Words have meaning. Syntax provides more meaning with more words. Then comes the writer’s motive, prejudice, agenda, political persuasion the context of which transmits valuable information, utilitarian instruction, and some variety of propaganda or plain old flat-out lies.
Let’s see what we have here…(my comments in snappy italicized red)
Mounting controversies are all about trust
June 10, 2013 3:23 AM EDT
WASHINGTON — As a candidate, Barack Obama vowed to bring a different, better kind of leadership to the dysfunctional capital. He'd make government more efficient, accountable and transparent. He'd rise above the "small-ball" nature of doing business. And he'd work with Republicans to break Washington paralysis. You can trust me, Obama said back in 2008. And — for a while, at least — a good piece of the country did. But with big promises often come big failures — and the potential for big hits to the one thing that can make or break a presidency: credibility. A series of mounting controversies is exposing both the risks of political promise-making and the limits of national-level governing while undercutting the core assurance Obama made from the outset: that he and his administration would behave differently.
Liz was getting me excited! The AP was finally turning the blinding light of the MSM on the debacles the rest of us have been seeing for years.
Then she got to “mounting controversies...” In a more objective universe, those are called “scandals” – and scandals of the highest order inasmuch as they were and are being committed in the places of greatest power. “undercutting [Obama’s] core assurance…” is far less troubling that undercutting unalienable rights, the Rule of Law and Constitutional protections.
The latest: the government's acknowledgement that, in a holdover from the Bush administration and with a bipartisan Congress' approval and a secret court's authorization, it was siphoning the phone records of millions of American citizens in a massive data-collection effort officials say was meant to protect the nation from terrorism. This came after the disclosure that the government was snooping on journalists.
Ms. Sidoti cleverly creates not one, not two, but three levels of protection for Obama: the customary Bush “inheritance”, an inconveniently unified Congress and the FISA Court. As if there was simply nothing the poor Prez could do to exterminate the infestation of Liberty destroying termites! Not even a presser or a roundly ignored weekend radio address. Until some whistleblower whistles, cue the crickets…..
Also, the IRS' improper targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status has spiraled into a wholesale examination of the agency, including the finding that it spent $49 million in taxpayer money on 225 employee conferences over the past three years.
At the same time, Obama's immigration reform plan, which initially seemed to have wide bipartisan support, is hitting bumps on Capitol Hill. Gun control legislation is all but dead. And he's barely speaking to Republicans who control the House, much less working with them on a top priority: tax reform.
NB: We’re 7 graphs into the story, 4 past where the Average Reader quits and moves on and we still haven’t read about “trust”, any culpability of the The Man. Guess I got my hopes up too soon and too far expecting a Media Turning, an epiphany. My bad. I should know better…
Even Democrats are warning that more angst may be ahead as the government steps up its efforts to implement Obama's extraordinarily expensive, deeply unpopular health care law.
Collectively, the issues call into question not only whether the nation's leadership can be trusted but also whether government itself can. All of this has Obama on the verge of losing the already waning faith of the American people. And without their confidence, it's really difficult for presidents to get anything done — particularly those in the sixth year of a presidency and inching toward lame-duck status.
Might as well stop here. Ms. Sidoti has no intention of laying the blame at the feet of the The Barry. When could – or should - government ever be “trusted”? She and the AP’s view of government is a loving, concerned Nanny, here to care for and protect us Little Ones.
OMG! The Barry is “on the verge of losing…waning faith of the American people”! Wow-zers! Did YOU “have Faith” in The Barry? In government? Did George Michael re-write the National Anthem? “…really difficult for presidents to get anything done…” What gets “done”? Programs, legislation, initiatives, executive orders, resolutions, regulations, limitations, prohibitions, taxation, bombings, death of innocents, wars. Killing Freedom through governance. It’s not difficult enough.
The ramifications stretch beyond the White House. If enough Americans lose faith in Obama, he will lack strong coattails come next fall's congressional elections. Big losses in those races will make it harder for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, especially if it's Hillary Rodham Clinton, to run as an extension of Obama's presidency and convince the American public to give Democrats another four years.
Sadly, the 3 Graphs And Out readers missed this gem. The whole graph says it all: Losing faith in Obama will mean hard times for Democrats to regain total control of Congress and – horror of horrors – the defeat of Hillary Whitewater Clinton to be our next fraudulently elected dictator. Vince Foster must be twirling in his grave.
Obama seemed to recognize this last week. He emphasized to anxious Americans that the other two branches of government were as responsible as the White House for signing off on the vast data-gathering program.
"We've got congressional oversight and judicial oversight," Obama said. "And if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we're abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we're going to have some problems here."
WARNING: Please note what the president did not say. He did not say the American People would “have some problems”. He inferred if the illusion of Constitutional governance and the 3 branches which
the strings administer fail, “we’re going to have problems here”.
What you mean, “we”, Kemosabe? Americans already have a dim view of the
trustworthiness of Congress (favorable ratings lower than Used Car Salesman).
Recent SCOTUS decisions have ranged from dumbfounding to inexplicable to
outrageous. And, in light of the past 230+ years, we don’t have to review
current sentiment to evaluate the vaunted Executive Branch.
The government is an enormous operation, and it's unrealistic to think it will operate smoothly all of the time. But, as the head of it, Obama faces the reality of all of his successors: The buck stops with him.
13 – count ‘em – 13 graphs to get to the most salient point. This is what Journalists call “burying the lead”.
If the controversies drag on, morale across America could end up taking a huge hit, just when the mood seems to be improving along with an economic uptick. Or, Americans could end up buying Obama's arguments that safety sometimes trumps privacy, that his administration is taking action on the IRS, and that he's doing the best he can to forge bipartisan compromise when Republicans are obstructing progress.
With True Colors flying in the hot air of her own bullshit, we learn it’s “morale” we should worry about – not governance, the sanctity of the Rule of Law, the Constitution, Rights, Freedom, Liberty, Justice or just plain old-fashioned Honesty. There is no “improving economy”; that’s just a whistling-passed-the-graveyard Talking Point and an outright lie. Safety never “trumps privacy” (see also Ben Franklin), an administration investigating itself (insert laugh track here) and the Winning Whopper: “doing his best…to… compromise…” with those obfuscating Republicans. Well damn! Just damn! It’s hard to tell if this in an Opinion piece or what passes for regular AP “reporting”.
Every president faces the predicament of overpromising. Often the gap can be chalked up to the difference between campaigning and governing, between rhetoric and reality. As with past presidents, people desperate to turn the page on the previous administration voted for the Obama they wanted and now are grappling with the Obama they got.
From the start of his career, Obama tried to sculpt an almost nonpartisan persona as he spoke of bridging divides and rejecting politics as usual. He attracted scores of supporters from across the ideological spectrum with his promises to behave differently. And they largely believed what he said.
Translation: He lied. People voted for him out of ignorance, prejudice and fraud.
Back then, he held an advantage as one of the most trusted figures in American politics.
In January 2008, Obama had an 8-point edge over Clinton as the more honest and trustworthy candidate in the Democratic primary. That grew to a 23-point advantage by April of that year, according to Washington Post-ABC News polls. Later that year, the Post-ABC poll showed Obama up 8 points on Republican nominee John McCain as the more honest candidate.
Obama held such strong marks during his first term, with the public giving the new president the benefit of the doubt. Up for re-election, he went into the 2012 campaign home stretch topping Mitt Romney by 9 points on honesty in a mid-October ABC/Post poll.
But now, that carefully honed image of trustworthiness may be changing in Americans' eyes.
Bottom line: Polls are questionably reliable snap shots at best. When one factors in the questions, sample size, demographics, geography and (most importantly) who’s paying for it, one gets the true sense of polling integrity. At bottom, who cares what “the polls” say? Do polls mean more than the principles of Freedom and Liberty? Do polls trump your unalienable rights? Do polls license government-by-opinion? Mark your answers and pass you papers forward. This will count on your Final.
Obama has waning opportunities to turn it around. He's halfway through his sixth year, and with midterm elections next fall, there's no time to waste. If he can't convince the American people that they can trust him, he could end up damaging the legacy he has worked so hard to control and shape — and be remembered, even by those who once supported him, as the very opposite of the different type of leader he promised to be.
Thanks ever so, Ms. Sidoti. Please remove the fluffer outfit and return it to central casting.
Memo to NSA: No need to monitor Ms. Sidoti; she’s no James Rosen.