NYT piece criticizes Obama for spending the summer "banging his presidential drum" for reform

[ProSense]

After spending much of the summer and most of September banging his presidential drum in favor of a health care overhaul, Mr. Obama, entering what one senior White House official called “a quiet period,” is intentionally lowering his public profile on the issue, for the moment.

The idea, aides said, is for the president to take a breather while Democrats resolve their internal conflicts, so he can come back strong with a fresh sales pitch when the legislation moves closer to floor votes.

“I think his time is better spent on this particular issue in conversation with members and in talking to his own advisers and instructing them on how to proceed,” David Axelrod, senior adviser to the president, said in an interview Tuesday. “That’s the phase that we’re in.”

But after his stream of all but nonstop public appearances on his top domestic priority, Mr. Obama’s health care hiatus raises some questions: Was his continued presence counterproductive? Might his high profile prove to have been too polarizing as Democratic leaders negotiate through a thicket of political considerations in search of a deal that can get through the House and the Senate? Did the president stop talking because the public had stopped listening?

“He’s been in very great danger of people hitting the mute button when he comes on television to talk about health care,” said David Gergen, who has advised both Republican and Democratic presidents on communications strategy. “So I think it’s wise to take a pause here and come back in full voice to make his case, because people are going to be more ready to listen again.”

more

[SteppingRazor]

1. I dunno. I just read the whole article, thought it was pretty even handed.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

5. Implying that Obama is overexposed is even handed?

This piece is almost as ridiculous as the claim that Obama has done nothing.

[SteppingRazor]

6. The article makes its case with statistics and quotes from Axelrod.

It's not like it's going to the AEI for its stats and talking to Michael Steele.

[ProSense]

7. It makes its case?

But the gains did not last, according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It found that support for the health care proposals being discussed on Capitol Hill reached 42 percent after Mr. Obama’s speech on Sept. 9 but dropped back to 34 percent in a survey taken from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4. And a Washington Post/ABC News poll published Tuesday found that 48 percent approved of Mr. Obama’s handling of health care while 48 percent disapproved, little changed since summer.

That's not a case, that's complete nonsensical spin.

How is going from 42 percent to 34 percent and then back to 48 percent (6 points higher than the original number and a 14-point climb over the past month) make the case they support with Gergen's qoute, “He’s been in very great danger of people hitting the mute button when he comes on television to talk about health care”?

When does an increase in support equal people are not listening?

[fugop]

8. Insane spin

Seriously, even without the drop (which made the climb back a 14-percent climb over the past few weeks), a jump from 42% to 48% being called little changed seems silly from a media that regularly tells us how if Obama goes from 53% to 50% approval in a poll he's plummeting.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The media has become the boy who cried wolf. I think people are tuning them out more and more, because they say the most ridiculous things and expect folks to sit back and believe. And then they wonder why the media's image with the public is in the toilet.

[ProSense]

11. Comparing apples to oranges the Pew poll results cited are about the bills in Congress, not Obama

Regarding health care reform, many of the key provisions remain popular though support for the overall package has slipped. More people now generally oppose the health care reform proposals in Congress (47%) than favor them (34%). This represents a decline in support for health care reform since mid-September, shortly after President Obama’s nationally televised address to Congress on the issue.

Nonetheless, large percentages continue to support many of the essential elements of legislation being considered. Two-thirds (66%) favor mandating that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help for those unable to afford it. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) favor requiring employers to pay into a government health care fund if they do not provide health insurance coverage to their employees. A similar majority (58%) also favors raising taxes on families with incomes of more than $350,000 as a way to pay for reforms. And 55% say they favor a government health insurance plan to compete with private plans, which is largely unchanged from late July (52%).

<...>

Obama’s job approval ratings, while lower than early this year, have been stable in recent months; currently, 52% approve of the way he is handling his job as president, while 36% disapprove. Half of Americans say they have a great deal (20%) or a fair amount (30%) of confidence in him to do the right thing on health care reform; confidence in Obama on this issue was somewhat higher in late August (56%). A larger percentage of the public says they have confidence in the president to fix the economy (59%), while nearly as many (57%) say they are optimistic his policies will improve economic conditions.

link

(emphasis added)

[SteppingRazor]

9. You're equating two different things.

The first numbers are for "the health care proposals being discussed on Capitol Hill." The second numbers are for approval/disapproval of "Mr. Obama’s handling of health care." That's not the same thing, so it's wrong to say that the numbers went from 42 to 34 to 48.


And in any case, it's not the point you were making in the first place -- that this article criticizes Obama for overexposure. If anything, it simply reports that:

1) Obama was all over the place in the summer and fall. This is clearly true, as laid out in the article with the various forums, speeches, etc.

2) Obama will no longer be so visible. This is clear from the Axelrod quote: "“I think his time is better spent on this particular issue in conversation with members and in talking to his own advisers and instructing them on how to proceed,” David Axelrod, senior adviser to the president, said in an interview Tuesday. “That’s the phase that we’re in.”

It then goes on to try to explain why this is the case. Again, I don't really see anything wrong with that. Reporting events and contextualizing those events is what journalism is all about. And as I said before, the piece doesn't go to Republican sources for its reporting (well, with the possible exception of Ben Nelson, but that's another story), so it's not as though it's going to political enemies to try to smear the president.

[ProSense]

12. What does approval of the bills in Congress have to do with Obama being overexposed? n/t

[SteppingRazor]

13. Nothing.

Except in as much as Obama's overexposure may affect the public's outlook on those bills, and I think it's silly to even try to make that case. In that sense, the article really should have used only Obama's approval numbers on health care. That it didn't is, I think, a perfectly reasonable critique of the piece. But I don't think you can necessarily take that critique and conflate it to mean that the underlying theme -- that Obama will be taking more time to deal with congressional leaders, less time appearing to the public -- is inaccurate. That's all I'm saying.

[ProSense]

15. No one said his taking more time to deal with Congress is inaccurate

That isn't the point of the article. The article mentions that as an aside to make the ludicrous case that he's overexposed.

[SteppingRazor]

16. Conversely, that could be the spin Axelrod is putting on it...

as an excuse for why Obama isn't making as many public appearances. I don't think Obama was tremendously overexposed over the summer, but I think there is some point to the criticism, in that I don't think the PR onslaught of TV specials and town hall forums would do nearly as much good now as it did a month or two ago.

[ProSense]

17. So if Axelrod is spinning, what's the point of the piece?

This is a plain old-fashioned stupid article. There is no getting around it. The premise is contrived, the evidence is a distortion and it just doesn't mesh with reality.

[SteppingRazor]

18. Bah. Modus vivendi, dude.

:toast:

[left coaster]

2. What Obama should have done..

..is spend his summer, on a ranch, clearing brush. That's what great presidents do.

[AngryAmish]

3. That is racist

[ProSense]

4. What? n/t

[SteppingRazor]

14. I think AngryAmish is saying that the phrase "banging the drum" in relation to Obama is racist...

because he's black. (AngryAmish, sorry for speaking for you, and please correct me if my assumption is mistaken.) That said, it's a pretty common idiom, and I don't think it's racist in this context.

[rvablue]

10. Didn't they laud this tact back in the Raygun days as the "bully pulpit"

or maybe I'm thinking of Ross Perot and the chant he liked to use.

[Clio the Leo]

19. "time is better spent on this particular issue in conversation with members (of Congress)"

Is the key phrase there. He's not taking a hiatus from working on health care, he's taking a hiatus (supposedly) from talking about it to the public so he can FOCUS HIS EFFORTS ON INFLUENCING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

But of course there wont be a camera in the room, so it won't count. :)

[annabanana]

20. If he's laying low he's "Not supporting his team".. If he's out in public

he should be inside.

NYT - "All the Concern Trolling that Fits they Print."

[Cha]

21. It's so nice of the nyt to take such an interest

in President Obama's strategy..where the fuck were they when judy miller was selling the bush-cheney War On Iraq?

[Jennicut]

22. The truth is the media talks itself to death on every single subject.

Got to sell newspapers, make people watch, or click on your site. So they spin and spin and then don't even realize they contradict themselves. First Obama was not out there enough, then he was overexposed. Now he needs to lay low again but wait for it...soon they will say he will not be doing enough. These idiots should all just quit. People tune them out after awhile. There are a few good journalists left that really examine things and analyze things well. The rest is all noise.