How helpful for President Obama to have the media on his side. During the Bush administration when the proverbial shoe was on the other foot, Democrats were cast as brave dissenters who united in the fight against Republican agendas.
Back in 2005 when President Bush proposed a plan to reform the near-bankrupt Social Security program, Democrat Senators organized rallies to hold the line against any hint of privatization. The media promoted polling data that showed weak support for the plan and spun the results that favored Bush as a product of Republican propaganda.
On March 15, 2005, the Washington Post published a front-page attack on privatization that worked hard to claim any support was a result of fear-mongering (emphasis mine):
While the White House has helped convince more than two-thirds of those polled that Social Security is heading for a crisis or possible bankruptcy without change, 56 percent disapprove of his approach, a survey of 1,001 adults conducted March 10-13 shows. By comparison, 38 percent approved of his handling of the issue and 52 percent disapproved of it in mid-December.
Though the article conceded that the plan had high support among young adults, it was quick to explain that young people were too "apathetic" to actually get involved, meaning that the Democrat-leaning elderly would win the day.
In November 2004, the Associated Press called Bush's plan "controversial" twice in the same article. Influential committee Democrat Bob Matsui was called on to explain that the existing program could be easily tweaked without resorting to "radical adjustment."
By April 2005, the New York Times praised Democrats for being "resolutely opposed" to Bush's plan and accused Republicans of using a "last resort" to keep the issue alive. Back then, "spirited debate" was a good thing in Congress to stop bills that relied on too much borrowing.
Uniting along party lines to stop a radical reform bill that didn't have adequate funding? When stopping a Republican: good. When stopping a Democrat: bad.
Now that a liberal proposal for government-mandated healthcare is on the line, the media are clearly displeased with resistance. Bloomberg News reported lackluster public support on Thursday by tying healthcare reform to the war in Afghanistan to declare the poll numbers a draw. The New York Times pouted on Monday that "if only there had been a Republican governor of Illinois," the balance of power in the Senate might be different.
Reuters covered President Obama's sinking popularity by implying that the American people were fatigued at the "prolonged debate," complete with an expert cited at the end to provide assurance that the Democrats would eventually prevail.
This time around, the issues being debated have been seen by the media as partisan bickering.
On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times published a vitriolic article full of exasperation at "the power and variety of Republican delaying tactics" that might prevent a final vote before Christmas. Over at the New York Times, an article from Wednesday explained that Republican stalling tactics "illustrated the frustration growing in both parties" - a far cry from past reports about the benefits of spirited debate.
In a sign of desperation from the White House, President Obama pressured the Senate to move more quickly on a healthcare bill or the federal government just might go bankrupt. Instead of attacking the line as fear-mongering, the Associated Press used it as another occasion to criticize the Senate:
Hopes for rapid progress on President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul dimmed Wednesday as Republican delaying tactics complicated the work of Senate Democratic leaders to line up 60 votes and move the bill...
Obama repeated his demand for action, telling ABC News "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the health-care bill fails. He said Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" path if no action is taken.
Lost on the media was the irony of one of the very Democrats who forced government programs to remain on their "unsustainable path" now complaining that bankruptcy was a possibility. Perhaps if the media had investigated Bush's claims of impending collapse five years ago, the rush would not be on right now to pass a radical reform bill at the last minute.
Despite basement-level public support, growing concerns from budget analysts, and near civil war within the Democrat party, the media see Republican bickering to blame for President Obama being unable to pass his signature agenda.
A scare tactic under Bush became a "demand for action" by Obama. Public skepticism of Bush became a public discouraged by stalling when it came to Obama's agendas. A united front of resistance in the Senate, once trumpeted as democracy in action, suddenly became a gridlock that would hurt the country.
What a difference in the media when liberal proposals are the ones being stalled.
