Dowd: Obama Didn't Call Congress Back Because 'It Would Have Screwed Up His Vacation and Upset Michelle'
As NewsBusters has been reporting, the Obama-loving media have largely been gushing and fawning over the current White House resident taking a vacation on Martha's Vineyard as the economy appears to be heading into a double-dip recession.
Giving an interesting insight into the President's decision to not call Congress back from its summer break to tackle the problems facing the nation was New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who wrote Sunday:
Americans are rattled and want action. They don’t know or care what Congress’s schedule is. They just see the president not doing anything.
Cruising white Midwestern hamlets in his black bus, Obama tried to justify not calling lawmakers back to D.C. by saying they’d just continue to bicker. But what does he think they’ll do in September? The truth is, he doesn’t want them back in the capital any more than they want to be back. It would have screwed up his vacation and upset Michelle, who already feels trapped in the Washington bubble.
If Clinton wanted to be president 25 hours a day and W. wanted to be president four hours a day, Obama wants to be president for about 14 hours a day. And that’s fine, as long as you don’t look like you’re phoning it in when the country is dialing 911.
As the saying kind of goes, if you lose Maureen Dowd...
Just imagine what her sense of despair will be if the double-dip does arrive, and unemployment begins edging even higher next year as the nation prepares to head to the polls.
The question for many Americans that surveys show are well ahead of the media in their disappointment with this president is just how will his supporters in the press behave if economic conditions are indeed far worse when Election Day approaches.
Will they continue to back a man with obviously failed policies simply because the alternative is a Republican?
Unlike today, the economy was clearly on the rise in 1996 as was employment and the stock market. Journalists backing Bill Clinton weren't necessarily going against America's economic interest by doing so.
This means that the last time we had a Democrat president seeking reelection with an economy trending down was 1980. At the time, despite his failed economic policies, media were clearly on Jimmy Carter's bandwagon to defeat the eventual winner, Ronald Reagan.
Will it be the same this time, and America is about to once again watch the overwhelming majority of so-called journalists try to reelect a man that is clearly not up to the task of righting this sinking ship?