WHAT WENT WRONG? How did Barack Obama lose Middle America? As
Time magazine’s Mark Halperin wrote on December 6, five
weeks after the November elections:
The coalition that got Barack Obama elected President just two
years ago has been shattered.… A survey of the political landscape
shows that many groups who were part of the 2008-09 Obama coalition
have turned on him.… With unemployment high and promising to stay
there, it is nearly impossible in the short term for Obama to shift
opinion and be seen as a successful President.… Even if the
President somehow sloughs off that Spock-like laconic demeanor and
dispatches his fired-up-and-ready-to-go persona, he isn’t going to
be able to change many of the dynamics that have weakened him.
Halperin had been bearish on the president for months. On
September 9, he wrote:
The President and his top advisers have betrayed visible
annoyance at the Republicans’ failure to rally behind the White
House’s latest plans to goose the economy: proposed tax incentives
for companies to make capital expenditures and do more
R&D.…
It is fair to ask (and many Democrats have) why the President is
only now proposing such critical measures, rather than offering
them up earlier in his term, before election-season politics
brought governing to a standstill.
It’s fair to answer, too. While Americans were anxious about the
economy, Obama was obsessed with health care — and urged on by
cheerleaders in the media like the one who wrote an article on
March 22, the day after the House passed Obamacare, which began as
follows:
In the 7 1/2 months between now and November’s midterm
elections, millions of Americans will be whipped into a frenzy over
the purported evils in the Democrats’ health care bill, egged on by
Fox News chatter, Rush Limbaugh’s daily sermons, threats of state
legislative and judicial action and the solemn pledge of
Republicans in Washington to make the fall election a referendum on
Obamacare. But in doing so, they may be playing right into the
Democrats’ hands.
Who wrote that? Mark Halperin.
It would be unsporting to dwell on his lack of prescience.
Anyone who makes political predictions sometimes gets it wrong. But
in his March 22 piece, Halperin went beyond prognostication:
Democrats will be joined in the fray by much of the press. For
Republicans, this will seem like familiar ground, since generations
of conservatives have complained that the so-called mainstream
media have been biased against them. Well, get ready, Republicans,
for déjà vu all over again. The coverage through November likely
will highlight the most extreme attacks on the President and his
law and spotlight stories of real Americans whose lives have been
improved by access to health care….
The louder Republicans yell, the more they will be characterized
and caricatured as sore losers infuriated by the first major
delivery of candidate Obama’s promise of “change.” The focus on the
weekend’s alleged racial and gay-bashing verbal attacks by
opponents of the Democrats’ plan should be a caution to Republican
strategists trying to figure out how to manage the media this
year.
Halperin is a member of the press, and he was among the
Obamacare cheerleaders who, as he accurately observed, made up
“much of the press.” Thus, that last excerpt was not just a
prediction but a promise: Don’t worry, Mr. President, we in the
press will propagandize relentlessly for you and turn this into a
political winner.
That was an unwise promise to make, not only because the press
is supposed to be independent, but also because it was impossible
to deliver. The liberal media monopoly was broken long ago.
Halperin and his colleagues were never going to be able to put
lipstick on the Obamacare pig by slandering opponents or producing
puff pieces on “real Americans whose lives have been improved.” Yet
having promised to do just that, Halperin didn’t even try. Instead,
he chastised the president — for inexplicably following Halperin’s
advice!
Not that some in the media didn’t continue doing their best to
put on a brave pro-Obama face. A December 15 story on the front
page of the Washington Post minimized the meaning of the
Republican victory: