The media's unending fixation with the term "flip-flop" during Romney's campaign was ridiculously biased, but that bias was only raised to the Nth degree when I read this absurdly biased analysis of Obama's latest political reversal in the Washington Post. Now that it's a democrat, flip-flopping shows a "willingness to compromise in pursuit of longer-term goals." I've always said that Romney's changes in position were precisely the result of a combination of compromise, policy refinement, and adaptation to differing political settings (e.g. federal vs. state), but the primary voters would have none of it. Go read the pro-Obama article and see for yourself why I'm irritated now.
"Obama has shown himself to be not so much a "post-partisan" politician as
a "post-polarizing" politician, projecting moderation in an era of political
warfare, said Ross Baker, a political scientist and congressional scholar at Rutgers University."
"After eight years of ideology driving decision making, is pragmatism
reform? Yes, it is," said an Obama adviser in Chicago.
2 comments:
It presented the M - O contrast very well. M came out on top in it, actually, because the guy's "case" for O's being a pragmatist was very iffy - ulimately - to anyone clever enough to follow the whole article, O stood for Opportunist...even tho the guy never actually says that outwardly. I got the impression he was cutting down Obama at O;s weakest link, but doing it in a way that his bosses might not be too upset by. As it is done very subtly.
I disagree. There was a laundry list of Obama's reversals, but unending quotes from every side that painted a virtuous picture of why Obama does what he does. It wasn't as biased as I said though, you're right.
Post a Comment