On CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, Howard Kurtz asked NPR talk show host (and former ABC reporter) Michel Martin whether Obama will get a honeymoon period from the press. This, of course, is an interesting question after a torrid two-year premarital love affair, but it’s hardly a question requiring a crystal ball.
Martin’s reply was a little shocking, implying that somehow America’s present circumstances are comparable to the days after 9/11: “I would argue that he’s going to get a honeymoon because of the historic nature of the problems addressing the country right now . . . . I think I would liken it to the period right after 9/11, when the press was very uncritical of the president because you couldn’t afford to be.”
To the extent that President Bush wasn’t criticized or questioned in the aftermath of 9/11 (I think that’s been exaggerated a bit, I remember criticism), it was because such times are hardly appropriate for the usual partisan political game playing that takes up so much of our time. I don’t think there’s ever a time when leaders shouldn’t be asked tough, honest questions and I do think there could have been more of those asked after 9/11 (especially about decisions such as creating the Department of Homeland Security, a bolt-on to existing national security bureaucracy that we hardly needed).
But the election of Barack Obama, in terms of history and importance to the country, is hardly comparable to 9/11. And certainly the idea that Obama deserves any sort of a “honeymoon” from being asked tough questions is absurd.
Being the president is a job that comes with a lot of scrutiny and tough questions. Obama wanted the job. He got it. Time for him to face the music.