In a front page article yesterday, Mark L. Andler of the New York Times reported that
President Obama is heading into his re-election campaign with plans to step up his offensive against an unpopular Congress, concluding that he cannot pass any major legislation in 2012 because of Republican hostility toward his agenda.
Andler fails to report that Republicans won a majority in the House while picking up six seats in the Senate (and coming close to winning two more) because of popular hostility toward Obama’s agenda. That said, the article is reasonably fair. (Do wonder if the paper would so accurately report the campaign plan of a Republican incumbent — or candidate.)
Indeed, Andler acknowledges the risks of “Mr. Obama’s confrontational approach” and takes note of something conservative bloggers (and pundits) have been highlighting since the early days of this administration:
However the White House chooses to frame Mr. Obama’s strategy, it amounts to a wholesale makeover of the young senator who won the presidency in 2008 by promising to change the culture of Washington, rise above the partisan fray and seek compromises.
Emphasis added. Of course, Mr. Andler’s paper didn’t report the Democratic Party and legacy media’s wholesale makeover of the left-wing activist/politician into a post-partisan new kind of leader. In short, the Democrat will attempt to win reelection through the politics of division, by attacking his ideological adversaries.
This represents another risk for the man who ran, in 2008, on the upbeat themes of hope and change. As As Salena Zito observed in studying Obama’s faltering support in Iowa:
Yet with guys like Allen Anthony [a “furloughed employee at a “green’ technology firm where Obama once spoke], Barack Obama still lacks a persuasive reason for them to turn out and vote for him.
Emphasis added. Via Instapundit.