home

The Default Message

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:50:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Given the acceptance of Austerity Now! by the Democrats, there is little hope that a rebounding economy and jobs picture will fill President Obama's political sails for 2012.

Two factors play in Obama's favor right now - (1) the GOP penchant for attempted destruction of popular social safety net programs (in 1995 and 1996, President Clinton was buoyed not only by a rising economy but also by GOP overreach in its attacks of the social safety net); and (2) the extremism that GOP primaries demand from their candidates (Obama gets to play the reasonable adult.) Will that be enough? Kevin Drum explores the Dem messaging issue on the economy:

So how do Democrats get back on top in the soundbite wars over the economy? Beats me. But Democracy Corps says they tested a bunch of messages and blaming Republicans for getting us into this mess is a loser. The three big winners are below. Take 'em for what they're worth.1

More . . .

They are worth very little imo. The "let's all get along" message certainly will not work for Obama. He needs to be seen a fighting for SOMETHING, preferably something in favor of the middle class.

The third message suggested by Democracy Corps is the only plausible one - fight for the middle class. That means tax increases for the rich to balance the budget, fight for Social Security and Medicare. Etc.

This will require the Obama Team to act in ways it has not in the past. 2008 is a long time ago.

But know this, Mitt Romney can beat Obama on the economy. Tim Geithner has left Obama vulnerable.

Speaking for me only

< U3 Unemployment Rises To 9.1%; Only 54K New Jobs In May | John Edwards Indicted on Six Counts >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Default Message | 94 comments (94 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama is going to be (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:29:00 AM EST
    extremely vulnerable to a third party candidate that speaks and acts like and has the determination of FDR.  If all the economic indicators are correct we are doing exactly what we did during the Great Depression and we are now slipping into a deepening worsening situation for average Americans.

    I never thought I would see this happen.  I never thought that the greedy would talk our leaders into doing the exact same things all over again, but they did.

    Donald Trump could be Perot-like, but (none / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    whether that hurts Obama I don't know.

    Parent
    not trump (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:52:24 AM EST


    Parent
    Therein lies the rub (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:12:38 PM EST
    The big "if" that you referenced above is that "IF" a 3rd party candidate came along who acted like FDR.... Granted lots of things could change....

    Lets watch, say, the next 6 mos. Given that the previous 6 or 7 months were accelerating in job-related economic activities and now a weak report, we may see the next 6 mos or so decelerating.  If the next several months follow in like pattern to May's results, then we may well see something in the nature of an economic challenger from a 3rd party. If not, then not.

    IMO, the pressure from the gasoline prices situation with related cost issues throughout the economy has a bit of a role. If the pattern of past years shows again, that periodic "crisis" will subside (and, with it, relieve a key economic pressure.) I'll also be curious to see if the drain from the government side of the equation--budget cuts causing less state and local government jobs--continues. A bumpy ride through the summer.

    Parent

    It's a lot worse than the raise in (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:31:19 PM EST
    cost of living....because that happened because of QE2.....they were trying to head off deflation and they did.  But they ignored jobs, and they kept believing in the private sector solution. If they didn't do something about aggregate demand we were do for a SERIOUS double dip.  And here we are, and when it comes to the economy there is serious lag time so by the time you without a doubt realize it has worsened...it has REALLY worsened. Take a look at the economic data though, it is going to worsen even if Captain America showed up to save us right now.  He could save us, and you could know that he did 60 days later.  Nobody saved, the second huge spasm of contraction is what you are experiencing right now but you don't even know it. You will know it in 60 days though.  You won't doubt it in 90.  You will despise everyone who got you here in a 240.

    Parent
    sorry....we were due (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:32:24 PM EST
    I can't believe I type phonetically but I do.

    Parent
    Looking at the lead story from all the MSM evening (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:45:50 PM EST
    news: All Johnny Reid "John" Edwards. That is the new sensational story this afternoon.

    What I'm saying: You may be right in that there have been a number of suggestions over the past two years that there would be the second dip. But then, as ole' Stephanopolous just mentioned (as I'm typing) "What a difference one month makes!" in referring to the downward news from the good news in earlier months. While I totally agree that there should have been a larger (or second) stimulus, that didn't happen. So, here we are; and, tho things have picked up here & there (esp in the midwest) it is as lackadaisacal as the most sultry summer days...ugly muggy.

    At this point, it may be bandaging and toughing it through. We know what didn't happen; but, what is the next step precisely? I don't think any of us  think lowering taxes for the rich will even cause a leak down other than out of someone on someone:) I'm also guessing we are all here proponents of tax increases for the rich. But, about jobs in the immediate future....? Toughing it through, pushing at every opportunity from the WH, old-fashioned one-at-a-time?

    Parent

    Yup, that's about it (none / 0) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:10:01 PM EST
    unless, of course, if President Obama answered the call of the better angels in his heart, and the empirical, cognitive cells in his brain, he could not only change the lives of so many millions of suffering families for the better, he could guarantee his own re-election.

    But for now, all we're left with is, to quote that beautiful word from the
    "Shawshank Redemption,"....................Hope:)

    Parent

    Mayor Bloomberg? (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 07:14:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Couldn't get the support in his own NYC (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:25:51 PM EST
    these days...a stranger in his own land, methinks.

    Parent
    God forbid (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 02:00:59 AM EST
    I don't think the Republicans can bring us such a person.

    Parent
    I got the impression after reading (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    the HuffPo article about this poll and what their findings were that there was some softball being played by Democracy Corps here.  That telling the President and the White House to get their heads out of their bums and start acknowledging that most voters are not experiencing the joys of Wall Street's recovery might have been considered too harsh a way to tell the White House to do that.

    As for the messaging they tested, it would be interesting to understand where it came from.

    What's really sad is that they had to do a poll to figure out how people are feeling.  Also interesting is how many times in their write up they emphasize "taking voters seriously" and trusting that they understand what's going on - like they are responding to a view that voters shouldn't be taken seriously.

    Sadder still (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by sj on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    What's really sad is that they had to do a poll to figure out how people are feeling.
     
    Sadder still is Kevin's statement and the underlying assumption:

    But it's worth noting that "Old Politics," which scored about the best, seems to be Barack Obama's chosen message.
    Because I agree that this what we can expect.  Messaging.  Not a course of action.

    Parent
    Well, if you read the pollster's report, (none / 0) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:32:57 AM EST
    it is all about messaging because that's their task, but it is interesting how they repeatedly encourage their audience - presumably Democratic strategists - to "embrace... powerful ongoing realities" of the economy.

    As I said above, politely telling them to get their heads out of the sand.  The pollsters seem to have to tell their audience that the issue of jobs and financial security is a big one amongst voters.  When 37-40% of people polled have experienced reduced wages or benefits in one year, you've got probably something approaching 100% of the population who have experienced or witnessed the effects of those reductions - because four in ten people are going to touch the other six somehow.

    Even just considering the unemployment rate and the uncounted jobless, the people who are employed are in many cases having to help, worry about or otherwise touched by others who aren't.  I can't believe that this White House has been so utterly tone-deaf on the issue of the Main Street economy and joblessness.  Even if they don't intuitively understand the pain and suffering, as political strategists they should understand the clear dangers to their political fortunes under such circumstances.

    Parent

    IMO the message that the political (none / 0) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    parties have adopted is that the party who receives the most money and support from corporate America wins. They count on being able to swamp the air waves and the help of the corporate media to sell their propaganda to the enough voters to win.

    Given the current structure of the two political parties, whichever party wins the average citizen loses and the government will run for the benefit of the Masters of the Universe.    

    Parent

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    The problem is though that the Masters of the Universe only have so many votes to offer up.  They have money, but they don't have votes.

    I think things might start to get pretty interesting for both parties in the near future. The spin can only go so far when reality is hitting so many so hard right in the face.

    Obama is on saying that we have to rebuild the economy for a new age.  It is so difficult for me to take him or any of them seriously when they say things like that now.  They certainly had the political wind at their backs and the power to do so back in 2009, but didn't seem to be at all interested in trying then.  Why should I believe that they are actually interested now?  How is it that we are supposed to believe that with diminished power and far less political advantage they could or would do what it would take to rebuild the economy for a new age?  Sigh.

    Parent

    The economy that they are building (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:29:40 PM EST
    for a new age is one where American workers become a low wage work force to further increase the bottom line of the Masters of the Universe.

    They control the environment and the general public has no real choice at the ballot box within the two party system but to select a politician who will continue the same corporate centric policies. The parties have been very successful in selling their message of (pick one-Democrats or Republicans) are bad but (pick one-Democrats or Republicans) are worse.

    Parent

    All true, but they still face the problem (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    of dealing with a discontented public in a democracy.  Now if they change it all up and no one can vote anymore, no problem for them.  But until they change that part of the equation, the 1 percent of elites are not enough votes to keep their power secure.  The hopey, changey bait and switch spin - hope is just around the corner! bs - won't be effective indefinitely - not when people are falling further and further behind.

    Erin Burnett said something on MSNBC around the time of the Egyptian protests that I thought was incredibly interesting.  She said that most people on Wall Street really didn't want to see as vast a wealth gap in this country as Egypt has because they feared that same sort of public uprising would happen around here.  But in typical fashion, the gamblers on Wall Street will try to push the limits as far as they can.  Right now it appears to me that they are getting very close to a dangerous tipping point that would realize their fears.  As they are currently unchecked by either party, they will more than likely get there faster than we could imagine - and I think that the American public will respond eventually.  That's why I said I think that things are going to get interesting for both parties pretty soon.

    Parent

    Too harsh (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Madeline on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:45:32 AM EST
    for Obama you mean.  Did you also read where he became testy and defensive. His words, "I know how to negotiate"; "I am the president";  "the world looks up to me"; the markets will fall.

    I think he is right about the markets falling ....lower, if he is too 'harsh'.  

    Sad, sad sad.

    Parent

    The only market (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    he should be worrying about is the job market. But in typical neoliberal fashion it's the least important market to Obama.

    Parent
    They have QE3 up their sleeve (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    to save "the markets".  It chokes off and kills the rest of us and has decoupled our markets from our real economy now, but they have that to save the markets with.  They have nothing to save us with, nor do they think we are all that important for some reason.  The "markets" are more important than the people.

    Parent
    Democratic "ascendency" on the economy (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    is not going to come from "messaging," from nice speeches or clever bumper stickers and slogans - it's going to come from action that improves the quality of people's lives - you know, like going back to work at a full-time, good-paying job, for example.  Or knowing that Social Security and Medicare are not going to be yanked out from under them.

    People can't feed their families on "message;" they can't pay their bills with "message."  Last election, we got "hope and change" out the a$$, and yeah, it "worked," but the follow-through showed us that there was nothing behind the rhetoric but more of the same old bad policies.

    So, here they are again, trying to figure out the best way to "win;" expending all their energy on process and none of it on content.  This is trying to find a way for people who have been doing a craptastic job to keep those jobs, while they continue to make policy that prevents the citizenry from getting and keeping their own jobs.

    And they don't care; it's all about them.

    Give me a f**king break.

    To paraphrase a well known quote (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    No man can serve two masters. You cannot serve both Main St. and Wall St.

    It should be completely obvious which street the current administration has chosen to serve.

    Parent

    "You have nowhere else to go" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:39:03 AM EST


    Wrong: I don't have to go anywhere. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:27:27 PM EST
    I don't have to choose one over the other - I can choose no one, if there isn't anyone deserving.

    I did it in 2008, and I will do it again in 2012, because I already know I'm not voting for any Republican, so if Obama's the only alternative, and I don't see any changes in his approach to policy, he's not getting my vote.  Period.

    Marginally better isn't enough.  Taking longer to get to the same place the GOP wants to go isn't acceptable.  

    And no, this isn't "cutting off my nose to spite my face," and it isn't letting the perfect be the enemy of the good; it's about not being willing to keep voting for people who just simply do not have my best interests at heart.  I'm tired of giving my vote to people who, once they have it, turn their backs on me and just go back to kissing the asses of their corporate masters.

    "Nowhere else to go?"  I don't think so.

    Parent

    If something were to happen though (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:59:36 PM EST
    and we did, he could really be in trouble.  The Republicans are no trouble though.

    Parent
    OTOH, all the Rethuglicans have to do (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:09:50 PM EST
    is ask "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" and show graphics of gas prices, home prices, foreclosures, yadda yadda.

    Geither is not the guy to blame here.  Obama is.  He hired Geithner.  He kept Geithner on the job.  FDR had a yutz for his first Treasury secretary and, when it became clear he was not working out after about a year, fired him and replaced him with Morgenthau.

    Obama, OTOH, has doubled down with Geithner time and again.  He has no one to blame but himself.  

    A 10 for this comment (none / 0) (#55)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:18:00 PM EST
    on all counts, if I could.

    Parent
    Excuse me (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    for reverting to my immature, pre-adolescent blather, but I don't see how anyone could stand being in the same room with that smarmy, smirking, ne're-do-well punk, Timmie G.

    Just from a visceral, instant flash reaction, the guy comes across as a spoiled jerk. Any time I've seen him interviewed, when the host asks him a slightly sensitive question, he, reflexively smirks first, then rolls his head around, first left to right, then oval towards the ceiling, then the floor like a childish brat caught with an errant cookie. His attitude seems to be saying, "aw jeesh, why do I have to put with dopes like you with these embarrassing questions, don't you know who I am? Gawd, I wish I could just get up and walk out."

    And even when he does answer, his elocution, and vocabulary is so disjointed and nonsensical that you simply can't believe this guy is  Treasury Secretary instead of a clerk at the Dollar Store. (nothing against clerks at Dollar Stores)

    And now I want to thank all for allocating bandwidth for my rant.

    I feel better now.

    Parent

    But, what about SCOTUS? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 07:20:53 PM EST


    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    that doesn't work any more with smart Democrats.

    Parent
    how about (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by womanwarrior on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    we all start texting and meeting in the squares like the Spanish people.  Could we really throw all the bums out?  H'mm.  

    Dumb ideas are not better than no (none / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:15:25 AM EST
    ideas. They are just dumb ideas.

    Imagine that, struggle for something, fight for it (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    I ain't holding out hope, but you never know, desperate pols will do CRAZY things.  Sigh.

    Mittens thinks Obama is doing a great (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    job at advancing Republican policies and wants to help him win in 2012. :-)

    Mitt Romney becomes the latest Republican to acknowledge that he would sign the Ryan budget to end Medicare. The nominee of the Republican Party will endorse the Ryan plan, no question about it. link
    Primary politics (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    "Two factors play in Obama's favor right now - (1) the GOP penchant for attempted destruction of popular social safety net programs (in 1995 and 1996, President Clinton was buoyed not only by a rising economy but also by GOP overreach in its attacks of the social safety net); and (2) the extremism that GOP primaries demand from their candidates."

    Parent
    They are absolutely crazy (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 10:28:46 AM EST
    is it really possible Mitt can continue this charade til Nov 2012?  

    Then again it's scary, you know when a Republican gets 51% of the vote it means they will try to do exactly what they want to do.  Mandate!

    Parent

    A Republican doesn't even have to (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    get 51% of the vote to think he has a mandate.  After all, G. W. Bush lost the popular vote with less than 48% of the votes in 2000, and he still thought he had a mandate, or at least he certainly acted as if he had one.

    Parent
    As compared to a Democrat (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:21:42 PM EST
    who does get a mandate and thinks that it's a mandate only to conciliate and concede.

    A community organizer could at least organize his Democratic community, but I think that's continuing to fall apart, too.

    Parent

    You got that (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:45:42 PM EST
    right, Towanda.  It does boggle the mind.

    Parent
    To the oligarchy (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:21:17 AM EST
    To the oligarchy, unemployment is just a conceptual thing.  For them, the right "message" WILL solve the problem.  Because they can't think past their own noses, they don't realize that for us, the economy is reality.  

    I think the only way to make them understand is to send the message that "he/she who does nothing about the economy doesn't get re-elected."  Who knows, maybe one of the Republicans IS the new FDR, will make promises to get re-elected and then defy them to save us?  All I know is that many people are going to be ready for a change in 2012...the current situation certainly isn't working.

    "Fight for the Middle Class " (none / 0) (#18)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:47:00 AM EST
    The middle class is suffering...because this economic slump has gone on and on more of the middle class are on the brink of financial disaster. Some may never recover ! Obama has done nothing for the middle class and they are feeling it. They will not forget.

     

    I don't think Romney is going to be the opponent (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:56:47 AM EST
    I don't know who will be, though.

    Why not? Romney is the only (none / 0) (#23)
    by observed on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:13:16 PM EST
    one who looks remotely serious, to me.


    Parent
    Republican primary voters (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    are increasingly uninterested in which candidate is "serious" or not.

    Parent
    Ok. But he looks like the only one (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by observed on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    who might beat Obama.

    Parent
    You're talking about the group of people (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    who chose Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle. They turned a sure thing into a sure loss.

    Parent
    All the primary candidates (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:28:39 PM EST
     are going to lie to get the nomination. My interest is which one, after the flip-flop, would attempt to run the country intelligently should they win the presidency.

    Parent
    So is the Republican base, so they can (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    not vote for that person.

    Parent
    yup, facinating.......sigh (none / 0) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:55:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Not Romney, I agree. (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    That seems to also eliminate most Republicans of less than extremist views pointing, in my view, to former Governor Sarah Palin.  For a while I thought this hinting around was just her money-making scheme, and it might once have been.  However, she may now believe what her tea party people (which is essentially the Republican base) are telling her--run, the country needs you.  Ms. Palin has the spark and flash that will do her well in the Republican primaries and the tea party types may not really care if she wins the general election--while a chance exists to defeat President Obama, a Palin loss will not be in vain from their perspective.

    Parent
    Not all (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    Republican primary voters across the country are the kind who voted for Christine O'Donnell.  Add in those who are more interested in a presidential year, than in a Senate race, plus all those open primary states where independents can vote.

    Can't even begin to compare the two elections.

    Parent

    "Not all" misses the point (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    They don't have to be all. They just have to be most, and I think it's the case that they are.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    Maybe in the early states, but if the economy stays bad, they will want to win the WH.  Palin cannot win.  Bachmann cannot win.  The powers that be in the Republican Party know this.  They will never allow the crazies to become the nominee unless something happens like unemployment falls to 3% and they know they have no shot any way.

    Parent
    Supernatural forces are not in charge (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:36:37 PM EST
    of the Republican party. The PTB are only as powerful as the primary voters allow them to be. And the primary voters want crazy.

    Pretend otherwise at your peril.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    And if you think the PTB have NO control and it really is completely "up to the voters", I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.

    Parent
    There are powers backing the crazy people (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:56:45 PM EST
    There are several elections in the past two years that demonstrate this.

    Parent
    GWB won two elections (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    I repeat.  Palin and Bachmann and the like are just noise right now.  They.Cannot.Win.

    Parent
    Who wins Iowa? Who wins NH? (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:23:19 PM EST
    If Pawlenty pulls out Iowa, and if Romney wins NH, does it come down to South Carolina? And, if so (since we all speculate so much), does SC have a history of staying with the party's powers? (I seem to recall that the state does not.)

    Parent
    Change one word and we're in 2007 (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:49:18 PM EST
    They will never allow the Obama to become the nominee

    Parent
    Subtitue (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:56:48 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton for Obama in your statement and you would be right.

    Parent
    I see (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:07:39 PM EST
    this a lot but I think a lot of it is just wishful thinking. The fact of the matter is a lot of people who I would be considered crazy like Santorum have been elected in blue states.

    I think you can go ahead and concede that Newt is a goner and he's probably not going to last until the end of the year.

    Tea party central here in GA couldn't get their candidate nominated for governor so they might not be as powerful as you think.

    Also, I plan on voting in the GOP primary this year because if we are going to have a GOP president, I might as well have a say in who that president might be. Lots of states have open primaries for president. The primaries for the senate and other races don't draw as much cross over voters as the presidential primaries do.

    Obama had Democrat for a day. Who's to say that one of the GOP nominees isn't going to have "Republican for a Day"?

    Parent

    you may be right (none / 0) (#57)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 03:22:49 PM EST
    but i disagree

    i think Romney is the likely opponent

    Parent

    He's in awfully early (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    Everything really sucks, and he is the candidate of the party who will without a shred of doubt make it suck more. There isn't short enough time to be able ignore that he is representing the "will suck even worse" party before we all go pull the lever.

    Parent
    I have to disagree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:03:38 PM EST
    with this part:

    That means tax increases for the rich to balance the budget

    Balancing the budget will harm the economy further, not help it. A balanced budget is the opposite of stimulus.

    Saying we need to balance the budget is giving in to deficit hawks for no economically good reason. Forget about tax increases for now. Obama has already lost that battle anyway, when he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. The focus needs to be on spending and job creation. We need to harp on that every single day until Obama and Congress listens.

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    The idea is to forestall cuts in government spending.

    Parent
    But balancing the budget (none / 0) (#30)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    will send the economy into deeper recession. This will mean that in the next year further tax increases or spending decreases will be required once again to balance the budget, and the economy will sink further into recession. And so on and so on. You can't just give in on the issue of balancing the budget and expect to solve the country's economic problems by other means. Deficit spending is the only way out of this problem. When you give in to deficit hawks and agree that the budget must be balance, slashes to social programs become inevitable, not avoidable by taxation.

    Parent
    The only (none / 0) (#32)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    way out of this mess while at the same time balancing the budget is for the private sector to increase it's debt or to run a trade surplus, or some combination thereof.

    Neither is feasible. Increasing private debt is impossible because banks won't lend in this economic climate, and it was massive private debt that caused the crash in the first place.

    As for running a trade surplus, that won't happen either. Obama has occasionally called for a trade surplus but he hasn't proposed one single idea for how that would be accomplished. And it would take years for the US to create a trade surplus even if it had the policies in place to create one. It simply will not happen, leaving us with only one solution - deficit spending.

    Parent

    Cutting spending is worse than (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:54:43 PM EST
    raising taxes on the rich.

    Parent
    But you are advocating (none / 0) (#35)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    balancing the budget, not merely increasing taxes. A balanced budget will tank the economy, regardless of how you achieve that balanced budget.

    Parent
    Not advocating (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    Understanding the political terrain.

    Parent
    This is not (none / 0) (#44)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    a response and you know it.

    Parent
    Personally (none / 0) (#36)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    I favor higher taxes on the rich. But only as a form of wealth redistribution, not as a means of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit since that will not help the economy one bit.

    Wealth redistribution means that the federal government must spend the money that it taxes from the rich, in addition to running a deficit. So for increased taxation on the wealthy to have a salutory effect on this economy it must still be accompanied by deficit spending, which won't get rid of the deficit as an issue the way you want it to.

    Parent

    I will probably vote for him in 2012 for the (none / 0) (#40)
    by me only on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    same reason I voted against him in 2008.  I prefer divided government.  I don't know how you run on the platform, but in my lifetime it has always been preferable to the alternative.

    With so many in my family (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 02:07:21 PM EST
    still unemployed, with prospects worse for them by the day -- my vote is up for grabs.

    I'm tending toward anyone who does not employ Geithner.

    Parent

    Frustrating monotony of opinions (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:23:38 PM EST
    It's Friday and I don't want to carry the moderate Dem flag today, so I'll sum it up thusly:

    I never believed that unemployment numbers would be substantially better than they are now at this point.  I was pleasantly surprised when we dipped below 9% when we did.  For example, Krugman has been railing about Obama's plans but fails to mention that he predicted the peak of unemployment to occur right now. The country is ahead of where Krugman thought we would be.  The CBO has been saying for years that we would be in the high 9% range at this point. The conservatives were predicting much worse.

    It's all relative, which is no help for a person who is out of work and struggling, but it is help for those trying to honestly evaluate the situation on a macro level.

    The economy is ahead of projections. Probably not the best day to say that, but it makes it no less true.

    Parent

    What's it like (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:30:25 PM EST
    to live with such cognitive dissonance? The economy is ahead of projections? Complete and total BS.

    Parent
    Warren, it is a land of unicorns and (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:45:07 PM EST
    rainbows, truly.

    I'd go live there myself, but I can't bring myself to submit to the lobotomy required for the residency permit.

    Parent

    IIRC (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 06:56:02 PM EST
    a month or two ago you were saying that the numbers were moving in the right direction and we would be down to 7% unemployment and Obama would be easily reelected. Now you're singing a different tune. Whatever.

    BTW Roubini projects 9.8% unemployment next year.

    Parent

    The numbers (none / 0) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 07:44:21 PM EST
    Are moving in the right direction, at least they were before recently.  

    I do believe that the unemployment numbers will continue to fall overall.

    If I am wrong, Obama's reelection task obviously gets harder.  I still say he wins.

    Parent

    In other words, the numbers are NOT (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:32:49 PM EST
    moving in the right direction.

    And if you drill down into those numbers a bit, the news gets even worse.  

    If you are wrong, the worst of it isn't that Obama's re-election will be harder, it is that life for those affected by his wrong-headed polices will get harder. That more people will lose jobs, more people will lose homes.  More businesses will fail.  More people's futures will be compromised.

    Unless and until Obama changes the policy, the outlook doesn't move off "grim," and any victory he manages to eke out will be hollow indeed.

    Parent

    Yes, your opinions (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:54:03 PM EST
    are frustratingly monotonous.

    Mine come from the sleepless nights, worried about my family -- the marriages falling apart, the depressions they are enduring, etc.  

    So you dismiss my opinions, my unemployed children and others -- my experience, my life and theirs?  Well, this time, your monotonous-to-the-point-of-mindless adoration of Obama has gone too far.

    Screw you.

    Parent

    for what its worth (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 11:20:04 PM EST
    there's a guy in nyc who, through personal experience, feels for you, and stands with you during your hardship.

    please accept my heartfelt hope for a rapid recovery

    Parent

    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 07:02:01 AM EST
    I can completely understand where you are coming from. We have suffered a job loss in my family and I know so many people in the same stressful situation you're in. Here in GA we have 9.9% unemployment so that makes for a lot of people in the same boat and it's one of the reasons I have been deemed a "hater" by some of the obamapologists around here.

    The bottom line is that Obama is really the wrong president for these times but even sadder is the fact that the GOP lineup is just as bad. I call the 2012 election as being between sucky and suckier.

    Parent

    If you believe (none / 0) (#95)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 12:27:29 PM EST
    That there is no quick fix to this recession that can be implemented throng either conservative or liberal principles, why does that somehow mean that you hate the unemloyed or whatever?

    Look, I just don't think thereof any fix to this recession except time. It feels good and gives us a convenient vent to yell at wall street or Obama or austerity or whatever,but the simle bottom line is this:

    The average person cannot sell his or her home right now without taking massive loses or going bankrupt.  If loans are modified to fix that the economy crashes. The government does not have enough money to help in a material way.

    That's it.  Full stop.  There is no solution other than time IMHO.  Hate me for my truth I guess.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#94)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    Dismiss your opinions at all Towanda.  The economy has impacted my family as well.  Many of us have stories to tell.

    The fact that I disagree with various positions does not mean that I don't care about people hurting.  

    Villifying this who disagree in good faith does nothing.

    Parent

    Friday is not a good day to start (none / 0) (#66)
    by observed on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:41:51 PM EST
    something new (taking up the moderate dem position---which is already amply represented here)

    Parent
    Thanks - it always helps ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 04:04:50 PM EST
    ... to drink a little (spiked) Kool-aid after news like this.

    I always know where to look for some more ...

    Parent

    Would that be Santorum :) (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:25:34 PM EST


    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#68)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 05:54:30 PM EST
    oh, i think Santorum would totally employ Geithner

    Parent
    That could be Obama (none / 0) (#84)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:59:33 PM EST
    if he'd get some guts and get rid of Geithner.

    I'm not betting on it, but Obama has time to win back millions of us.  If he'd rather become unemployed himself to cash in on that book contract and earn millions, it's up to him.  

    The voters are not always smart, but they have shown that they can be savvy in smelling out administrations that have checked out, presidents whose minds are occupied with their post-White House lives or their archives, instead of their jobs now.

    Parent

    I'm shocked that media is reporting (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 10:40:26 AM EST
    today what the "Real" unemployment rate is, which they said this morning is 15.8%.  And they have even reported that 29,000 government jobs have evaporated.  This is so honest.  Why are they choosing to be this honest right now?

    To manipulate the field (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    In recent months, the President has delivered on his advantage as the occupant in the WH via esp. foreign policy, military strength, several months (prior to May's report) of fairly good news in terms of the classic "things getting better" macro perspective, lots of attention to better news in the electoral vote-rich MidWest with what can be called a good call on the auto companies bailouts/fed assistance (i.e., thousands of jobs plus $$ payback to the govt.), etc.

    With all that, the average of all polls even beyond the OBL "bounce" has been building in Obama's favor. For example: Excluding the known Fri & Sat night negative effect, which usually has happened for Dems weekly for years, the President's ratings are in the very good over-50% zone. (With the characters running for the GOP, that news would be expected to be magnified for Obama when a named character with baggage is selected on the other side.)

    In the midst of all this, what do we know? Well...the media want people to pay attention to them and they know that boring contests don't inspire people to listen/read them. What does that do? IMO, it "stimulates" the media to hyperventilate about any problem/vulnerability that Obama might now face...because that would create interest, emotion, people listening, and maybe a competitive race. Unfortunately, for that theory, Mr. Repub Economic Candidate, Mitt Romney, got overshadowed in his designated state of New Hampshire (where she got front page news and he got page three.) Land Sakes....

    Parent

    You got it (none / 0) (#92)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 04, 2011 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    in one.

    Parent
    The Default Message | 94 comments (94 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment