes and will go on to commit further, even more spectacular blunders until his final day in office. But, Americans will cut him some slack, recognizing the energy and intelligence he put forth to clean up a mess not of his own making. Because what the voting population truly abhors are elected officials who spew bile and rhetoric rather than solutions in times of crisis, or vote based on inflexible ideologies rather than the realities of their constituents.

GOP? You Rock My World!!!

Posted by: tguaglia | June 23, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Froomykins! I heard a vicious rumor you got sh*tcanned. I'll truly miss your wild hyperbole. Who knew that having an extreme left wing pontificator performing a "White House Watch" on an extreme left wing pontificator President would be as boring and predictable as the collapse of liberal media as a whole? One might hope that you'd appreciate the subtle irony of actually owing your column and livelihood to Bush, and that Obama's election effectively got you fired. But self-reflection has clearly never been a liberal's strong suit. Nonetheless, you may have time for it while shuffling along in the unemployment line telling everyone around you what a freakin' genius Obama is and how this 10+% unemployment will turn around "any day now". Ha ha hahahahahaha.

Posted by: zippyspeed | June 23, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Obama's popular.. New President's usally are, but that's mainly because he hasn't moved to the Left.. (i.e. do the things Froomkin wanted him to do.) You see the country is in the middle.. the country didn't move to he Democrats the Democrats moved to where the country is. Meanwhile those low poll ratings.. well look at Pelosi she's the lowest ever.. in the 30's. Reid he's also in the 30's.. lower than the other Nevada Senator and Ensign is in the middle of a sex scandel... Obama will be judged in 3 years.. but the Congressial elections are in 2010.. Judging from Reid and Pelosi.. Republicans ae not in that bad of shape...

Posted by: sovine08 | June 23, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what would happen if the White House asked all the insurance companies to give their best bid on covering the kind of health care members of Congress get, then ask Congressional members if they would rather pay any of those bids over their current taxpayer coverage? Then publish the amount of campaign contributions given to every member of Congress by HMO's and insurance companies. I don't see how it can get much clearer that Senators are supporting private corporations over the public good, but let's try.

Posted by: shaman7214 | June 23, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama made Sen. Ensign boff his employee? Obama made Gov. Sanford go "hiking" and not tell anyone?

These are self-inflicted wounds to a party already lying on the floor suffering from massive self-inflicted wounds, such as nominating bimbo Palin for veep.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 23, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

The republicons are on the wrong side of virtually every issue. Their body of lies that they used for the past few decades to dupe just enough rubes to win elections fell completely apart during the bush catastrophy. They want people to bekleive things that are so easily demostrably false that they really look like jerks for even saying them any more. When you hear republicons claiming that global warming is a hoax as Pacific islands sink under the ocean and the ices caps dissappear, as republicons claim that deregulation will make health care more affordable and available as the numbers of uninsured rise at alost as fast a rate as premiums, when republicons argue that torture is an American value, that murder is "pro-life" that responsible government is bad, that illegal wars are a good idea, that violating civil rights is positive, that trashing the environment is good for the country, that antagonizing the world makes us safer -- how can anyone take them seriously? Couple this to the changing demographics and we are in for either an entirely differetn republicon party in the next decade, or they will dissappear and be replaced by a new party that speaks to a larger coalition. We may enter a decade or two period like that following the dissolution of the Federalists - usually refered to as the "Era of Good Feelings." One could certainly think of a period without the rearends who have become the core of the gop as an era of good feelings. Not hearing the inane nonsesne of the whacko right like haniti, limbow, oreally, newtered and kkkoulter, the leaders of the republicon party, would certainly be good for America and good for the world.

Posted by: John1263 | June 23, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Back to he Obama b@tt kissing, must be trying to get a job with the administration after being canned by the WAPO.......

Posted by: pwaa | June 23, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

The Republican brand may be in trouble but the thieves on Wall Street are still plundering and ripping off the US shareholder, worker and taxpayer without any accountability. Same goes for the military-industrial racket. It is strange that in spite of being so unpopular, the Republicans keep getting what they want.

Posted by: danigo | June 23, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, have not read the actual polling data and was therefore pleasantly suprised by Mr. Froomkin's analysis. I was aware of overwhelming support for health care reform and the public option though. I daresay that the Obama Administration correctly interprets the polling data as well. Perhaps, this is why the President remains comfortably cool. Nevertheless, only a fool would believe the game is over for health care negotiations. I remain hopeful that the good guys will win and America will again prosper. (This is an issue that will contribute mightily to renewed prosperity in the United States.)

Posted by: GeorgeSeals | June 23, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Hurrah to Jamison Foser: "Calling the media's coverage of politics and policy "horse-race journalism" is an insult to horse-race journalism -- the Daily Racing Form isn't in the habit of advising readers to bet on the filly with the broken leg."
Lazy, referential, "inside baseball" political journalism is the norm these days. Last year's coverage was, for the most part, an abomination -- puffing up a good "competition" angle months after the story had its final grafs in cold type. So long as there is a Faux News and Rush Limbaugh wannabees out there, a good portion of the 4th Estate will follow the lemmings and write these stupid Chicken Little stories. The thing that irks me is that, as Julian Zelizer points out, the real story is Obama's abandonment of his many pledges to the left and the resulting tension there. I was an avid Obama supporter, contributor, blogger etc. but I haven't given one penny since Rick Warren ushered in the reality of the Obama presidency. Don't ask, don't tell? Don't worry! Close Guantanamo? Aspirational! Release evidence? No way. DOMA? Just fine with Michelle, Malia, Sasha and Bo (oh, and me, too). I could go on and on and on and on. Based on his tepid moral stances thus far he may still get my vote (if there's no progressive alternative in the primaries) but he's lost my support and my heart. And that's the story not being told while chasing the 21% bloviators on the Hill.

Posted by: Omyobama | June 23, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama will remain a celebrity until the country collapses under the weight of the unprecedented debt and his socialist agenda. Then the voters will realize that he was not properly vetted and that they had no idea that he was a radical extremist.Only then will they understand and rue the day that they chose him to preside over the demise of the country.

Posted by: tsapp77 | June 23, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Gee whiz Froomie...

I remember way back years ago... you wrote about Bush's Poll creep coming down from its highs. It was still up, but you said it was showing Bush as becoming increasing unpopular.

Yet now I see, you are completely ignoring the numerous polls showing a declining trend in Obama's favorability and a growing upward trend in his unfavorability. Instead you are, again, hell bent on beating the Republican party into the mush, with your personal partisan political views that have been evident since day one that you had this post.

It has never been about reporting on the White House, its about picking the articles that fit your motives and views, and then using those to try and sucker-punch the Right in your daily blogs.

The actual utter hipocracy is Froomkin claiming to be an accountability watchdog of the Whitehouse, when in actuality, he spends most of his time as an attack dog for the left, which serves his own world views.

Buh-bye Froomiekins... watch out for that door.

Posted by: alutz08 | June 23, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Some very interesting viewpoints are expressed in the above article. President Obama is proving that Republicans are totally devoid of ideas and relevance.

Posted by: EarlC | June 23, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

38As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, 39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

Mark 12

Posted by: Pitt_Muscle | June 23, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

President Barach Obama is ruining the economy of the United States. His method is a slow and articulate with a constant smile which belies his hatred of our economic status in the world.

His most powerfull weapon is convincing the American people that only he can solve our economic problems, which means total anailation of a free market society and substitution with a complete and nonreversible socialist society.His main method is throwing billions and sometimes trillions of dollars at economic problems he knows nothing about.The reaction to his methods are similiar to a patient dieing from cancer- what have I got to loose? Well in this case we are loosing our democracy and free market.Even the democrats are beginning to understand the economic and political devastion taking place and are beginning to understand the path to socialism is worse than anything this great country has ever experienced.
The only remedy is for our country to enable the Republican party to regain its influence and counter balance the anarchy of the new socialist democratic party headed by Barach Hussein Obama.

Posted by: a4853916 | June 23, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Foomkin: lay off the crack pipe and stop drooling over the Weiner in the White House!!! This comment is RIDICULOUS as I am pretty confident that the vast majority of citizens are NOT happy with the Weinies health care plan.

"Notably, on the single most polarizing aspect (the "public option") of the biggest political issue of the moment (Obama's proposed health-care overhaul), the public overwhelmingly supports Obama's position."

LOL.....LMAO....ROFLMAO.......geeeshhhhh


Seriously, grandfather the Unions so that do not have to pay taxes on their health care while those NOT belonging to a union are forced to pay taxes on theirs? I hear lawsuits all-the-way to the Supreme Court on this one.

JESUS......I would love to see the people YOU and your "friends" have polled because the vast majority of LEGAL CITIZENS do NOT agree with the current health care reform.

Obama is nothing more than an inexperienced puppet doing whatever his puppet masters tell him (Michelle, Pelosi, Reid, Rahm, Ayers, ACORN, etc...etc..).

Posted by: kmday | June 23, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Froomkin writes:

"...the only real power Republicans have left is granted to them by a media culture that consistently clamors for bipartisan solutions, even as one of the parties increasingly represents a shrunken minority of hardened extremists....

"Nevertheless, today's coverage focuses on Obama's weaknesses....

"...the weakness narrative is setting in...."

Great stuff. I'm going to miss you in these pages, Mr. Froomkin - though I trust I'll find you in others somewhere.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | June 23, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Some very interesting viewpoints are expressed in the above article. President Obama is proving that Republicans are totally devoid of ideas and relevance.

Posted by: EarlC
=========================================

Earl, the only thing Obama is proving is that he knows how to HIGHJACK the systems and make you believe he knows what the hell he is doing.

Seriously, what is he proving? That Republicans, Independents and even some Democrats within his own party are questioning his health care reform bill??

Could that be possible? Is it really possible that there are more people than not who do not buy into his BS???

I think so.

The purpose of his bill, so he says, is to make sure that the 45 million plus who do not have insurance are covered.

The fact: if the bill goes forward as it is, 25+ million will STILL BE UNINSURED because so of those who are currently uninsured will stay that way while some that are now will lose their current health care coverage.

Fact: The bill as it stands right now will cost TAX PAYING CITIZENS anywhere from
$1 trillion to $1.6 trillion+ and that does not even cover all those who do not have coverage.

Fact: The bill as is stands right now will grandfather unions from paying taxes on private health care while those whom do not belong to unions will be forced to pay taxes on their private health care.

fact: Nationalized health care means you have someone on the governments payroll telling you when you can have your procedure if you can even get it.

Not much difference from private insurance.

Fact: You wait a lot longer to get a procedure IF ALLOWED to get the procedure versus with private insurance.

Why rush the bill through right now? Why the rush job, why not work out the issue, let the numbers make sense and stop screwing over the American people. Then and only send it to the house and senate for a vote.

This bill as it stands right now is a joke, nothing short of highway robbery and a financial burden to this country.

Posted by: kmday | June 23, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Give Gov Sanford credit. He was trying to get in touch with the fundamentalist wing of the Republican party by channeling Aimee Semple McPherson.

But someone ought to inventory the footwear he supposedly took with him.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 23, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

The mistake that commenters here are making about the "cost" of the public option is this: it will cost quite a bit less than private insurance, and much less costly than no insurance. They will find a way to pay for it. It will be called taxes, and premiums for those who can afford it. And that will be lower cost than any of the for-profit insuance companies. Cost? So it's okay to pay $600 a month to a private company, and not okay to pay, say, $150 to Medicare Plus?

Posted by: jimhass | June 23, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a very dangerous man. He's like a person you think you can trust to drive your car but is actually blind. This man will destroy America.

Posted by: spidermean2 | June 23, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Froomkin is employing a common tactic among leftists. He is labeling his opponents instead of refuting their arguments. He is conditioning his readers through repetition of phrases like "hardened extremists." The current fad is to refer to the middle right as the far right, thereby defining conservatives out of public acceptance. It takes much less mental effort to call someone like Thomas Sowell an "ultraconservative" than it does to rationally refute his arguments. Try it, Dan, I dare you.
Should Dan Froomkin's talk mean something to you? That hinges on how you decide your political stances. If you have definable principles and decide your support of a policy based on those principles, then his talk of "overwhelming majorities" and "marginalization" would be utterly meaningless to you. If, however, you simply follow the rest of the herd like a scared sheep, then this article is very helpful in reinforcing your support for Obama. Dan thinks (and sadly, he is right) that most of you will make up your minds based on what the majority is doing.

Posted by: grdstdnt | June 23, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

There was a time when everyone "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe, and only a small, marginalized band of hardened extremists thought otherwise. Dan Froomkin would surely not have been among them.

Posted by: grdstdnt | June 23, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cymric
"And as the Rpubs have shown their unwillingness to even consider anything remotely resembling representation FOR the people, I'd be very happy to see bipartisanship on healthcare reform go by the way side.
==================================
Another Obama-Nutzi speaks....

1. I pay for my own health insurance. What's other people's problems?

2. Why am I going to be taxed for my medical benefits, but Congress is pushing to have union members exempt from taxation?

3. Why should I be responsible for someone else's lifestyle, poor choices or bad habits?

4. The high cost of medical services is based upon the Federal Medicare and Medicaid paying only 10 cents on the dollar.

5. People, who are behind the 8-ball are entitled to Medicaid. What's the problem?

6. If your physician doesn't want to take the new NHS insurance, what good is it?

7. Got 1.6 Trillion Dollars? Where is the money going to come from?

The US Government keeps taking more and more of my paycheck, that I work for. It makes me wonder, why work and maybe I shgould go on the dole?

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | June 23, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

The only demographic where Republicans are advancing is the one labeled "Far Rural". And this is the demographic that is most rapidly shrinking.

And there is a good argument that Texas will flip and become blue state as the current - and not the immigrant - Hispanic population comes of age, and as the influx of educated professionals displaces the current tribe of rural rubes and goobers.

If this happens, and it appears that it will happen between 2012 and 2016, then we will probably never again have to endure a Republican President in our lifetimes.

Posted by: Ms_Morgan | June 23, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

>Not to worry. As soon as people get the bill for Obamas policies, there'll be a >resurgence of Republicanism.

Uh huh. Right. You mean like the 9 trillion dollar bill for Republican policies, which we got stuck with before Obama even entered office? Why do you think putting the clowns who got us into this mess back into power will help?

Posted by: jneps | June 23, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Who are these Republicans of which you speak?

Are they something like the Whig Party?

Cause I haven't heard anything but some whining about taxes from those guys.

And zero ideas.

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 23, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Rush: Now why don't you just drop them pants. Take them right off!
Mark Sanford: Oh Rush - you're the perfect hillie billie for me. Thanks for hiking out here.
Rush: I'm not kidding Mark - drop them drawers! I'm going to get me a piece of governor poontang.
Mark S.: OK Rush - what happens in Appalachia, stays in Appalachia. God Bless -esss- essssss - ahhggghhggg - Sooeeeeeeeyyyyyyeeeyyyyyyy....

Posted by: DontGetIt | June 23, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting how the Republicans deal the hard data pointing to Obama's popularity and their own demise.

They simply deny the data and and try to divert attention from it by conducting silly and childish personal attacks.

As an example: "Everyone knows that all people in the world hate Obama" or "Everyone knows that all polls lie except those favoring the GOP" or Everyone knows that the media of the entire free world has entered into a dark conspiracy with 'THEM' to make Republicans look bad", etc.

I'm glad to see these childish and overly emotional people going the way of the dinosaurs.

Posted by: Ms_Morgan | June 23, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Well, another burst of noisome flatulence from Laid-Off Danny. I assume we are getting this treat because the Post is finally paying you what you're worth.

Bye Danny - we won't miss ya any more the other house flies that come around in summer.

Posted by: hill_marty | June 23, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Dan, I'm sorry you're going. I never confused this blog as reporting or as objective. It has been a highly partisan left-leaning (lurching?) screed. But at least it was honest in its bias. There are other people writing for WaPo who pretend to be objective while being almost as partisan as Froomkin, both on the left and the right.

Anyway, good luck on your future, Dan.

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 23, 2009 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Marginalized, irrelevant, obsolete, decrepit, corrupt and history.
Says it all.
Thank you, Mr. Froomkin.
You saw what was coming - or at least you admitted it - before anybody else at the Washington Post.

Now stick to your principles and never mention "them" by name again.

Posted by: wardropper | June 23, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for presenting a truthful evaluation of the polling data rather than trying to find something negative to report about Obama. You may be the only writer in the Post who is so inclined. That may be why we won't be hearing from you much longer. You will be missed.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | June 23, 2009 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Here's a news bulletin Dan--the Republicans are on the outs because they lack a cogent alternative vision to Obama and are now essentially a leaderless party.

They did this all by themselves, without any help from Obama. To suggest otherwise, is giving him way more credit than is due.

Sorry to hear about your layoff; given all the water you've been carrying for Obama, I'm sure there's a position somewhere over at the WH where those skills can be best used.

Posted by: mr986 | June 23, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse


Welcome back Dan,
Jeez, I could swear I read somewhere recently that you had been fired from the Post. Somebody must have been mistaken.

Posted by: stevel1 | June 23, 2009 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

You know what?

Even if Obama's stimulus plan is not working, which I doubt, I would rather see the stimulus plan not work, then to have Republicans in control of the White House and the Congress again.

The Republicans have destroyed this country in more ways than one, and Mr. Obama stimulating the economy is the least of this country's problems, as far as I am concerned.

The folks that have been leading and running the Republican Party lately are mean and vicious vipers.

Best of Luck with your future endeavor's.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | June 23, 2009 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, too many Americans are still engrossed in hero worship of Obama. They choose to ignore Obama's slick signing of bills that haven't been read by Congress much less by him; his executive orders that are shams (e.g., paying millions to convince other countries to accept Gitmo prisoners, no more torture but rendition is still OK). What he's accomplished to date is spending trillions borrowed from China to no effect. The jobless rate is still rising. But all will be well in Obama's world as long as his teleprompters function and if he and Michelle can have occasional "date nights" at taxpayer expense.

Posted by: judithod | June 23, 2009 10:36 PM | Report abuse

The only remedy is for our country to enable the Republican party to regain its influence and counter balance the anarchy of the new socialist democratic party headed by Barach Hussein Obama.

Posted by: a4853916 | June 23, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

------------------------------

BwaHaHaHaHaHaHa !

You are hysterical. I know it's not proper to laugh at those suffering from incapacitating delusions, but ...

BwaHaHaHaHaHaHa !

(holding my splitting sides, wiping the tear from my eye).

Whew!

Posted by: phoenixresearch | June 23, 2009 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Froomkin is leaving the Post? Back to remedial journalism school, I guess. The froomkin statement about Americans being overwhelmingly in favor of Obama's "plan" (when no one really knows what Obama's plan is) is the most foolish thing I've seen in Big Media.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | June 23, 2009 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Democrats lost four consecutive elections to Ronald Reagan all the while citing poll numbers that the public wasn't enthusiastic about Reagan's specific policies. If Clinton and GW Bush can win second terms, it's hard to see the American public ousting Pres. Obama who is a stronger, more well-liked leader. Besides, it's a truism in politics that "You can't beat somebody with nobody." And exactly who does the GOP have who comes close to measuring up to BHO in 2012?

Posted by: bncshapiro | June 23, 2009 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Seen from Canada, it is not surprising that Froomkin is fired. Not impressive at all as a journalist.

Don't like everything Krauthammer writes, but what a quality writer, whether one is left or right. And there are others at WaPo and elsewhere in the US that make Froomkin look like a High School journalism student. Embarassing for WaPo, especially since he blindly supports Obama. The honor and objectivity of proper journalism is degrading in the US and Canada. And blogs have weakened true journalism. Some should read some French journalists. A pearl each time they write.

Posted by: admt | June 24, 2009 12:05 AM | Report abuse

If Pres. Obama continues to demonize Republicans, then I have no trust in his word that he is a Christian as he claims to be.

If Pres. Obama and the news media are successful at destorying the Republican party, then America is in danger of a one party-rule-system which always leads to some form of dictatorship.

As of the first day Sen. Obama became President, the Democrates had full numerical control of the American government both in Congress and almost a super majority in the Senate. Americans are at the mercy of the Democrates, because the Republicans are minorites in the Congress and super minorites in the Senate.

Thus Democrates have passed and will continue to pass any laws they want to without opposition. Thus their need to pass laws fast without discussion or debate. Because, if they wait until next year, then they might lose that power in the 2010 elections.

Our democracy does not work under one party rule, rather it works under a two party rule to ensure checks and balances in the laws and regulations that our government enacts.

Yet we are Americans and should be treated as Americans rather than political enemies. Are there no Democrates in power that will unite America instead of divide her? United we stand, divided we fall.

If President Obama wants to divide us (Obama, slays the GOP), then we fall as a nation. The question then remains: what does the President want us to fall into?

Posted by: Chuck8764 | June 24, 2009 1:50 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans are now thoroughly disliked by a majority of the American public. Yet, they cannot figure it out.

72% of Americans favor some kind of one-payer health insurance: the Republicans oppose it, for fear that their insurance buddies will cut down on contributions. Yet, they all happily freeload on the American taxpayer: not only does their job come with generous health insurance benefits, they will retire with the same generous health benefits for themselves and their families -- courtesy of the American taxpayer. Meanwhile, they scream like banshees about giving all Americans the same opportunity that they enjoy.

In fact, Republicans have been opposing anything that the American public wants since the Supreme Court put the Bush Boy on the throne (thank goodness, he's gone).

The GOP lost in 2006, and lost again in 2008, yet those idiots have yet to figure out the reasons.

The GOP is anti-American. Everything those freaks favor is a slap in the face of the average American. It is high time that some sort of Committee is formed to investigate the Anti-American activities of these traitors.

Posted by: Gatsby1 | June 24, 2009 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Froomkin isn't carrying water as much as noticing the silly horserace narrative that jokes like Cillizza are trying to promote, as well as the silliness of the bipartisahip over all narrative that twits like Broder have been pushing. It's this willingness to criticize the conventional wisdom of his out of touch WaPo collegeaues that got him fired. Obama has softness, but the GOP is simply a mess, leaderless and rudderless, letting a bunch of cranks and crazies carry the day.

I suspect part of the problem with Dan is that he blog, rather than gets syndicated. WaPo makes money from the incoherent mush of Cohen, the recycled nonsense of Broder and the knee-jerk lunacy of Krauthammer, although with a shrinking number of papers and news space, that business model can't go on forever.

Posted by: thebuckguy | June 24, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

"The only remedy is for our country to enable the Republican party to regain its influence and counter balance the anarchy of the new socialist democratic party headed by Barach Hussein Obama. Posted by: a4853916"

? ?? ???

So somehow the United States has to find a way for the Republicans to win, even when the Republicans seem hell bent on putting themselves out of business?

ALL the Republicans need to do is examine their determination to purge the party of insufficiently conservative candidates, (remembering that after each wave of purges there are still Republicans left on the Republican Left left to purge.) and apologize, say we'll be better,and invite the moderates and progressives back, and their prospects will improve.

But the republican party suffers form an ill conceived campaign tactic from the eighties, the Principles fallacy. "We have our PRINCIPLES, and we cannot compromise our PRINCIPLES."

And thus the exodus of thinking voters from the Party continues.

Fear not, though, because there will be another party to contest the Democrats. It will just be a whole lot more centrist, and in IT Conservatives will be marginalized.

No, we aren't obliged to give Conservatives their own viable party.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 24, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Dan, this is such a breath of fresh air. Why oh why doesnt the MSM realize what kind of flackery they serve us?

And to think WPost fired their best blogger....

Posted by: calvinav | June 24, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Great post, Dan.

@legendarypunk | June 23, 2009 12:35 PM | So true! LOL.

Posted by: org2 | June 24, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Dan, You will be missed.
Call Andrew Alexander @ Wapo 202-334-7582 and complain!

Or call Simon& Schuster's Carolyn Reidy 212-698-7033, who thinks Cheney's book will be fascinating, since when are lies *spin as bush/cheney call it fascinating. their legacy are the dead and wounded from their preemptive Iraq war for oil and crony contracts. bush and cheney how did you keep those troops safe? Your greed is reprehensible.

Posted by: jama452 | June 24, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The GOP-G(reedy)OP cares only about corporate money, greed, power.
Small time GOP voters for bush/cheney, unable to admit mistake, just like bush/cheney.

Posted by: jama452 | June 24, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company