Voters See the Real Problem If the Media Refuses to Do So

First, the BBC starts Romney-pandering, talking about Mitt as if he were the Second Coming. Then pompous, conservative journalist and arbiter of the upper classes, Max Hastings, publishes an article in the British Right-Wing Daily Mail (otherwise known as The Daily Hate), which whines about how weak the President is, how he doesn't deserve to win and subtly gives the nod to Mitt, yet again. I'd expect this of the Mail, a publication which longs for the days when Britain was white and the working classes knew their places. It's Romney's sort of paper.

Then, I read Frank Bruni's column in The New York Times today.

Bruni is a gay man and a regular on the daily MSNBC program fronted by the insipid, often tongue-tied Alex Wagner.

Wagner pretends to be a political journalist. She's not even out of her twenties, is amazingly inarticulate, was inculcated with doctrine during her one and only former job, worshipping at the altar of Queen Ratfucker Omnipotent of MediaLand - she worked for The Huffington Post - and she's landed a cush job fronting a political discussion program daily on a cable news channel. In Europe, this woman wouldn't even be taken seriously. First, she'd have to learn to talk properly. Then, she'd have to learn to speak about elected leaders using their proper titles. She's one of the Professional Left harpies who cannot bring herself to refer to the President as President Obama.

Anyway, Bruni is a regular guest, so - once again - his article about the President's so-called squandered chances to race ahead and beat Mitt Romney hands down, doesn't surprise me.

You can read the article here, but he bleats on and on about the President's perceived advantages and yet returns to flog that old familiar dead horse, reckoning that the President lost this one by virtue of - yes - his performance in the first debate. Bruni whines:-

THE miracle ended at the first debate, in Denver, and the problem with that face-off went beyond Obama’s sleepwalking to the kinds of subsequent debates it forced on him. To shake off what happened, he had to turn truculent, and while that technically “won” him his second and third meetings with Romney, he lost something in the bargain. He undercut his high-minded, big-vision brand, whole stanzas of doggerel intruding on the poetry.

His “bayonets” line was clever all right, and plenty fair in its way, but it had a schoolyard nastiness to it, the same nastiness in one of his campaign’s most prominent ads, which showcases Romney’s off-key rendition of “America the Beautiful.” I wonder how that line, that ad and the overall atmospherics register with voters in the middle, some of whom are no doubt asking themselves where “hope and change” went and hid.

The main cause for this contest’s closeness is arguably Obama — and the ways in which he has disappointed, confused and alienated some of the voters who warmed and even thrilled to him four years ago. During his first term, he at times misjudged and mishandled his Republican opposition. As a communicator, he repeatedly failed to sell his policies clearly and forcefully enough.

Yeah, uh-huh, you see, the fault that this race is so maddeningly close is all Obama's fault. This is the Professional Left conditioning, grooming and preparing their sheeple for the event of the President losing this race, directing them where to apportion the blame. Ne'mind that it was the media, including their own sweet pure selves who yearned for, longed for and therefore created this uncertain contest. It was to their advantage (read "ratings") to have a close contest. The last one was the novelty - hey, we elected the black guy. Now give him something to fight for, but get in there early and push the meme about the President's inability to communicate, how he misjudged the Republicans yadda-yadda-yadda. Nothing is ever mentioned or no responsibility claimed for the Professional Left's part in pushing dissatisfaction with the President not being able to walk on political water. They are as guilty as Fox News in deliberate misinformation, as evidenced by Hastings, in his diatribe, gleefully reporting that many Democrats are dissatisfied with the President and almost want him to lose. At least, at the end of his scribe, Bruni reluctantly admits that he still expects the President to win this thing - no thanks to Bruni or his ilk.

And the first debate is going to be hammered home into the sheeples' brains. It's beyond my ken how seemingly intelligent people of the media eschew content and concentrate on a style which, effectively, said nothing? What was it Jefferson said about a responsible press informing the public?

Still, it's good to see some pushback, especially amongst the people who've taken time on the Times website to set Bruni straight about a few things ... like his fallacious argument in total.

Like CS from Maryland:-

I agree with you, but you have failed to point out two key facts. First, the election of Obama brought out the extreme racist and other right wing elements in this country. For four years they have spun their lies and tapped into the deep seated racism that many white Americans don't even acknowledge within themselves. Second, people have short memories. Second, after four or five years of home value loss, people lose faith, feel threatened, and discouraged. People forget or don't care that George Bush caused this mess -- they only remember the obstructionists in the Congress. Most fail to associate the obstructionists with one party or the other. Obama has not claimed the spotlight and forthrightly stood up to the Republican's. Further, his party has not done so either. The first debate captured this and it highlighted Obama's meekness. Sometimes it seems like Americans are just voting for the other guy because Obama has not inspired them as they thought he would. It seems like many Americans don't care what kind of leader they get, they just want a leader. To many Obama seems weak. I ask myself everyday this question: WHY would anyone chop off their foot when the blister is starting to heal? I hope you are right and Obama wins. AND if he wins, his leadership will be inspiring.

Or Carole Sherman from the important state of Florida:-

 I too feel this article fell short of showing not only his achievements, but his character and his steadfast and unwavering commitment to the American people and their lack of the same steafast and unwavering commitment to him. I personally voted for him in 2008 and I am voting for him again in 2012. His is my POTUS and should (God forbide) win this election he will never be my POTUS and if I am lucky enough to see the next election I will hold him to a higher standard than he held Obama, because he is promising to be a much higher standard. I will then hold (Romney) to his promises or start a petition for his impeachment or file a class action suit for breech of contract .

Then the wonderful Sonia from Seattle. Go, Sonia!

 The magic is gone? There never was any magic. Just a hard working, honest, intelligent thoughtful guy who wants to help this country. You make no actual arguments supported by facts just broad conclusions drawn from (in my opinion, incorrect) observations. You give no actual examples showing how he has made all the mistakes you claim he has made; you say that Obama "alienated his voters' with giving any actual example how. (this theme of unsubstantiated castigation of Obama reminds me of someone else...). 

You say that America is not actually racist enough for it to matter when the AP just came out with a poll showing that the exact opposite is actually true. He didn't do well on the first debate and I think the reason is because he is a decent human being who was actually amazed at the blatant lies and ridiculous things coming out of Romney's mouth. He seems like he doesn't want to be President sometimes because he is a caring, thoughtful, intelligent person who really thinks through what he is doing and he probably doesn't want to be President sometimes. Do you want him to love and embrace the slander and lies and racism that he is dealing with on a daily basis along with, oh yeah, running the most powerful country in the world? The people that really want to be managers (or politicians) are not the people that you actually want as your manager, or representative. He probably doesn't want to be president every day and that is actually a good thing.

JohnLB from Texas, no less, socks it to Bruni:-

Let's remember that about a third of us thought Obama won the first debate. I came to that conclusion from reading the transcript and listening to it on podcast. Take away the visuals and Romney's empty rhetoric and sudden re-emergence as Moderate Mitt were laughable. Be that as it may, I am wondering why ostensible supporters of Obama at the NYT are writing these woeful columns (see Dowd). Do they know something we don't know? Because their own poll expert says Obama has a 70% chance of winning still, and in fact seems to be solidifying his lead, not losing it.

Nothing like the truth thrown back in the face of the naysayers, of which Bruni and his female cohort, Alex Wagner, are leading lights.

Or how about Dagmar20 from LA, telling it like it is? Are you listening, Mr Bruni?

 What's really remarkable about this campaign is how superficial the commentary has been, from the Right and the Left. Why don't you really analyze what both candidates are offering the voters, for instance, Romney's 5 point plan, $5 trillion in cuts, without saying what tax deductions he will eliminate. Or, how Obama plans on dealing with the opposition in the House and Senate if he is re-elected.

Is that too hard for journalists these days, you know, fact checking, researching, reporting?

How about JHM from McCain's Arizona:-

 Race isn't an issue?

Go visit western Pennsylvania, Frank. Where you will see an Obama sign hardly anywhere.
When I asked my brother-in-law, who's a big Obama supporter, why this is so, he said, "Aw, come on, you know better to ask me that. It's because he's not white, Dummy!"
This is only anecdotal "evidence," I admit. But one that, I'm utterly convinced, which has caused this coming election to become so close.

Larry Figdill, from my neck of the woods, Virgina, gives Bruni a lesson in good Virginian common sense:-

 Opinion pieces like this discourage his potential supporters. Thanks a lot.

Or Red from Pennsylvania, who draws an analogy with Fifties' man Romney and another Fifties icon:-

 Whenever I hear Mitt Romney speak I can not stop thinking about Eddie Haskell, the polite but smarmy friend of Wally and Beaver on the "Leave it to Beaver" show back in the 1950's & 60's. He charmed Mrs. Cleaver and snookered most adults, but Eddie always thought those parents were "chumps" because they bought his line of bologna hook, line and sinker.

Romney is just one more slick huckster rich guy, out to fleece the poor fools that buy his line of foolishness. As P. T. Barnum remarked: "There is a sucker born every minute!"

Let's go international with Dan in Berlin, no less:-

 Your assessments of Obama's shortcomings and why he should be trouncing Romney but isn't, are based on the mimicking hyperbole of GOP/Fox talking heads.

Look at what terms you use: "the One" and his "magic". Those labels were used repeatedly to make fun of Obama by comparing unrealistic attributes to him when his policy prescriptions did not engender enough success. If he's "the One" and has "magic", then everything he tries should succeed spectacularly.

You say that changing demographics should work in Obama's favor, whereas I'd argue that's what scares the daylights out of the GOP's base. That is also where your minimization of the role of race fails. Sununu knew exactly the right dog-whistle. You're naïve if you think that race does not influence middle/lower middle income white men. Only 39% of them chose Obama in 2008.

Romney is the guy those white men hoped they'd become. They, of course, didn't, and doubly resent being challenged or zinged by a black, wealthy, Ivy League lawyer. Obama's people know this dynamic, which is why Obama might awkwardly hold himself back. And those white men, hard hit economically, are looking for any reason to not choose the black guy.

The other mistake you make is to say that the electorate does not blame Obama for the economic downturn, but then leave out that they've been told daily that he's made it worse, further stoking resentment.

Throughout this plethora of comments, the majority of which decidedly hand Bruni his ass, one reason comes punching back through all the author's flawed rhetoric and whining about the President's so-called inadequacies. Many commenters eloquently and politely nail the reason behind the country (and the Left as well as the Right) seemingl going against the President (subtly pushed that way by the well-meaning media) - or as Betti from New York  succinctly says:-

It's because he's black. Period. End of story.

That's really the way it is and has been for the past four years - always easier to blame the black guy, or anyone who's different in any way. You'd think Frank Bruni, a gay man, would appreciate this, or maybe he's hoping for some sort of epiphany on the part of Mitt Romney and his ilk regarding the repeal of DOMA and granting the gay community full civil rights.

Well, hope floats.

Still, it heartens me that so many people recognise the untold damage done to this Presidency by the media, and I hope, whoever wins, that we hold the Fourth Estate accountable for the mischief they've caused.