Rich Lowry describes the political maneuvering that Obama is mastering.
First: Denounce your presidential predecessor for a given policy, energizing your party's base and capitalizing on his abiding unpopularity.
Second: Pretend to have reversed that policy upon taking office with a symbolic act or high-profile statement.
Third: Adopt a version of that same policy, knowing that it's the only way to govern responsibly or believing doing otherwise is too difficult.
Repeat as necessary.
In addition to Obama's issuing of his first signing statement, the examples abound.
Obama has executed versions of his three-step on terrorist surveillance and the Iraq War, and perhaps on Gitmo and interrogation (although the final disposition of those two is not clear).
On congressional earmarks, Obama's three-step was so obvious and clumsy he had to repeat Step 2 - making another promise to fight earmarks even as he accepted 8,500 of them in the omnibus spending bill.
Usually, Obama puts the emphasis on the second of his steps, to augment the difference with Bush. But in defending his economic policy recently after a reporter asked if it constituted socialism, Obama inadvertently highlighted the third step. He sought cover for his approach by pointing out that Bush had bailed out the banks and spent irresponsibly.
Of course, that sounds awfully familiar. On the economy, Obama is arguably giving us a massive dose of even more of the same - more money to banks and industry, more unsustainable entitlement spending, more deficit spending, more uncertainty about how to handle the toxic assets in the banks - with promises of higher taxes layered on top.
If the economy falters over the long term, this is continuity that people aren't going to believe in.
As Lowry points out, Newt Gingrich is utilizing the ultimate political jujitsu crack at Obama by referring to the Bush-Obama economic policies. Slash.
17 comments:
Newt Gingrich recently said we should pay girls not to become pregnant, poor kids to read and all kids not to smoke. Just imagine the outcry from conservatives if Obama or another dem said something like this. Again, somehow socialism is acceptable when it comes from a conservative.
On congressional earmarks, Obama's three-step was so obvious and clumsy he had to repeat Step 2 - making another promise to fight earmarks even as he accepted 8,500 of them in the omnibus spending bill
yeah, i guess you're just ignoring the president's speech about the earmarks this weekend. he said that this bill was going to be the last one with unexamined earmarks that he was going to accept. he then went on to detail what his criteria will be as to which particular "earmark" items will be accepted or resisted by the administration in the future. this goes one, or maybe three, better than the typical GOP approach of decrying "earmarks" in a vague way while ignoring that half of the earmarks in any bill are likely to be those of GOP lawmakers, as in the current budget
john mccain said during the campaign that when the earmarks came around, he would expose everybody who got one, "and you will know their names, my friends, you will know their names". he hasn't done this even for the democratic earmarks, much less the GOP ones. gee, john - i guess you lied about that one during the campaign, alright! i want the names and details of every legislator who put in earmarks - you hear?, every one
my guess is that with the scrutiny that obama detailed in the speech this weekend as to his criteria for the usefullness to the nation of any "earmark" project, by this time next year the GOP will be very sorry that it ever uttered the word 'earmark'.
Here's a link
Becomes
to a Fox News story about Obama doing his three step on stem cell research.
Let me see if I have this straight, the guy with the Oval Office and control of both chambers gets a free pass for basically not doing what he promised. While the guy who lost the election, holds no Committee chairmanships, is in the minority party gets the blame.
The new slogan for Pres Obama, instead of "Si, Se Puede" has now been changed to "Culpar a los lisiados typo!"
Socialism is a perfectly acceptable form of government. It's hilarious to listen to the under-informed here rant about it.
We have a socialist army, and now socialist banks in the USA. Somehow the republic hasn't collapsed yet.
It would do ordinary Americans a lot of good to adopt the social policies of, say, Sweden. But no, we just get a lot of ill-informed hatred. Reminds me of the good old days of communism-hating.
Socialism sure worked well in the Worker's Paradise of Cuba, the Delightful People's Republic of North Korea, etc.
m.o.d.,
"We have a socialist army...."
Would you care to elaborate on that statement?
Pat,
Even though McCain lost, I for one would welcome his shaming of those asking for earmarks. He's still a powerful senator, he could certainly do that if he wanted. Perhaps he is afraid he'd have to name his choice for v.p. Besides paying back-taxes, she's been busy loading up on pork (sans the lipstick, I assume).
Speaking of promises, McCain told us he knew how to get bin Laden. Don't tell me that, because he lost, he's going to keep it a secret.
mark, TV etc decide to chime in on this thread - not to comment on the charges or to defend the president, but to deflect attention.
Well done, guys!
equitus,
Defend Obama from what? Playing politics? Thanks, I'll pass.
What got my attention was Lowry's choice of quoting Newt. Gingrich's comment about paying girls not to get pregnant, or paying children to read is more socialistic than anything Obama has ever said. That it has gotten a pass from repubs demonstrates a complete lack of any principles. Of course, since Newt (mildly) rebuked Rush for wanting America to fail, maybe you dittoheads will soon turn against him.
mark-Just two weeks ago Sen mcCain did indeed use his time on the floor to condemn all earmarks.
http://tinyurl.com/amaxvp
Sen McCain said he had the experience and knowhow to capture bin Laden which is far different then claiming he knows how to capture the al Qaeda leader.
I'm not even a fan of Rush but the transcript clearly said he wanted Obama's policies to fail. And the last time I checked Pres Obama was not America or perhaps did I miss that he changed his name. What's missed in the comment is the realization that the Democrats seem to have accepted the idea that everything is legitimate as long as the economy improves. Let's invade Mexico for the cheap labor and Canada for the oil shale because that means Pres Obama has succeeded in restoring the economy.
If the president can't be trusted to keep his word, with a nudge and a wink, on the little things what chance is there that he'll have a road to Damascus moment on the large things?
Good try, Pat. McCain said he was going to name and shame the authors of earmarks. He fell far short of that. Substitute "the president" for "a senator" in your last paragraph and you'll have McCain.
Sorry to sound so cynical, but if you believe any politician when he says he is going to put politics aside (dem or repub), then you're fairly naive.
Failure for Obama would mean failure for America, just like Bush's disgrace is America's disgrace. If you want Obama to fail, you want America to fail. It is that simple.
you want Obama to fail, you want America to fail.
Repeating a talking point again and again will never make it true. Simple common sense will prevail every time.
For example: Say Obama, as a good will gesture, began trying to ship to North Korea a long-range missile system. (Absurd, yes, but this is a thought experiment.)
Would my wanting him to fail at that mean that I want America to fail?
And as I have pointed out Sen McCain is not the president and dozens of sites have published the names of the earmark writers. Plus McCain's amendment to strip out all earmarks was defeated almost unanimously by the Democrats and a handful of the usual suspects on the Republican side. I just don't see the that signing a bill with earmarks after promising not to do so is the same as promising as president to name them and yet still sponsor a bill that cuts that spending.
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11322
What is the point between bringing up what ifs vs the what ares? Does Pres Obama get a continued free ride because of what the losing candidate said if elected. It's similar to the current hyperventiliation over bonuses paid by AIG which are less than 1% of the money for bailing out the company. I guess it's too much to expect that the Congress and the President actually read the contracts and liabilities of the company they are throwing money at like the proverbial drunken sailor.
And Pres Bush certainly doesn't escape any blame for this either. But the ball is certainly in the Obama court to solve the problem and so far that doesn't seem likely.
I think, though the comment has not appeared yet, that the number should be not less than 1% but less than 1/10th%. I think I went surfing the day fractions were taught, oh well!
equitus,
The "simple common sense" comes in understanding that if the policies Obama gets passed fail, the country is even more screwed. Opposition is important, but hoping for him to fail is the same as hoping for America to fail.
I too am concerned about some of his policies and actions. He was behind the curve on the AIG bonuses. It may be time to cut losses on Geithner. Besides his embarassing tax problems and his role in structuring the bailouts, he seems inept at conveying a message. It would be embarassing to ask for his resignation, but ultimately might be better for him and the country.
M.o.D., I believe Natan Sharansky's (and the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's) writings could bring some reasons to light for the "communism-hating" you seem to think wasn't deserved. Too bad the multi-millions who were slaughtered for no reason by those communists aren't around to help enlighten you.
Post a Comment