Really, First Read?
Yesterday, I noted how strange it was that MSNBC's First Read leavened their usual breathless coverage of polling and public opinion with the sentence, "But [Obama's] presidency won't be judged by what happened on this trip; rather, it will be judged on what happens afterward." Ordinarily, First Read would read deep into polls and proclaim a "public image problem" or a "public image triumph" (or some such) for some political actor. But yesterday the writers seemed to acknowledge that basing one's political journalism on day-to-day polling was silly; long-term events, they acknowledged, have far more to do with our leaders' successes and failures. Had First Read learned an important lesson about the way journalists do our work?
Nope. Here's the gang today:
[Republicans] have maintained (for the most part) a unified opposition to Obama and the Democratic agenda. All Republicans, save for three moderate GOP senators, voted against Obama's stimulus. And every single Republican voted against the Democratic budget. But looking at recent polls, we've got to ask: Where has this gotten the GOP so far? The recent New York Times/CBS poll showed the Republican Party's favorability rating at an all-time low, matching the result from last month's NBC/WSJ poll.
Guys, come on. If Obama will be judged not based on what he does now but on the long-term results of very major decisions, as you said yesterday, doesn't the same standard apply to the congressional opposition?