I used to listen to Friday's WBUR's On Point "Week in Review" every week on WNYC and looked forward to hearing the usually intelligent and diverse views. The host, Tom Ashbrooke, was bright and fair and there was usually a diversity of opinion, if only because a "liberal," Jack Beatty, was a regular.
But when I tuned in yesterday for the first time in awhile, I was appalled and angry. It epitomized the failure of the media to recognize what is going on politically right now. The guests were John King of CNN, Laura Meckler of the WSJ and, of course, Jack Beatty.
I can understand John King taking the "very serious" line, as well as Meckler (though being on the "news" side of the WSJ, she's not a raving wingnut like the editors, so I had some hope).
John King was much worse than expected, essentially taking the Republican view -- saying that "the sequester was Obama's idea" without any reference to the circumstances that led to it -- that is, the debt ceiling blackmail by the Republicans. He made the bullshit family analogy about the deficit. He said it's a miscalculation on the President's part not to compromise with the Republicans. He said that the sequester is the Republicans only leverage for spending cuts (implying that it's understandable to use it). He said Obama could win in the short term based on the polling, but lose in the long term because the economy will suffer.
King thought it outrageous that Obama would ask Republicans to give him 2 tax increases in 6 weeks. Why the very thought made King's heart flutter on behalf of the poor Republicans.
OK, I thought -- let's hear from liberal Jack Beatty to call bullshit on King. But no!
Beatty said, "It's really is unedifying to see Obama saying to Al Sharpton that for Republicans, nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations and that Republicans would prefer to see cuts rather than closing loopholes."
Beatty then said, "Obama could be right on this." (Could be?) "But nonetheless he's arrogant! He just deigned to call Boehner and McConnell, but there's not even a whiff of compromise."
Then Ashkbrooke quoted Rand Paul saying the sequester did not have enough cuts and Obama should "do the right thing." Then (for balance?) he quoted Alan Simpson saying that the sequester is "stupid," and we should "look at real issues" which of course for him are cutting SS and Medicare.
Ashbrooke asked "Where is honesty?" -- Is anyone telling it like it is? Meckler helpfully said "Honesty is in the eye of the beholder."
This was followed by the gnashing of teeth about how Washington is dysfunctional, etc. What can be done? This stalemate bodes so poorly for our future -- Why can't the White House and Congress come together? (Yeah, well, even Rodney King can't say that anymore.)
The only hope were the callers: Andrew in Amherst said that the sequester serves the Republicans' purpose of hurting the economy and helping elect Republicans in 2014 and 2016. King said well, this is the Republicans only leverage, and the flip side is that the Dems plan to blame the Republicans and get the House back.
Skeeter in VT said it's clear that the R's are living in fiscal never-never land. (Ashbrooke said, "that's what the Republicans say about the Dems.")
Ashbrooke says: "OK, we got your perspective!"
This whole discussion was from another planet than reality.
It had all of the following and more:
Accepting that blackmail (the sequester, government shut down) is appropriate leverage.
Saying it's up to Obama to compromise and accept that Republicans can't be expected to raise taxes again!
Accepting that something urgent needs to be done about the deficit.
Failing to say that the deficit has fallen faster under Obama than under any prior President.
Failing to say that taxes are still at an all time low for the wealthy and that inequality is disastrous.
Accepting that both sides are equally responsible for the gridlock.
Accepting the nonsense family budget analysis.
Calling Obama arrogant for not talking to Boehner and McConnell more.
Failing to say what a compromise would be? Cutting Medicare? Social Security? (clearly implied)