Posted on 10/25/2014 9:10:30 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
Neutral Story Line That Isn’t: Looks like NBC has its midterm election line set: It’s all about “gridlock” and “polarization!” (Video clip, featuring Chuck Toddd, here.)
You can understand the appeal of this angle to Turness & Co.. It at least seems to be a Neutral Story Line of the sort traditionally favored by big cautious MSM entities worried about appearing partisan –”Is This Anyway to Elect a President?” and “Nasty,Politics” are two other hardy NSL choices.
(SNIP) If Republicans win, well, voters just saw that as the way to break gridlock! If Democrats win, voters were tired of Republican obstructionism — or in any case (as Todd teed it up on Friday) they didn’t really trust Republicans to bring “change.” Nothing to do with approval or disapproval President Obama. A “gridlock” focus conveniently abstracts from unpalatable issues of ideology or policy or personality. Do voters hate Obamacare?
(SNIP)
Which happens to be its reality. The “gridlock” line isn’t neutral, of course. What would ending gridlock look like? Maybe, to the MSM, a non-gridlocked agenda is as “obvious” as it is to David Brooks. But it’s still an agenda. Front and center in this agenda currently is some kind of immigration amnesty deal. Sure, you could break the immigration gridlock the other way — with a focus on border enforcement before amnesty. But that’s not the break the MSM has in mind — and anyway President Obama would never sign it. So “voters want to end gridlock” translates smugly into “voters demand what the MSM, including NBC, wants,” if not precisely what the Democratic president wants.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Didn’t the great pretender have a Democrat House and Senate in his first term?
Why of course. Pelosi happens!
What was his excuse then?
The MSM never gets tired of self-gratification.
I find myself saying, “it’s always the same lie” almost every day these days. The Obama-Media-Complex would like us to believe many things about gridlock:
- That voters never vote *for gridlock* in order to stop an out of control Congress and/or President.
- That gridlock, for whatever reason it exists at any given time, is unacceptable to the voters.
- That Congress and the President should always be able to do something — anything — as quickly as the most rash participant desires.
- That gridlock itself is an illegitimate state of government, which gives cover to Obama and/or Congress to ignore the Constitution.
What gridlock? The liberals always win with help from RINOs.
Excellent distillation. Agree 100% with your four points. Checks and Balance we were all taught many years ago is a carefully crafted basic feature of the design of our government. When and how did the Dems and Press morph that into “gridlock”?
Why this would be a big scandal is a mystery to me, but -- barely a week before the election -- This American Life is trying to make it one.
352 bills are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk, awaiting action.
98% of them passed with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats working together to pass legislation.
50% of the bills passed unanimously, with no opposition.
70% of the bills passed with 2/3rds support in the House.
And over 55 bills were introduced by Democrats.
Ain’t that the truth.
If there is gridlock after the election (assuming Republicans take control of the senate) then there is only one person to blame - the president. Period.
And no federal budget because of Reid for how many years??? Just “continuing resolutions”...
Never mind that it is a constitutionally required function of congress...
For that alone Reid should have been tossed out of the senate.
And..do we hear the GOP talking about (ie..educating) “checks and balances” being the good gridlock we need?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.