Reuters ran a little flak for Barack Obama trying to help dull the outrageous expectations placed on The One by his irrationally exuberant adherents in theirs headlined “Congress faces historic challenges” — As if no other Congress has faced “historic challenges” before? Reuters assures us, though, that times are so bad that we should not expect Obama to live up to any of his outlandish promises. This way, of course, if Obama reneges on them, the Old Media can remind everyone that it’s really our fault for expecting too much, not Obama’s for reneging.
Naturally, we get the kind of Bush-is-worst rhetoric we expect from Reuters but we also find that Reuters seems to have forgotten that Congress itself has even lower ratings than does Bush. And Reuters starts off the story conveniently forgetting that the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006.
Democrats will pack greater clout when the new Congress convenes on Tuesday but they face enormous expectations from voters as they grapple with two wars, a financial crisis and record budget deficits.
Yeah, “greater clout.” But they’ve been in control since 2006 and faced a weakened president to boot. But, have Congressional Democrats had no “expectations” since 2006? Let us also not forget the two wars they have to “grapple with” were approved by the Democrats almost to a man and that the record deficits and the financial crisis were engineered by many of their own votes.
The Reuters piece then outlines some of the promises that Obama and the Democrats have made once they got the nod for a controlling lock on power, promises that Reuters estimates could cost us $775 billion — a low estimate, of course.
But, let’s give Obama some cover, shall we?
“Congress will respond in time. But Obama needs to lower expectations,” said Paul Light of New York University’s Center for the Study of Congress.
“There is a historic gap between promises made and promises fulfilled. Converting promises into reality is a difficult process,” Light said, noting major legislation must wind through a maze of committees.
One wonders if it’ll be more like a histrionic gap between what Obama promised his extremely leftist base among the MoveOn and DailyKos crowd and what he bothers to try and deliver?
Then we get another one of the LeftMedia’s favorite lies (bold mine)…
He (Obama) is aiming for an overhaul of the U.S. health care system, a $2.3 trillion industry that accounts for about 16 percent of the U.S. economy. Some of the cost could be covered by letting Bush’s tax cuts for the rich expire next year.
Bush’s tax plan was not merely “tax cuts for the rich.” It was tax cuts for all.
Next Reuters misleads with its description of why the Democrats didn’t get much done since 2006.
Democrats controlled Congress during the past two years, but Senate Republicans routinely blocked much of their agenda with procedural hurdles known as filibusters.
Obviously it didn’t occur to Reuters that nearly half the electorate — the ones that voted for Republicans — didn’t WANT the Democrats to succeed in making America into a socialist nation?
Sadly, it does not so occur to them.
Reuters takes one more stab at tamping the irrational exuberance of Democrat supporters by softening expectations for the Democrat controlled Senate, too.
WORD OF CAUTION
Sixty votes are needed in the 100-member Senate to end filibusters. Republicans will hold at least 41 seats, barely enough to sustain a filibuster provided they keep all members in line.
Yes, Reuters actually used “word of caution” to head the segment.
The net effect is excuse making for what Reuters expects to be multiple failures by the Democratic Party in the upcoming legislative year. But, at the same time, Rueters doesn’t want to upset Democrat supporters or derail support for The One. See, all the failures will be that of the evil Republicans, not his. I expect we’ll be seeing a lot of this sort of flak taking by the Old Media for The One and his lefty cohorts, especially when they fail.
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Yeah those high expectations can stink!
MelZ (Diary) Monday, January 5th at 11:26AM EST (link)Don’t we remember what it was like, or still know how it is to be held to higher standards because of higher expectations because of more potential?
Growing up, I was consistently crossing my arms and pouting because “it wasn’t fair”. It always seemed like my brother could do no wrong and I could do no right. Of course really the thing was, I was held to a little bit of a higher standard than my brother. Lovely as he may be….well let’s just say I had a bit more potential, so more was “expected”of me. Yeah that really sucks when you are a kid.
Now as an adult, I would rather be held to higher standards. I hope my husband, my friends, my employer always has high expectations of me.
But alas, the very things Obama “promised” to get him elected are the same things we must all forget because after all he is just human.
Then again, who ever expected standards to be applied to a liberal. The only time you see the two words in the same sentence is if the word “none” also appears.
Nice post Huston.
MelZ
Obama and MSM will ride Bush wave for as long as they can
jazzycmk (Diary) Monday, January 5th at 12:11PM EST (link)In a nutshell : All bad things will be because of a Bush. Any cracks of sunshine will be because of Obama’s brilliance.
Keep some things in mind. Bush came into office in Jan 2001. Most economists agree that the last recession began in March 2001 (although there are some that date it as far back as Nov 2000). MSM and Dems will have you believe that the US economy was still booming until 01/20/2001, and that Bush managed to drive it into the ground in a month and a half. A fact that is largely ignored is that the stock market declined in 2000, Clinton’s last year in office.
In the days leading up to the Nov 2000 election, there was not much angst over the state of the economy because the media was not portraying it that way. Quite the contrary. They were still painting a rosy economic picture, because then it might have made more sense for people to vote for Al Gore who would have likely continued Clinton’s economic policies.
So, to be fair, I give Obama a month and a half to fix the economy. If that’s how fast Bush was supposed able to ruin it in 2001, it seems equitable that Obama should be able to solve our economic woes in the same time frame (although, he should be able to do it faster because we all know how brilliant he is).
Obama will blame Bush for the next 2.5 years. Then, when he starts gearing up for re-election, he’ll run on a platform of “We can’t afford to return to the failed policies of George W Bush”. So at that point, despite the fact the Bush has never been a direct political opponent, he will have been running against Bush for 6 years.
jcmk
“90% of people don’t care about your problems…..and the other 10% are glad you have them” – former football coach Lou Holtz
MSM must do that in behalf of the 52.
Rod_Patrick (Diary) Monday, January 5th at 2:32PM EST (link)But in the case of 48 including myself, we really don’t give a damn.
Why?
We don’t have any expectations from Obama except “things that can go from bad to worst”.