×
Jon Chait wasn't impressed with this article in the Washington Post, which explores the relationship between President Obama's popularity and the challenges of the Democratic nominee for Governor in Virginia, Creigh Deeds. Chait compares it to a conservative op-ed, but most opinion pieces will address, at least superficially, opposing arguments. I didn't realize how bad the piece was until I read it -- besides the generally credulous tone, it displays a general lack of knowledge about what is happening in Washington and offers at least one correctable error; people reading this article are going to come away misinformed. But first, this line stopped me and probably should have given the article's editor a little pause, too:
There is no empirical evidence at this point in Virginia's race for governor showing that huge numbers of voters think like Cleland and will respond by sending a message to Washington.Huh. Then you have this, emphasis mine:
But she has been disturbed by the large Wall Street bonuses that Obama doesn't seem to be able to halt and his inability to rein in credit card companies that raise rates even on those with good credit.Now, the bonus thing is a fair criticism, more or less, although it's less important as a public funds issue so long as banks keep paying back their government loans and buying back their warrants at a good price (it does matter as a corporate governance issue for the future, though). But the president signed landmark credit card legislation this spring that specifically stops credit card companies from unfairly raising rates and adding unnecessary fees. He's also fighting for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would do even more to make credit cards fair. None of that is worth a mention?
He was supposed to help homeowners keep their houses, but the primary federal effort in that direction, called Hope for Homeowners, has had limited success. She said she has grown uneasy as government spending has seemingly grown out of control.That's the most egregious error of them all -- Hope for Homeowners is most certainly not the primary federal effort in that direction. It passed last summer and was judged a failure last fall. The current primary effort is called Making Home Affordable, and it's doing all right, and much better than Hope for Homeowners did -- read about that here. The best part of the story is the end, where we are introduced, as an example of Obama's failures, to a woman who got an adjustable-rate mortgage at the urging of a broker. It ballooned out of control and is ruining her credit. If only someone would propose a new agency to ensure that people had access to transparent and fair home loans. Oh, wait, the president already did that.
-- Tim Fernholz
