State of Play

by: Mike Lux

Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 10:30


With his powerful speech in Tucson, his legislative wins in the lame-duck session, and a modest increase in his poll numbers, President Obama certainly is politically stronger than he was in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 election. The conventional wisdom in D.C. already has begun to shift, and with Republicans toning down their rhetoric because of the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy, the next couple of months may be a period of relative calm for the President. But there is danger ahead if the he gets too comfortable.

The biggest danger is if the White House allows itself to be sucked into that ever tempting D.C. conventional wisdom. Having the David Bs (Broder and Brooks) of the world love you feels really good when you read The Washington Post and The New York Times every morning, but if unemployment doesn’t start going down, housing prices don’t start going back up, and seniors have no more confidence in Obama’s willingness to fight for them than they have so far, the political climate in November 2012 isn’t going to be any better for the President and his fellow Democrats than it was in November 2010. Cutting a deal to resolve the debt ceiling issue that hurts the middle class will make Broder and Brooks applaud, but it will do nothing to help Obama’s re-election results. On the other hand, this moment of relative political calm could give Obama some leverage going into the next few months. The kind of brinksmanship the Republicans want to pursue on the debt ceiling will not look good for them if Obama continues to look more statesmanlike. The real question now is how Obama decides to position himself in terms of the big moments ahead. The White House needs to stay focused like a laser beam on the working and middle-class Americans who have taken the biggest hits economically over the last five years. These folks, who rejected Bush’s policies in the 2006 elections, took a gamble on this new guy, Barack Obama, and his promise to change America in 2008, and then either didn’t vote or went back to the Republicans in 2010.

The first big question is how the President will frame the choices ahead in his State of the Union. He has a chance to change the political dialogue from an obsession with retrenchment and deficit cuts to a focus on how life will get better for the middle class. There is nothing wrong with showing how he is going to take on the special interests by cutting the parts of the budget they love the best — padded no-bid government contracts, corporate subsidies, and off-shore tax loopholes — but Obama has to reorient the Washington discussion back to a focus on policies that will improve life for working families and retirees. The questions Washington should be debating are: how do we create more jobs; how do we get wages to start rising again; how do we lessen escalating inflation for daily necessities like gasoline, utilities, groceries, college tuition, and health care; how do we make sure seniors and those close to retirement have enough retirement income to live above the level of grinding poverty; and how do we stabilize the housing market, slow down the tidal wave of foreclosures, and get home prices to actually start rising again. Those are the issues Washington should be obsessing about instead of theoretical discussions about the size of government. Obama’s State of the Union should be first and foremost about those issues.

The second big question going forward is how the President will choose to position himself in negotiations with House Republicans on the debt ceiling. Is he going to, in his own words, allow more hostage takings? Is he going to again let our country’s middle class and our fragile economy be held prisoner by allowing the Republicans to set the terms of the debate? The President needs to be far more aggressive this time around than he chose to be in the tax-cut negotiations. He needs to be clear that he is not going to haggle over the government’s good standing on the debt issue, that he expects and demands that Republicans do the right thing in regards to the debt ceiling, and that he won’t allow Social Security or other programs seniors and the middle class depend on to be compromised.

The Republicans actually understand how catastrophic reneging on our country’s debt obligations would be. Eric Cantor already has acknowledged that the debt ceiling must be raised. Republicans can only force the President to give ground on Social Security, Medicare, and other key issues if he allows it by showing weakness as a negotiator. If Obama does give in on the huge issues affecting middle-class workers and retirees, he will have no one to blame but himself if those workers and retirees desert him again at election time. But if — like Bill Clinton in 1995 — he shows himself to be a strong negotiator on the issues key swing voters care about, he will put the Republicans in an electoral hole they will have a very tough time climbing out of.

The SOTU and the debt ceiling fight offer the President big opportunities to reframe the national political debate into one about which party will fight hardest for the American middle class. That should be the complete focus for Obama in the coming months. If it is, he can enter the spring and summer in commanding position for his re-election campaign.

Mike Lux :: State of Play

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

State of Play | 6 comments
I'm afraid (4.00 / 1)
Obama WANTS to lose “negotiations” on Social Security and Medicare.

 
Fuck-Face [aka Obama] has been on record as wanting to "reform" Social Security since before his inauguration. (0.00 / 0)
From The Washington Post, January 16th, 2009:

Obama Pledges Entitlement Reform; President-Elect Says He’ll Reshape Social Security, Medicare Programs


President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare “bargain” with the American people, saying that the nation’s long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

That right, before he even took the Oath, Fuck-Face was promoting the right-wing lie that SS and Medicare were “costly” and that economy couldn’t recover unless the government got “control” over them.  Fuck you, Fuck-Face.

(Side note: I’ve decided to, at least for now, take to referring to Barry as “Fuck-Face”, for two reasons.  One, it’s incredibly rude and disrespectful, showing my utter contempt for him but without using phrases that could be seen as racist [“vermin”, “piece of shit”] or homophobic [“ass-licker”].  

And, two, “Fuck you, Fuck-Face” has such a lovely rhythm, don’t you think?)

Anyway, Fuck-Face apparently saw destroying working Americans’ hope for retirement as a test of manhood, or something:


He said his administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.

“What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further,” he said. “We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.”

“Hard decisions”. Surrrre they are, Fuck-Face, sure.  You don’t want to make seniors eat cat food, but it’s a “hard” decision.  Starve the poor, or anger the rich?  What to do, what to do?

Oh, and remember when we thought we might actually get an EFCA?  Like it was such a big deal, we were willing to make deals with Arlen Specter and that sort of thing?  If I’d been listening, I could have noticed that Fuck-Face already had planned to kill that idea:


The president-elect also gave his support for legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but he said there may be other ways to achieve the same goal without angering businesses. And while many Democrats on Capitol Hill are eager to see a quick vote on that bill, he indicated no desire to rush into the contentious issue.

“If we’re losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize, so my focus first is on those key economic priority items I just mentioned,” he said. “Let’s see what the legislative docket looks like.”

News flash, Fuck-Face!  Despite your best efforts, over 135,000,000 Americans still have jobs.  “If we’re losing half a million jobs a month”, then it would take 270 months, more than 22 years, before there were “no jobs to unionize”.  I’m pretty sure that you could have passed EFCA and not completely wiped out the work force.  But thanks for putting the right-wing “unions destroy jobs” meme front and center.   Fuck you, Fuck-Face!


But [Fuck-Face] framed the economic recovery efforts more broadly, saying it is impossible to separate the country’s financial ills from the long-term need to rein in health-care costs, stabilize Social Security and prevent the Medicare program from bankrupting the government.

“This, by the way, is where there are going to be very difficult choices and issues of sacrifice and responsibility and duty,” he said. “You have to have a president who is willing to spend some political capital on this. And I intend to spend some.”

Yes, it’s “impossible” to solve our financial crisis (by say, breaking up the giant banks and putting their CEOs in jail) unless we “stabilize” Social Security.  And Medicare is going to “bankrupt the government”.  That’s why Fuck-Face sees this as an issue of “sacrifice and responsibility and duty”.  He’s “willing to spend some political capital”, so it’s our DUTY to starve to death!  Thank you, Fuck-Face!  I feel so enlightened!

Oh, and, one last time…Fuck you, Fuck-Face!

(On a slightly less venomous note, Mike, how on earth was the Tucson speech “powerful”??  He didn’t call for anything except an undefined improvement, he didn’t identify the causes [thus implicitly calling for them to be fixed], he just wants us to be better.  Well, yeah, that’s some bold game-changing speech, there. Seriously, what was to be admired about that speech?  Because I was so very unimpressed.)


[ Parent ]  
And if I keep wishing really hard, when I wake up, maybe my Chevy (4.00 / 2)
Cavalier will be a Porsche Boxster!

This Pres has no motive whatsoever to change in our preferred direction.  It is folly to keep wishing that he will.


 
This is not just a question of optics. (4.00 / 3)
The SOTU and the debt ceiling fight offer the President big opportunities to reframe the national political debate into one about which party will fight hardest for the American middle class.

That is almost legitimate question. It should be reframed as will either party fight at all for the American middle class?

But to ask the question is to know the answer. The GOP will bait Obama into proposing SS cuts, with him thinking that he will get credit for being serious and sensible. Cue the Tea Party screaming about the cuts and the GOP posturing against it… sadly (so sadly) losing against Obama’s tyrannical effort to shove these cuts down the American People’s collective throat. Finally, of course, the Democratic party must, as always, frame this as a progressive idea which liberals are obligated to defend or… BOO! President Palin!


 
beautiful satiric skewering of yglesias and klein? no? (0.00 / 0)
The second big question going forward is how the President will choose to position himself in negotiations with House Republicans on the debt ceiling.

On the Republicans’ collective lap, of course.


 
I'm not a betting girl, (0.00 / 0)
in fact I do problem gambling counseling.  But, Mike, I would bet you that Obama will open the door to cuts in Social Security in the State of the Union.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


 
State of Play | 6 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS