Fortunately, not all journalists are buying into this misguided effort to play the middle ground. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reveals in her blog the absurdity of this false equivalency by creating a fictional situation where a true equivalency occurs.
Let's say President Obama, feeling good after winning re-election fairly easily, adopted an overly confident posture with lawmakers. He started boasting about the fact that his approval rating is four times higher than Congress' approval rating; his policy agenda enjoys broader public support than Republicans' policy agenda; and he decided it's time they start rewarding him before he considered engaging in basic governance.
"Sure," Obama said to Republicans in this imaginary scenario, "I'll sign the spending measures to prevent a government shutdown, but first you have to raise taxes on the wealthy. And end the sequestration policy. And pass comprehensive immigration reform. And approve universal background checks. The American people are with me, so I expect you to compromise and negotiate with me on these matters."
The president then said to GOP lawmakers, "And sure, I'll sign a bill to raise the debt limit, paying the bills you already piled up, but I'm not ready to sign a 'clean' bill. Instead, I also expect Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill, a public option for the health care system, universal pre-K, and billions in infrastructure investments. If you refuse, I'll have no choice but to tell the public you refuse to compromise and negotiate."
-Rachel Maddow, The Maddow Blog
Maddow says reports claiming that Obama refuses to compromise or negotiate as if it were a legitimate debate point aren't just misleading, but "demonstrably silly". I agree. This isn't normal give and take. It's extortion. Part of the minority party is strong-arming the majority to get everything they want. To report otherwise is a failure of journalism.
