Michael Goodwin of the New York Post “listened intently” to President Obama’s Monday press conference, but only “for 15 minutes or so.” That’s 15 minutes or so longer than the duration of our own intentness, but we did listen falteringly to the whole thing. By contrast, as the president “droned on,” Goodwin reveals that he “did something I never did before during an Obama appearance: I turned off the TV.”
“Enough,” writes Goodwin. “He is the Man Who Won’t Listen to Anybody, so why should anybody listen to him? . . . I will leave that unhappy duty to others. I am tired of Barack Obama. There’s nothing new there. His speeches are like ‘Groundhog Day.’ ”
Goodwin is dead wrong about that last point, and he owes Bill Murray an apology. “Groundhog Day” was a terrific movie. Apart from that quibble, though, we feel Goodwin’s pain, and we suspect most Americans do. The World’s Greatest Orator is almost always uninspiring, condescending, self-aggrandizing, peevish and grim.
He is also, as Goodwin notes, ideologically inflexible: “There is not a single example on domestic issues where he voluntarily staked out a spot in the American middle. . . . Obama’s default statist position remains unmolested by facts or last year’s landslide that was a rebuke to his first two years. He continues to push bigger and bigger government, higher and higher taxes and more and more welfare programs.”
And we are stuck with him for another year and a half. Goodwin and this columnist are professionally obliged to pay a certain amount of attention, but the rest of America can tune him out. And Obama himself suggested on Monday that they are doing just that, in answer to a question by CBS News’s Chip Reid:
Reid: The latest CBS News poll showed that only 24% of Americans said you should raise the debt limit to avoid an economic catastrophe. There are still 69% who oppose raising the debt limit. So isn’t the problem that you and others have failed to convince the American people that we have a crisis here, and how are you going to change that?
Obama: Well, let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes. They shouldn’t. They’re worrying about their family; they’re worrying about their jobs; they’re worrying about their neighborhood. They’ve got a lot of other things on their plate. We’re paid to worry about it.
I think, depending on how you phrase the question, if you said to the American people, is it a good idea for the United States not to pay its bills and potentially create another recession that could throw millions of more people out of work, I feel pretty confident I can get a majority on my side on that one.
Yet as blogger Ed Morrissey notes, Gallup found that even people who are paying “very close attention” oppose raising the debt ceiling, albeit by a narrower margin (53% against, 37% for).
One must make a crucial distinction here. People, even well-informed people, strongly dislike the idea of authorizing more debt. Obama is surely right to suggest that most would dislike even more the disruption he claims would result from failing to raise the ceiling. But that reinforces our point, and Goodwin’s. “The public is not paying close attention,” as Obama concedes, and even the segment that is, doesn’t believe what he’s saying. America has tuned this guy out.
Not everyone agrees Obama’s troubles are the result of bad ideas and poor political skills. Writing at CNN.com, Princeton historian Julian Zelizer blames . . . Ronald Reagan–or, to be specific, a regulatory decision made late in Reagan’s presidency:
But the current structure of the media has emasculated the bully pulpit. Regardless of how good a president is on the stump, it is almost impossible for him to command public attention, because there is no singular “media” to speak of. Instead, Americans receive their media through countless television stations and websites. . . .
With the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, the media were also able to shed the appearance of neutrality and objectivity. Every perspective did not have to receive equal time. On many television and radio stations, objective reporters have been replaced with openly partisan commentators. Any presidential message is quickly surrounded by polemical instant commentary that diminishes the power of what he says.
Making matters worse, on the Internet, presidents can’t even fully control the time they have as they must compete with live blogs and video commentary as they try to share their message. Even within most households, the era of the single family television is gone. Now in many middle-class families everyone has their own media and is watching their own thing.
There are several problems with this argument. For one, the Fairness Doctrine applied only to broadcast TV and radio. The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality, in Red Lion v. FCC (1969), on the ground that broadcast airwaves are scarce public property and a license to use them is a privilege, not a right.
New media–cable, satellite, Internet–would have developed anyway, and the Fairness Doctrine would not have applied to them. What’s more, broadcast TV networks have been remarkably resistant to changing the way they cover news and public affairs. The only medium that was transformed by the Fairness Doctrine’s demise, it seems to us, is AM radio, now vibrant with political talk.
Zelizer also evinces an unattractively authoritarian attitude in bemoaning rather than celebrating the proliferation of media outlets challenging the president. One suspects his true motives here are partisan. His CNN bio notes that he is “editor of a book assessing former President George W. Bush’s administration”–a book that, according to the Publishers Weekly review (quoted by Amazon), deals “almost exclusively” with Bush’s “failures.” Zelizer never mentions Bush in his CNN essay, but one suspects he is far less inclined to blame the 43rd president’s shortcomings on the media as he is the 44th’s.
Further, is it really true that the diversification of the media has diminished the president’s power? Color us skeptical. The media might have been more uniform during the Reagan years, but they were by and large unfriendly to a conservative Republican president. Bill Clinton had to contend with talk radio and (albeit to a lesser extent than Obama) cable news, but he was able to command public support through most of his presidency. So was George W. Bush during his first term.
And there’s a pre-Reagan example of a president who seemed as adrift as Obama does today. Prof. Zelizer, we’re pretty sure you’ve heard of him. According to your CNN bio, you are “the author of ‘Jimmy Carter,’ published by Times Books.”
Sarah Palin Is So Stupid
Yesterday we noted that Barack Obama turns out to have told a highly misleading story about his mother’s supposed difficulty in getting her insurance company to honor claims for treatment of her terminal cancer. A reader calls our attention to an Obama comment from February 2010 that leads us to think his tall tale was the result of ignorance rather than dishonesty.
It seems the president of the United States does not understand insurance. “The blogprof,” had video and a transcript of what Obama said while pushing ObamaCare:
When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won’t name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company–let’s call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month. After about six months I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I’d like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements. But it really wasn’t serious insurance.
Now, it’s one thing if you’ve got an old beat-up car that you can’t get fixed. It’s another thing if your kid is sick, or you’ve got breast cancer.
Acme Insurance Co.? Meep meep. What Obama is actually saying is that he had liability but not collision coverage. Assuming the story is true, he apparently didn’t know enough to get the other driver’s insurance information to file a claim.
This seems as good a time as any to quote David Brooks: “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” Just don’t let him drive.
Accountability Journalism
House Republicans failed yesterday in an effort to repeal the Bush-and-Pelosi-era ban on traditional incandescent light bulbs, which begins to take effect at the end of this year. The vote was 233-193 in favor of repeal, but the bill was introduced under a procedure that required a two-thirds supermajority. The Associated Press responded by quibbling with Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, whom it describes as “a driving force” behind the repeal effort:
“If you are Al Gore and want to spend $10 for a light bulb, more power to you,” Barton said. He exaggerated the cost of most energy-efficient bulbs and neglected to mention that they last years longer than old incandescent bulbs, which give off about 90 percent of the energy they consume as heat.
The AP does not hold itself to the same fastidious standards, though. The dispatch’s headline is “House Republicans: Down With Squiggly Light Bulbs”–even though the GOP is as permissive toward the squiggly compact fluorescent bulbs as it is toward the old-fashioned incandescent ones.
London’s left-wing Guardian is even worse. Its headline is an outright falsehood: “Republican Bill to Ban Energy-Saving Lightbulbs Fails.” Here’s the sarcastic first paragraph:
A Republican campaign to defend America against a sweeping assault on personal freedoms–or energy-saving lightbulbs as they are more commonly known–went down in defeat on Tuesday night.
That’s like describing the repeal of Prohibition as a ban on nonalcoholic drinks.
The Libertarian Case Against Legalizing Drugs
This columnist has some sympathy for the libertarian arguments in favor of decriminalizing drugs, but we’ve never felt comfortable getting fully on board with the idea. Blogress Ann Althouse points to a big reason why. She links to a video in which long-winded leftist Glenn Greenwald makes a case for legalization. Here’s Althouse’s description of the garrulous Greenwald’s argument:
He loves the idea of pulling people into the embrace of government. When drugs are illegal, there is a “wall of fear” separating the people who are drug users from government. But if drugs are legal, “the relationship between the government and the citizenry changes for the better and becomes much more constructive.” Tear down that wall, and these people who avoid the grip of government can be enfolded in endless programs. A torrent of ideas for programs spews from the mouth of Greenwald. It’s such an exciting idea for lefties: There’s a big untapped pool of potential clients for nurturing government services. Let the druggies come to Big Mother government.
Libertarians might argue that this would still amount to a net gain for freedom. We suspect they would also point out that they are against both antidrug laws and Greenwaldian nanny government.
The former argument is defensible, but the latter is irrelevant. Since we live in the real world and not Libertarianland, it’s unreasonable to think that legalization of drugs would not result in at least some of the sort of government expansion of the sort Greenwald desires. Thus we continue to lean against drug legalization, in part on libertarian grounds.
Homer Nods
Barack Obama’s economic team warned in 2009 that unemployment could rise as high as 9% if Congress did not pass the so-called stimulus, not 8% as we wrote Monday (since corrected). Worth repeating: Congress passed the stimulus, and unemployment actually rose as high as 10%. It still exceeds 9%.
Out on a Limb
“For the Dodgers, It Could Be Hit or Miss With Free Agents”–headline, Los Angeles Times, July 11
What Would We Do Without Polls?
- “Poll: US Jews Fear Muslim Terror”–headline, Arutz Sheva (Israel), July 13
- “Poll Shows Palin Still Stirs Strong Emotions”–headline, WSJ.com, July 12
With DNC in Mind, City Bans Carrying Urine, Feces
“State Pays for Music Video About Picking Up Dog Doo”–headline, Seattle Times, July 13
‘They Gave Me a Hat,’ the Suspect Told Police
“Man Accused of Stealing Nearly $1,300 in Hats, Clothes”–headline, Patch.com (Brookfield, Wis.), July 13
They Can Use It to Clean the Afghan
“Death of Karzai Brother Leaves Power Vacuum”–audio title, ABC News website (Australia), July 13
With Talent on Loan From the IRS
“Rush to Defend Tax Rule on Inventory and Profits”–headline, New York Times, July 13
The Lonely Lives of Scientists
“Scientists: Stinky Sock Smell Helps Fight Malaria”–headline, Associated Press, July 13
What’s the Pennsylvania Man’s Name?
“Casey Anthony, Pennsylvania Man, Harassed Because of Name”–headline, Puffington Host, July 13
Hey, Kids! What Time Is It?
“Time to Get ‘Serious’ on Illegal Aliens”–headline, Boston Herald, July 13
Questions Nobody Is Asking
- “Did Mother’s Urge to Play Yahtzee Cause Son to Strangle Her?”–headline, Star Tribune (Minneapolis), July 13
- “Is Volvo Swedish or Chinese?”–headline, WSJ.com, July 12
- “Did Eskimos Attack Hadassah Hospital?”–headline, Arutz Sheva (Israel), July 12
Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking
- “Dying Bats Called No. 1 Mammal Crisis in U.S.”–headline, CBSNews.com, July 12
- “Glenn’s Latest Toy? An Actual Jihadist Rocket”–headline, GlennBeck.com, July 12
- “Why Bill Gates Wants to Reinvent the Toilet”–headline, Yahoo! News, July 13
It’s Always in the Last Place You Look
“Something Is Missing”–headline, Paul Greenberg syndicated column, July 13
News of the Tautological
- “Betty Ford Remembered at California Memorial Service”–headline, Reuters, July 12
- “Apocalyptic Fringe Cult Still Predicting the End of the World”–headline, DailyCaller.com, July 13
- “Exotic-Animal Owner Sam Mazzola Died Bound in His Home During an Apparent Sex Act Gone Wrong, Coroner Says”–headline, Plain Dealer website (Cleveland), July 13
Bottom Stories of the Day
- “Fond du Lac Area Drivers Failing to Heed ‘Wet Paint’ Signs”–headline, Fond du Lac (Wis.) Reporter, July 13
- “3 People Wounded in Shooting at Detroit Nightclub”–headline, Detroit News, July 13
- “Rick Scott May Not Turn Out to Be Much of an Electoral Boost for Obama”–headline, Puffington Host, July 12
- “Jackson Lee ‘Offended’ by GOP Saying Debt Deal Impossible With Obama Around”–headline, TheHill.com, July 12
- “Obama, US Viewed Less Favorably in Arab World, Poll Shows”–headline, Boston Globe website, July 13
No Beer Until You Eat Your Peas
While President Obama is threatening to starve your grandmother to death, Gov. Mark Dayton is threatening Minnesotans’ adult beverages, the Associated Press reports from Minneapolis:
Miller, Coors and other popular beers may disappear from Minnesota stores and bars within days because brewing giant MillerCoors lacks the proper licenses due to the state’s government shutdown.
MillerCoors has 39 “brand label registrations” with the state that expired last month, and the employees who process renewals were laid off when state government shut down July 1 in a budget dispute, Doug Neville, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, said Wednesday.
State alcohol enforcement officials who remain on the job recently told officials with Chicago-based MillerCoors LLC that they need to come up with a plan soon for pulling their products he said.
So they shut down the office that approves licenses but not the office that enforces licenses? Sounds like a good argument for just shutting down the entire government for good.
Follow us on Twitter.
Click here to view or search the Best of the Web Today archives.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Taylor Dinerman, Hillel Markowitz, Michael Smith, Monty Krieger, Andrew Pietila, Aaron Spetner, Thomas Hazlett, Greg Chalekian, Marion Dreyfus, Bruce Goldman, Bob Wuktisch, Randy Riness, John Bobek, Chuck Kasinger, David Hallstrom, Mark Finkelstein, Bill Briggs, Zack Russ, Michele Schiesser, Jeanie Ribble, Paul Hughes, Bill King, Evan Slatis, Ed Grinberg, Abe Beyda, Merv Benson, Andrew Strada, Joe Perez, Paul Boyer, T. Young, Jim Miller, John Lord and John Williamson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
![[botwt0713]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-OS383_botwt0_C_20110713132514.jpg)
![[EYESROAD]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/PJ-BB782_EYESRO_C_20110712175833.jpg)
![[Entitle.1]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BB572_Entitl_C_20110712173023.jpg)
![[MK-BM749A_GOOGL_C_20110613180039.jpg]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BM749A_GOOGL_C_20110613180039.jpg)
![[DWEEK]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-BK360_DWEEK_C_20110712164958.jpg)
![[JORDAN]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-AG252_JORDAN_C_20110712205250.jpg)
![[BENGALS]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BB549_BENGAL_C_20110711175323.jpg)
![[JOBS]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BN447_JOBS_C_20110711180707.jpg)
![[OB-OR340_0711da_C_20110711214509.jpg]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-OR340_0711da_C_20110711214509.jpg)
![[OB-OR345_potter_C_20110711222009.jpg]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-OR345_potter_C_20110711222009.jpg)
Hosting donated by 
You +1′d this
1. 
Join the conversation:
Add New Comment
Showing 8 comments
I think Rapson has overstepped in this case and is acting like an egomaniac. Center running is just a better option. It is what is advised by the federal transit administration. The city even tried to compromise with the private investors by adding more stops in Midtown. Threatening to dismantle the project seems like more of a power play than anything. It's ridiculous that the city and the foundations can't play nice. But I think his tone toward the city helps explain why.
I don't like his condescending tone to Mayor Dave Bing, who I think is a more than competent leader who has a responsibility to the public. But maybe people in Detroit would disagree?
I just think foundations enjoy this privileged position in our cities, above any public scrutiny. And sometimes I think they deserve to be criticized. This is a good example. I'm glad the Wall Street Journal took a look at this.
A foundation, is not like a private investor, in that the people running it also do not have a personal stake and are playing with funds often earned by someone else long ago. The bigger the foundation is, the more likely it is to have issues like this.
I'm not saying the people who run them don't care-just that it's really not their money and in that way carries some of the same risks government funding has.
However, one needs to be blunt about exactly how it came to be that foundations now have all this power. In the case of Detroit, they are big players not just because they are big, but because there is such a lack of a viable private economy. They are filling a vacume.
The situation is one of very much trying to make best of a very bad situation which was very much caused by the federal construction of highways and destruction of neighborhoods.
Yes, there were many other forces at work. However the single biggest one was that all the players learned to not invest their own money and to play the kind of heads I win, tails you lose game which did so much harm.
Perhaps, the FEDs have learned, but the chances are not high.
My strong inclination is to trust the judgement of the private donors and land owners first. Not to say they can't be wrong headed in their opinions but just that they are the only party with an actual financial stake in being right.
Yes, the "city", collectively has a stake, but the politicians involved do not. I doubt they have put one dime of their own cash in. It's their game and someone else's skin-as always.
To put this in context. Detroit is a city that is beyond belly up broke. It's hardly in a position to be worrying about the evils of "gentrification"-a somewhat meaningless term. It needs taxable, bankable, rational development.
Yes, many transit oriented places, do tend to become expensive, but the major force at work is just supply and demand. The solution is simple-build more places like that-and the price will drop.
The huge question people should be asking is just why America, which up untill the late 1920's managed to build plenty of dense and functionally affordable neighborhoods just can't do that anymore? What are the forces at work that make this kind of development so rare and expensive.
What happened to places like The Bronx's Grand Concourse, the place once known as the Park Ave, of the middle class?
Who destroyed them? Scum like Robert Moses who never put a dollar of his own cash on the line.
The real goal isn't to get people living in the city to commute out to jobs as much as getting more jobs and dense development in the city itself.
The system they are building seems very much based on Detroit's current development pattern and doesn't seem very forward looking.
At least that's the way it seems from the little bit I read. Relatively few stops near the core and rapid movement towards the edge of the city.
Hong Kong has the most modern transport system in the world-widely availabe, affordable-and paid for by a very self interested capitalist system connecting land use and transit.
Using the insulting term "gentrifiers" and "real estate", interests is just obnoxious. Hopefully, finally--a mostly win win situation can develop in which more of Detroit can be improved and more livable for a wider range of people.
The implication that-all improvement=gentrification is just dumb.
My personal view from a distance is that the plan to have a route which was more focused on making more stops in the core area in and near the downtown was a better plan-if the goal was truely to create a denser, more walkable and more financially stable city.
Detroit's destruction was very much the product of government plans by people with none of their own money at risk.
Reactions