The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Betting on 2010

Text Size

A problem with the Republican bet against the stimulus that Philip Klein and I haven't really addressed is the issue that Rush Limbaugh spends most of his time railing against (when he's not at the center of an Obama-driven controversy)—media bias. The media wants President Obama to succeed. If unemployment merely stabilizes in the high single digits, banks merely stop collapsing like dominos, and the auto industry merely survives to 2010, this will be portrayed as the work of President Obama and the Democrats standing athwart history shouting "Here's some money! Please be nice to us!" Any sign of recovery at all will be a sign that the president's plan is working.

Republicans are betting that the media will be as interested in the story of their comeback, their rediscovery of fiscal conservatism, and so, as it is in the New Deal II drama of the Obama presidency. I think that's a sucker's bet. Things will need to get much, much worse for the media to start blaming Obama. (Not that the media will ever praise the Republicans for their stances; they didn't do that for the Barbour/Gingrich/Dole GOP in 1994.)

View all comments (6) | Leave a comment

Thomas| 1.29.09 @ 12:39PM

Who cares how the liberal propaganda machine {aka the media} spins truth. This is about morality, honesty and honor. And, even more importantly, opposition to this bill is about the survival of the United States of American as a land of free people.

Indiana Alex| 1.29.09 @ 1:35PM

Since this nonsense will be added to the base line, the only way to pay for it will be MASSIVE tax increases. There won't be enough over $250,000 to come even close to bringing the budget in line. Dems that go along with that who don't live in SFO will be highly vulnerable. Remember the name Margorie Margolis Meshivinski (sp?)?

Rich Berger| 1.29.09 @ 2:18PM

So what if the patient gets better in spite of a bad bill? That's the chance the Republicans take by doing the right thing. Would it have been better that they signed on and shared blame if things turn out badly and get no credit if they turn out better?

It's a gamble, but at least it's based on principle and logic.

Pkane| 1.29.09 @ 5:04PM

Look, if our economy can somehow manage thrive under the weight of this level of reckless spending and intervention then conservatives will have to reexamine our philosophical and economic principles.

If we can't stand up to this nonsense we have no business calling ourselves a movement.

Clarity comes from adversity. This is a golden opportunity to finally hold liberalism accountable for all the nation to see.

Interested Conservative| 1.29.09 @ 5:14PM

Pres. Obama accomplished several things, along with the GOP in the initial vote. First, it set the floor for GOP house gains in 2010 - namely at least eleven, if not identically those (D) districts who voted against this time. Swap out a few and swap in others - ID, a few in Ohio, maybe some other southern ones.

Next, the GOP has to be looking for some incremental gains due to census/redistricting. Let's say another 10 there.

That gets to about 200 - so, what the MSM will ignore is how and if the house can flip with another 15-20 GOP pickups - it would take a great deal - 40+ seats total, and given the bias present, it will probably take something other than economic news.

I'm afraid that leaves two obvious items - bad foreign policy or unignorable democratic corruption.

It's hard to cheer for rampant corruption, but there you go.