RSS Feed Menu
First reactions to the president’s big jobs speech:
1) Qua speech, it was excellent – clear, focused, unrhetorical.
The core concept – stressing past Republican approval of the major elements of the proposal – ingeniously put Republicans into an awkward spot. And in fact, the maneuver has had some immediate effect. Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor told Politico tonight that they would approve important elements of the bill.
The speech was tricked out with items cleverly intended to catch the ears of people who might not normally support the president: the promise to pay federal contractors faster, for example, and payroll tax cuts for smaller businesses worth up to $80,000.
2) Qua economics, the proposal looks a lot better than the 2009 stimulus. This new measure is not larded up with the Democratic wish lists and obsolete campaign promises that made such a mess of Stimulus 1. There are no tax rebates here, no Pell grants, only the basic material of a counter-cyclical program: investment tax credits, continuing payroll tax relief, and infrastructure spending.
3) Qua politics? Obama’s re-election proposition remains pretty bad, but it’s marginally less bad tonight than it was this morning. No, he has not restored the country to prosperity. But he does again at least look like he’s trying and like he’s defending Medicare and Social Security in the process. If Obama cannot run as the recovery and prosperity candidate, he will try to run as the stability and security candidate against opponents whom he will seek to depict as radical and reckless. Many of his opponents are enthusiastically cooperating with that strategy, including the current Republican presidential front-runner.
Need to rework my resume with the following headline: Hire me and you’ll get a $4,000 tax credit! Cunning, but I’m afraid it’s too little, too late.
Yes, it is.
The president’s first stimulus plan cost $787 billion, and it has not worked well enough to fix the economy. Will $447 billion more do the job? Imagine seeing a black woman shaking her head: “OH HELLLLLLLL NO!!!!”
And even if he can get the GOP and Dims to agree to such a plan – - a huge if – - where will America get the money? There is only one way: We must borrow it/print it. We must plunge deeper in debt in order to climb out of the hole. Or so BHO says.
Unfortunately, he was irrelevant to the members of Congress watching him read the teleprompter.
November 2012 can’t come soon enough.
And it will be fun watching the race baiters make their accusations.
Oh dear! We’ll have to borrow money at real interest rates approaching zero! What shall we do?
Smarg – if you’re going to quote Roger Simon, you should have the decency to credit your source, instead of playing it off as your own (i’m thinking of the jackass at the bar in Good Will Hunting). Here, i’ll help you out: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63055.html – the seventh paragraph:
“The president’s first stimulus plan cost $787 billion, nad it has not worked well enough to fix the economy. Will $447 billion more do the job? Or wil it be good money after bad?
And even if he can get the Republicans and Democrats to agree to such a plan — a huge if — where will America get the money? There is only one way: We must borrow it. We must plunge deeper in debt inorder to climb out of the hole. Or so the President says.”
John, I freely plagiarize so as to emulate my hero: MLK.
Questions?
Why hasn’t someone put a bullet through your bigoted self?
Oh, thats simple – you only shoot off your mouth when you can remain anonymous. Another big talker from Mommie’s basement.
meddy, if brains were gasoline, you couldn’t run a pissant’s go-cart two laps around a Cheerio.
Smarg,
Funny you should mention it, but a race baiter is weighing in here with his worn out teleprompter line too
The President is brilliant! Beyond clever. I think Boehner and Cantor are playing it smart to keep that door open. Let’s see which candidates and non-declared candidates will trip on this one.
Btw, Smarg
Who is your candidate again?
ABO: Anyone But Obama.
I’d vote for Hillary over him any day even.
That is a smart plan? Not.
Why wouldn’t you want the best two candidates Smarg? Who is your pick for the Republican nod?
Yes, so true, November 2012 cannot come fast enough. Then, and only then, will this right wing extremist insanity be defeated decisively at the only polls that matter, so that something resembling the GOP I grew up with can take back its rightful place in the GOP tent. That tent is looking more and more like the oxygen tent in an insane asylum as each day passes. And Rick Perry is a classic example of what at least 60% of the voting public hates about the current state of the GOP – which, naturally, makes him the odds on favorite for the nomination. You all love the sound of your own voices, but soon it will mostly resemble the sound of one hand clapping.
Smargy, turn off Rush for a few minutes and try to make contact with the real world. Most of the people who are paying attention are fully aware of the right’s deliberate and ongoing sabotage of the economy for political gain. Conservatives have been doing it for decades and, having perfected their techniques during the ’80s, they have in recent years come dangerously close to destroying the American way of life forever. It took the president nearly three years to finally understand that cooperation with anarchists just doesn’t work, and now that he has come to his senses, you trolls better get ready. The crap that you have been extruding is about to get flushed.
League of Women Voters type: Oh Governor Stevenson, all the thinking people in town are for you!
Adlai: That’s not enough, madam; I need a majority.
Another reminder that Smargalicious is a perfect exemplar of Poe’s Law.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlehkm94ato
What we need is a leader who inspires all Americans to pull up their boot straps and improve their own lives through a spirit of hard work, education, conservatism and healthy living. Tax credits, tunnels and bridges, fuel efficient cars and trade treaties would pale in comparison.
In general, I agree.
You mean you want GWB back? How did that work out last time?
Not what he said at all.
So basically you are saying a simple speech will get us out of this mess. You are ridiculous. No, what is needed is concrete action to help the economy. “Inspirational” leaders giving speeches is a joke. Reagan grew the economy by actually spending more and creating the largest deficits at the time since WWII.
The “inspirational leader” talking point is living in lalaland…. Obama if anything is inspirational. He gives very good inspirational speeches. That is not what is needed. Hard action is needed.
That would be the “Pass this bill now!” part. Hard action. He has a plan, one that both Dems and Republican have approved of, and he’ll sign it. Congress has to pass it – Now! Isn’t that “action”? Like Obama said, there are a whole lot of people who can’t wait 14 months for the election to be over. “Now”, as I recall, mean “Today”, “This Minute”, “Immediately”.
So true. Clasic Rovian politics to take someone’s strength (in this case, speechmaking) and try to twist it into a liability. It was, as usual, a technically excellent speech, but this was far more than just a speech, it was a call to action based on a specific plan, and the GOP will ignore it or stonewall it (or snark at it) at their own peril. Americans will not wait until November 2012 for governmental action to create jobs and provide stimulus to an economy in which private investment is still standing on the sidelines, and waiting. One of my colleagues, a lifelong republican who voted for Obama in 2008, and voted GOP in 2010 (because, she said at the time, Obama focused much too much attention on health care reform, and not enough on jobs and the economy), is extremely unhappy with Cantor and Boehner, and the GOP majority in the House, and McConnell, DeMint and the stonewallers in the Senate, for doing almost exactly the same thing. She voted GOP in 2010 to send the message that jobs and the economy are the most important issues, period, and what the GOP gave her back was a completely phony debt crisis, a major self-inflicted wound to the nation’s credit rating and stock market, and not one action — NOT ONE — to help create a job. She is fed up with them, and if they blow off Obama’s bipartisan proposals, they will definitely lose her vote in 2012.
My colleague is a microcosm of a widespread phenomena, being GOP voters who don’t exactly love Obama and his politics, but respect his temperment and foreign policy successes, and think that the tea party, the religious right, and the Limbaugh-Hannity-Savage crowd are far worse. Thesefolks feel like they have no place to turn at this point. The GOP is literally one or two elections away from long term irrelevancy, if the few centrists left in the party don’t start pushing back against these extremists ASAP.
Just a reminder: the POTUS does not have the power to pass bill. Congress does, and Obama can only ASK that congress accept his plan and pass it as a bill. So yeah, the POTUS can only give inspirational speech to get Congress to act.
BTW, Reagan got actions because the democratic-dominated congress was willing to work with him. If only today’s Republican- dominated House would find that same inspiration to work with the present POTUS!
I agree, I can only imagine what an abject failure Reagan would have been had the Democratic controlled Senate filibustered every proposal and brought the country to a complete standstill, oh yeah, and impeached him for Iran-Contra as well.
He was white, a “real” American, who had two white parents, and was an actor. I was a former GOPer who came to the party because of W’s dad and Ronnie. I “hate” the Tea Party and what they have done to America, and it’s all driven by a bunch of white people who think they are the “real” followers of Ronnie. And, they may have been right because he was an actor. He still caught my eye too. Ronnie was a man who had the sense to surround himself with excellent people, like W’s dad. Today we have stupid leadership, with stupid staff, who share stupid information to stupid supporters, who would rather see the country go to hell as long as that black guy fails. So, despite a country in need of leadership, we have people who have no interest in taking up the challenge and producing results. Why, because if they did the black guy would get the credit? Terrible.
(In reply to armstp) No, exactly the opposite. Not sure how you draw that conclusion. Speeches achieve very little, as Obama aptly illustrates. Actions speak (much) louder than words. Obama’s actions have been inept and designed to push the state evermore into everyone’s lives. Those that blindly voted for hope and change in 2008 are disturbingly myopic. The man was/is clearly unqualified for the job.
My core philosophy is limited government, and so in a way I admittedly make a rhetorical point. There is a lot of hypocrisy in the far right. How can your campaign mantra be ‘jobs, jobs jobs’ when part of your solution is to free the reigns on MNCs to operate overseas? (To be sure, I come down on the side of freeing the reigns rather than empty promises.) How can Rick Perry claim he wants to make government as inconsequential as possible, and yet not long ago he supported mandatory HPV inoculations for teenage girls? He needs to reconcile that, and until he does, my money goes to Romney or Huntsman.
Intellectual honesty is in short supply across the entire political spectrum. I believe we have a constitutional crisis, and would prefer to see a strengthening of the tenth amendment along with a dilution of the so-called dormant commerce clause.
I think government does have a role to play in a civilized society, but it’s primary function should be providing security and supporting the rule of civil and criminal law. I’m not sure we even live in an age when an inspirational political leader – think FDR, Churchill, Kennedy, Reagan – could exist. Rabid know-it-all bloggers and cable channel talking heads would cut them down ad nauseam. But I am certain that absent such an inspirational political figure, or a cultural leader such as MLK, or otherwise an inspirational historical moment that refocuses individuals to their naked existential state, those who sit around complaining that government is not doing enough to rescue their unemployment, paltry savings or genuine dissatisfaction with things will be waiting, and complaining, for eternity.
How precisely does one pull oneself up if there are no jobs? The reason we don’t have jobs for people is not because people don’t want them.
That you don’t understand that the President does indeed inspire quite a lot of people makes it clear you are incapable of seeing things from another’s perspective.
There are jobs!!! That’s the issue. America’s corporations are sitting on the sidelines until the government gives them the best deal to rehire people. They have gotten a reduction in taxes, gotten America to pay for the people they cut w/o penalty. They have helped to elect Govs who have attacked organized labor, cut taxes to keep them in their regions, and they’ve done it w/o being blamed for the mess they have placed the country. Heck, they even got free trips with the president to other countries to search out global labor. Oh there are jobs, but for now it’s not worth it to start hiring until more of what they want is addressed. Once their stock prices begin to get hit, and the flat tax gets approved, then and only then will you see more jobs. Why, because the limit will have been reached and it will be time to go out and start paying those taxes making money. This bill coupled with the cut in government spending will begin to change the tide. Oh one other thing, changes in regulations will also need to be addressed. Ask a major corporation what regulation they are talking about, and you will hear a story about clean air, but they really mean tax reform.
It’s amusing that the most rabid proponents of the market economy consider that the most basic market economic incentive – money – is not enough to save the market economy. Bring in the preachers.
Jeez these people are insane.
However, money in the form of existing loopholes and tax breaks – no matter how small – is VITAL to the economy and must not be touched under any circumstances whatsoever.
What bothers me is not the particulars of the plan, but where was it a year ago? Six months ago? The same objections of GOP obstructionism are even more virulent now than they were six months ago.
I agree 100%.
It was not obvious a year ago that any further and expensive government action was required. A year ago we were growing at 2% and expectations were we would be at 3% by now and we were adding +200,000 jobs a month. Easy to monday-morning-quarterback, but it was not obvious that further government stimulus was needed a year ago. We were also in the middle of the 2010 election and the GOP was killing Obama on the deficit, debt and the stimulus.
I don’t believe that a year has made much of a difference in the economy; certainly, we’ve gained, not lost, a little on the jobs front. The GOP was killing Obama on the deficient, debt, and the stimulus (which any honest person in command of the facts know worked).
Obama’s plan cuts taxes, closes tax loopholes, and acts as a second stimulus. The reason it’ll pass now are fundamentally the same reasons it would have passed then – except we’d be a year to the good.
And yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but the country isn’t worse off than it was a year ago, its marginally better – so I still don’t see how you’ve made the case that the things Obama is pursuing now didn’t make sense a year ago.
A year ago it wasn’t necessary because the private sector was adding jobs and therefore the green shoots of recovery were pushing through. And then the Republicans, realizing that what is good news for the country is bad news for them, decided to destroy national and international confidence in America. And therein lies the answer to the question of why wasn’t it given six months ago – it would have been lost in the hostage negotiations that were going to prevent the Republicans from detonating their WMD.
The “green shoots” were fertilized by Bernanke’s QE2. Once the pipe of fertilizer feed with taxpayer money tried up so did the false profits showing up on the balance sheets.
The tax credit of $4000 is a joke to small business when the hidden costs of Obamacare hit them over the head. No small business will bite on that nonsense.
It was a waste of pregame time.
America must be in a real death spiral if people are counting their ‘pregame’ time.
9/11 DID change everything.
Diaper David Vitter proudly announced he wasn’t even going to attend the speech, he was going to watch the game instead. Asshole.
Diaper Dave was there. I saw his face in the crowd.
That diabolical Harry Reid scheduled Senate votes for both before and after the president’s speech.
Why is it known as QE2? Because there was a round before it. Who was president then? GWB? Why was it OK back then? Well, becasue the Republicans controlled the White House.
When did QE2 start? November 2010. At which time we were already seen private sector jobs increase for ten consecutive months. Is the QE2 a time machine as well?
I know these things make sense when you hear them in the closed ecosystem of talk radio, but they can’t survive out in the real world where people armed with actual facts and logic can pop them like a balloon.
One presumes that Mr. Obama was still trying to work with the Republicans, and the country was still listening to their ideas. Now, Mr. Obama feels free to ignore them, partially because they have discredited themselves and partially because the country is behind these ideas.
That’s fair enough, I suppose.
I think a year ago the President was still suffering under the delusion that the Republicans actually wanted the economy to get better and would cooperate with reasonable legislation. I think he finally got the message and thus this cleverly crafted proposal. I wish he would have taken up jobs on day 1 when the Dems had both Houses, but let’s look forward from here.
Maybe not a year ago. Trends were better then for sure. But when the housing market continued to falter this spring, and before the budget battles heated up, that was the time. Instead, it has been nothing but budget battles, then debt limit battles. He should have seen them coming, and dropped this speech just before the budget battle. That would have reframed the discussion to his (and our) advantage. But no, he just continued to lead from the rear, and miscalculated badly. This is my biggest beef with him. Depending upon how bad refuglican missteps are perceived by our electorate, it could well cost him the election, and with that, and a good chunk of what our future could have been.
Cunning? Making proposals that Republicans have already supported is “cunning”?
If Republicans find themselves in an “awkward spot” this evening, it wasn’t Obama who put them there. Blind obstruction and sabotage should have caught up with them long ago. It’s about time!
You sound as though you wish the Republicans could find some way to oppose even this! Why? Are you a saboteur too?
I guess its “cunning” when a Democrat shoves the GOP talking points back at them. Its a “brilliant political manuver” when a GOP leader makes the same proposal. Just like Obamacare: The original plan was designed by GOP leaders and think tanks (American Enterprise Institute and Bob Dole) but its now “evil” because President Obama passed it.
What about just saying: Its good for the country !!! Lets do it !!!
It has not stopped the GOP from criticizing their own ideas in the past.
Initially, I objected to that headline as well, but since the article didn’t actually attack the plan, I decided to overlook it.
I’ll never know for sure, probably, but I got the strong impression watching some of the older GOP Congressmen that they were unhappy, not with the actual content of the speech, but that a Democratic President was stealing and undercutting their material. What are they supposed to say now? If they suggest deregulation and lower taxes are the answer, the Democrats point at the President’s proposal. If they then say, “Bur what is really needed is tax cuts for the wealthy”, their last pathetic shred of cover is blown.
The President just ate their lunch.
He took a page from the Bill Clinton playbook. Are you saying they didn’t see this coming?
I guess it doesn’t fit the right wing narrative that Obama is a left wing extremist, but that’s just a lie and this speech proves that.
Nor that he is a naïf, a pushover, “not very smart”.
This is what’s happened in American politics in general over the last few decades. The Democratic party seems to have left much of its idealism in the past. The Republican party has adopted a new form of extreme free market idealism. I see this flip-flop across the board in general, not just as some tactic in this one speech. I could never have predicted this 20 years ago.
Obama is frequently “accused” by those on the right of being a community organizer (true, once) and influenced in his thinking by Saul Alinsky (probably true, and so what?). Which is to say, he’s not a starry-eyed idealist. Alinsky certainly wasn’t. In working for change the President will readily accept incremental improvement over none at all.
This is what frustrates those who are still idealists on the left (a majority of whom are, as you have observed, an earlier generation of Democrats). They think–are sure–that the President always settles for less than he could have gotten in any bargaining situation. They are of the “Go big or go home” school of thought. This should not be conflated with the conflict between the party conservatives (the “Blue Dogs”) and the party liberals. That is a separate issue altogether. The tension between the party pragmatists–considered “centrists” (even when they’re not) and “sellouts” and as lacking principle by the idealists–and the party idealists–labeled “purity trolls” and “idiots” and as lacking any common sense by the party pragmatists–is probably a healthy one. The idealists are necessary to keep the vision clear of what the party wants and stands for. The pragmatists are necessary (in my view) to actually achieve that vision, insofar as it is possible. I frequently find the infighting frustrating, but it’s better than having either side completely dominant.
That’s what’s happened to the GOP. It has been captured by its most radical, unrealistic fringe, and look at it. What an ungodly mess.
Wonder if Boehner still thinks it was worth it to snub Obama’s requested date for this speech just to please Rush.
Just think, if Boehner had let this speech happen the night of the debate as Obama requested, the media wouldn’t have had a full 24 hours to hyperventilate over the Republican frontrunner’s hatred of Social Security and Obama’s sensible bipartisan plans to revive the economy would have been drowned out by the Romney vs. Perry conflict story bias.
I sometimes wonder if this was Mr. Obama’s plan all along. He wanted to go after the Republican debate but didn’t want to look afraid, so he let the Republicans perpetual pique work for him.
I wondered something close to the same thing. If the flap was predicted, it was equally predictable that it would draw much more attention to a speech that otherwise could have been lost amidst the sturm und drang of the Republican nomination process.
But I don’t know–attributing that level of subtlety and Machiavellian genius to a scheduling conflict may well be going completely overboard.
Excellent point.
Pointing out Republican hypocrisy and small mindedness is ‘cunning’? Seems the cunning bar is set pretty low these days.
Then again, this IS a Republican’s definition of cunning that we’re talking about.
Just thinking about Speaker Boehner and Mr Cantor. Is anyone reminded of this from Shakespeare’s Julius Ceasar ?
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar Act 1, scene 2, 190–195
So…Chris Christie is to be trusted?
Heh. What a thought.
meddy, Christie might be fat but you’re ugly and he can go on a diet.
We *know* what Chris Christie looks like. (And what prevents him from that diet??)
You DON’T know what medinnus looks like. (And what prevents you from saying this stuff anyway?)
I’m ugly and obnoxious – I believe in reality-based reality.
Smeggy still thinks he’s not a closet queer, that his naked racism is shared by anyone with greater than a one-digit IQ score, that somehow is draft-dodging cowardly ass is ready to take up arms to protect his pitiful self, and that his Christianism world-view has anything at all to do with the actual teachings of Christ.
Its a shame when you can read almost anything, but fail to understand any of it )
Who are you? What are you? Why?
My favorite moment was when the president was talking about the no-tax pledge and Speaker Boehner half laughed and started smiling because he saw where the president was going with his rhetorical trap. He either liked the proposal or appreciated the rhetorical trap for it’s execution.
I’m too lazy to look this up but does the bit about extending the middle class tax cut mean it is being unbundled from the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire? Democrats tried that to no avail last time.
“I’m too lazy to look this up…”
But you’re honest about it, at least! )
I think that is the case; showcasing that the real GOP agenda is to preserve tax cuts for the rich.
“No, he has not restored the country to prosperity.
> lets not forget why he has even had to “restore the country to prosperity” in the first place… polls show the public certainly does not forget who got us in this mess.
> Given the record decline in GDP and job losses, I think it is a tall order to “restore the country to prosperity” in a short two and a half years.
“Obama’s re-election proposition remains pretty bad..”
> Despite what the Media has been saying Obama’s most recent 44% approval rating (up 2 pts in last week) is actually not that bad. He is marginally below where Reagan (47%) was and equal to where Clinton (44%) was at this point in their Presidencies. They both got re-elected pretty easily.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
> You can hardly pin the more recent decline in Obama’s approval on him, as after the debt ceiling debate all politicians saw their approval fall, with congress at historic lows.
> Elections prospects are a relative game. The question is how well are his potential Republican opponents polling. The answer in the most recent polls is that Obama still beats every single one of them, despite the economy and all the rhetoric and vitriol.
So I would say that Obama’s re-election prospects actually continue to look quite good.
From Gallup:
“Public approval of how Obama is doing his job has been fairly steady in 2011, except for a temporary uptick after bin Laden’s death. Furthermore, his average 47% approval rating in the first half of 2011 is identical to his average rating for all of 2010.”
A little lower approval now, but not that bad and frankly his approval has not moved much in the last two years. Lets not forget that Obama has remained the most popular national politician since he was elected in 2008.
Totally agree. Reports of Obama’s electoral death are exaggerated. Basically he’s where he’s been for most of the time, namely the mid 40′s, and when his approval dips it’s as much because his more radical supporters aren’t happy he’s being as aggressive as they’d like. He’s certainly not a shoo in but as the rhetoric heats up and he’s stacked up against the Real Republican candidate as opposed to some abstract idea of wonderfulness his underlying strength is going to show. Ultimately it will come down to turnout which is one of the reasons I hope Perry is the Republican candidate. I can’t think of anything more calculated to energise the Democrats.
Here is a look at the most recent Budget and Economic Outlook from the United States Congressional Budget Office:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/09/creating-jobs-in-america-what-can.html
With the deficit-to-GDP ratio well above the historic norm of 2.4 percent, there is very little that Washington can afford to do without exacerbating the debt problem further.
Increased government spending will be enough to tip the debt balance in favour of default.
I think that you are forgetting one major part of the equation: By increasing revenue, we can offset any increase in spending. OOPS, I forgot, increasing revenue is against your religion.
deficit to GDP is 8-9% and falling. the number is artificially high because the hit the denominator or GDP has taken. If you do nothing it will easily fall to 4-5% of GDP over the next two years.
If the Bush tax cuts expire in 2012 deficit per GDP will be back to its more normalized ratio of about 3% of GDP.
Using the basic findings of “Keynesianism 103″, http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/09/unemployment-equilibrium-keynesianism-103, it is clear that Obama’s speech, and more significantly his economic strategy, are on the mark. This was good economics and also good politics. I think the power of his presentation changes the political landscape.
Why does the country need to be restored to prosperity? Because the Republicans under GWB destroyed the economy. Who is Obama’s most likely opponent for re-election? Somone who espouses doing the same things that blew up the economy in the first place. People aren’t going to vote for that.
Shaddap, watusie. GWB had to deal with a world war on terrorism. Or, are you going to blame the 9/11 attacks on him as well??
Quote from Ron Suskind’s book “The One Percent Doctrine:” (late summer of 2001 when the CIA was quite concerned about all of the terrorist “chatter” and flew to Bush’s Crawford ranch to discuss with him) – “He (Bush) looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer. ‘All right, he said. You’ve covered your ass, now.’”
What did Bush do after this concern was raised? Could he have prevented? Probably not, but when presented with concerns he did absolutely nothing. Unforgiveable.
I’m a total Obamaphile, for the reasons all sane people are, but I’ve never held 9/11 against Bush; everyone’s mindset was just different. This is a shitty excuse for a President and admin., which is why they never used it, but it’s more true than anything else cooked-up.
If you go to the internet archive (archive.org), they’ve got an enormous TV archive of events from that day. One thint that struck me while watching CNN, etc. is that about the only newscaster who understoood what was happening (terrorism) in real time was Charles Gibson. CNN’s own narrator was like “and another plane has crashed into the world trade center. Perhaps there’s an air traffic control problems” The chaos and cluelessness within air traffic control around the country is another testament to the “this can’t be for real” mindset.
I give Bush a pass on prevention; On executing the war? FAIL.
I blame his administration and republicans in general because we had plenty of warnings and Clinton was all the time warning about the terrorists, as did that Vietnam guy, sorry can’t remember his name right now and the republicans all pooh-poohed him because even then they did not care about good policy. I am sure the letter Bush got from Clinton at the transition further spelled out the dangers. I remember them making jokes about Clinton being scared/ obsessed with terrorism. They were as irresponsible with our safety as they were with our budget. Conservatives they are not.
Bush failed on the War on Terror? I think not.
Krauthammer explains it best:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-911-overreaction-nonsense/2011/09/08/gIQAc727CK_story.html
Laura, we wre attacked twice by Al Qaida while Slickk Willie was in, but he was VERY busy comitting adultery in the White House, getting impeached, and other minor distractions…
Obama is also fighting the war on Terrorism. In fact he has stepped up the fight against those who attacked us.
Do you think that the war against terror is over and we can all just get around a campfire and sing songs?
As for blaming Bush for the 9/11 attacks – I will say that he was warned when he first took office of the threat and did not follow-up on them.
Follow up by doing what? Going to Congress and saying “I know we had all that trouble in the 1960s, but you gotta let me combine our espionage apparatus and our law enforcement apparatus. You have to let the CIA talk to the FBI so we can arrest people in America for belonging to a foriegn conspiracy.” You think either party would have bought that without a 9/11? There’s strong dissent against it even after 9/11.
Nice pile of absurdities there. Now let’s push them to one side and face facts: prior to 9/11 the national security apparatus put concrete proposals in front of the Bush Administration regarding the threat the AQ posed and things that could be done to counter them.
They were ignored.
A cabinet level meeting about al Queda would have been nice. Just being sure everyone was a little more clued in once we heard about bin Laden’s determination to attack would have helped a lot. Remember we got news of specifics (in the Phillipines I believe) but it didn’t get up the chain in time.
What Bush/Cheney did was like the Doctor who decides what’s wrong with you in the first minute and ignores anything that doesn’t support that theory. They had their own ideas about the threats to our country and discounted all else.
So far was it from their psyche, that they actually claimed it was unthinkable—even though Tom Clancy wrote about this very attack approximately 10 years before.
>>Now let’s push them to one side and face facts: prior to 9/11 the national security apparatus put concrete proposals in front of the Bush Administration regarding the threat the AQ posed and things that could be done to counter them. They were ignored.<>What Bush/Cheney did was like the Doctor who decides what’s wrong with you in the first minute and ignores anything that doesn’t support that theory. They had their own ideas about the threats to our country and discounted all else.
So far was it from their psyche, that they actually claimed it was unthinkable—even though Tom Clancy wrote about this very attack approximately 10 years before.<<
Except Clancy's kamikaze was a Japanese, and his Muslim suicide bombers had a nuclear truck bomb.
The passengers on the two planes that hit the towers grabbed carpet instead of rushing the cockpit, because they assumed along with eveyone else that Arab hijackers were going to let the passengers go. Decades of hijackings PROVED that. This seems like more Monday-morning quarterbacking.
What does it matter that Clancy had the plane that crashed into congress Japanese and Muslims use truck bombs? That’s technique. Surely, we are flexible enough of mind to understand that the may share techniques?
It is not as if the Bush Administration did everything it could to protect against a truck bomb only to be foiled by a air bomb. They ignored it in general. And since the towers were attacked before with the intent to take them down, not simply bomb them, we knew they thought they were a good target.
It isn’t Monday morning quarterbacking to say that the Bush administration didn’t take Al Queda seriously, it is fact. Nor since plenty of people who had worked on this for a long time did take the threat seriously is it second-guessing.
More importantly to me, the Bush Administration has never admitted its own failure.
Well, actually…yes.
Bull shit. Invading Iraq and drop kicking the post war administration while letting Afghanistan wither under the Pakshitistan meddling was his problem. 9/11 and AQ had nothing to do with those idiotic moves. You may act stupid, but you know better. Can’t live it down can you?
Obama was ALWAYS going to run as the stability and security candidate. His entire approach to governing is based on making cautious and intelligent moves. And his potential opponents are indeed cooperating. You know he’s not going to do anything stupid and can you say the same about Perry, Bachmann et al?
As to speech and content, it was fairly effective by both measures. Even Republicans like Frum and Brooks are praising his presentation and while not going for broke as I’d hoped he’s gone further than many predicted. He’s also put the Republicans on the spot big time and they know it hence the conciliatory noises from Boehner/Cantor and co. The country knows we’re in trouble and outside a minority on the right aren’t going to be too pleased if Republicans blatantly try to obstruct efforts to do something about it. This was a great stake in the ground.
You and I are in agreement here, Otto. Mr. Obama has always tried to be the stable one, risking the ire of his base to do so.
As I’ve said before, because the debt ceiling debacle played so well to their base, I don’t think the Republicans understand how it played out to the public. The country, even business, lost faith in the good sense of the Republicans during it.
What I liked about the President’s speech is that it is big enough to do some good, and targeted enough to do some good. More importantly, Democrats seemed to like it. They seem to have faith in Mr. Obama again. I think we’ll hear an end of the nonsense of Sen. Clinton would have been better (I say that as a supporter of her.) Mr. Obama exudes a sense that he has the moral upper hand and so will fight this one.
Or perhaps, more in keeping with his style, he knows he’s crafted something he doesn’t really have to fight for. He only has to put his pieces into play. Like Sun Tzu, Mr. Obama does not like fighting a war whose victory is not already decided before it starts.
I think this is the mystery of Mr. Obama’s “negotiating” style. He doesn’t relish brawls. He’s a general at heart not a street tough. He’s not going to enter into a conflict in the hopes he’ll land a lucky punch. He’ll bow out and wait until he can create a victory.
What the Republican candidates don’t understand is that he will always come back and create the victory. That interview where he swatted the fly illuminates his style. What I find funny to the point of pity, is that the Republican candidates don’t understand that they are all now flies about to be swatted.
It was staggering and yet predictable to watch Republican’s coming out against Tax Cuts right after the speech.
Perhaps Obama should make a statement that all mom’s and dad’s should be visited on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day just to watch the Republicans come out against mom’s and dad’s.
He’s going to maneuver the Republicans into being clearly perceived as the saboteurs they’ve always been. As we move into the electoral season watch this space.
Er, they did attack him to talking about education on school-openning day. “Kenyan anti-Imperialist propaganda” or something …
Obama, as usual provided nothing but flourish. There is no plan, no budget, no means to pay for the “please reelect me government spending”.
This is just one of many, with many more to come, speeches with no substance. The so called plan loaded up with “Republican ideas” means nothing after ObamaCare. What small business will rush out to grab a $4ooo dollar credit that causes them to go over the “50″ mark and get hit ObamaCare, none.
The Republicans won’t have to do anything to obstruct this plan, the Dems will do it for them. Where will they cut to spend?? The Dems won’t cut anything to provide funding for this foolishness. The Senate, which hasn’t passed any budget going on for over 2 years will not come thru with cuts to pay for this. Your smoking something illegal if you think otherwise. Presentation won’t sell this pig with lipstick.
As a small business owner, I can tell you two things:
1) I, and every member of my small business council, welcome the ACA with open arms.
2) That $4,000 credit, plus the rising cost of fuel, is going to cause me and others to bring manufacturing work currently being sent down to Mexico back to the US.
Why is it that even the smallest tax break for corporations has to be defended as a matter of life and death, but yet this new measure is dismissed as being to small to bother with?
Thats funny, the rising cost of fuel has been at this level for over 2 years if you haven’t compensated for it by now your not much of a small business person. And it’s not changing nor going any lower no matter whose President, funny you would mention that.
And as a small business owner myself you can’t convince my that $4000 will provide the needed “get out there and hire” mentality. That money barely covers the drug test and training let alone the other mandated spending for healthcare that ObamaCare demands. You obviously don’t sign the payroll checks.
What’s really funny is that you don’t know what the word “plus” means. However, you do know how to regurgitate the lies you hear on talk radio.
Really thats your business plan worrying about the cost of fuel, “plus” whatever.
So your plan is to hire then fire, pocket the $4000, and vacation in Mexico. That is really a great business plan, must work at GE, farm the government tax code, and spend the profits overseas.
And Otto, why would they? You deny the obvious, new regulation, Wall Street Reform, ObamaCare, and expect the same old tired tax credits to mean anything. They have no effect unless your business is to hire and fire which seems to be the point.
If you are unable to actually look past the politics, see that $4000 dollars means absolutely nothing to the cost of an employee, that regulation plays an important role in business, you have no hope of moving the economy forward.
Well, you’ve just demonstrated that you were telling another lie when you claimed to be a small business owner if you think a difference of $2 an hour for labor is meaningless.
Yeah, I’m sure that Watusie, who spends 22+ hours/day commenting on FrumForum, is really in the position to bring back manufacturing to the United States from Mexico. Maybe once you get out of your parents’ basement?
Do you have a bridge to sell us, too?
Could somebody do a quick count and let me know who has posted on FF more often over the past 30 days – me or WillyP?
And I have to say it again – you really should not be sitting in your public sector cubicle, using your computer and internet connection paid for with stimulus funds, to bitch about the government.
Can’t say for sure, but this post it currently stands at:
Watusie – 12 posts
WillyP – 2 posts
You can extrapolate.
Yeah, that is how you would do it, because as you’ve shown over and over again you are completely inept at dealing with facts, especially when there are numbers involved.
I just did a 10 second Google which threw up this one http://www.frumforum.com/inflation-hawks-lose-their-shirts and this one http://www.frumforum.com/marco-rubio-bashes-republicans
which are WillyP 20+ Watusie 0
So if I were to use your methodology and extrapolate I’d be in Buzz Lightyear territory!
As another small business owner, I completely agree with Watusie’s comment. We are hanging on waiting for the ACA so we can buy on the exchanges. As it is, all we can afford now is to offer a $5000 high deductible plan and we can’t afford to make our part time employees full time because we can’t afford the health care. The tax credits the President has called for could mean the difference between our having a successful business or going under. Large corporations aren’t going to change their behavior because of these these proposals. But that is not the point. These proposals, for once, are tailored for actual small businesses.
“The Republicans won’t have to do anything to obstruct this plan,”
So they’re going to vote for it Springy?
Contrary to what most people are expressing here on this forum, I believe that the plan is not bold enough. I hope I’m wrong, and it will be enough, if passed by congress, to revive the economy but my instincts say that it’s not enough and the recovery will be very slow and long, too long that it will test the patience of the American people who understandably have grown too impatient at this point in time. The tax cuts will do very little as deleveraging is taking place, and the real problem that stemmed from the housing bubble — millions of owners on the verge of foreclosure — has not been adequately addressed. So I don’t see in the speech how demand will increase, and why business will go on a spree of new hirings. Hence unemployment will stagger around the present level for quite a while.
After three months of bitching that the Republicans sandbagged the Obama Stimulus plan in 2009 by keeping it too small, the Democrats are running out to say a stimulus half the size will reallly matter. Were you wrong all summer, or are you wrong now?
The 2009 stimulus stopped the GWB recession from becoming the GWB depression. But it was too small, so the recovery has been weaker than is acceptable, and Republican obstructionism in Washington has been deeply, deeply damaging to business and consumer confidence. So now it is more than time for a focus on job creation, and for Republicans to drop their treasonous bullshit. There is nothing contradictory in any of this.
Oh I see, it’s not designed for “recovery”, it’s about “jobs”?
It’s about time you gave up trying to soak the rich during a recession. And since the Republicans were elected to obstruct socialism, they should continue to do so.
The government in 2009 projected the stimulus was adequate for recovery. The government failed to measure the depth of the recession. That error would have frustrated any stimulus plan. It is pointless to whine about the party with the White House, 50 votes in the Senate and the House of Representatives, was the victim here. And this tax hike agenda has absolutely nothing to do with recovery, so, it can be beat to death as often as it arises, without loss of patriotism.
recovery = jobs, jobs = recovery.
I’m not interested in soaking the rich at any time. I do want them to pay their fair share of taxes, all the time. At present, they aren’t even coming close.
As for the Republicans being elected to obstruct socialism – a lot of what they are doing, such as the debt ceiling hostage crisis, would have horrified your Sainted Ronaldus Magnus. Was he a socialist? Afterall, he did raise taxes in order to try to plug a widening federal deficit. Much of the ACA, and many of the components proposed last night, were ideas developed and first proposed as legislation, by Republicans. Were they not socialism then, but are socialism now, but won’t be again as soon as Obama is not in the White House?
If the jobs bill has the same purpose as the stimulus, then we come right back to the question: if $800 billion was way too small to spur recovery, how is $400 billion two years later going to spur recovery?
You approved a $800 billion jolt to a $12 trillion economy in 2009 because Barack Obama asked for it.
When asked why it didn’t work, you blame Republicans for not allowing him to spend enough.
That’s just polemic though. It’s not as if you calculated “$800 billion is not enough to jump start a $12 trillion dollar economy of 300 million people.”
I say that because when Barack Obama asks to jump start the same economy with $450 billion, you are all for a “focused” stimulus.
You are just going to support whatever Barack Obama asks for.
Re-read my previous post. The job in 2009 was to prevent the complete collapse in demand that would tip the economy into outright depression – GWB’s parting gift to the nation. Job done. Since then, the Republicans have committed new acts of sabotage that are once again destroying business confidence. So more has to be done to clean up the mess they are creating. And yes, it should be more – but because they are such obstructionists, it is all that is possible. Deal with it.
I note your failure to defend you ridiculous “socialism” idea.
So even if Obama got everything he asked for last night, it is not enough to work. And that’s somehow not his fault. He is going to waste $450 billion and that’s not his fault.
You are flat wrong about the 2009 Stimulus. It was sold as keeping unemployment below 8%.
To help you as much as possible, I’ll type this very slowly:
In 2008 the economy was terrible. In 2009 the stimulus made it better. Not great, but better.
Great is better than better, but great wasn’t possible, becasue the Republicans wouldn’t allow it. Still, better was better than terrible, which is what it was before it was better.
Therefore, achieving better was worth doing, even though achieving great would have been even more worth doing. But it wasn’t possible.
Since then, the Republicans have been doing everything they can to throw people out of work and destroy confidence so that the economy will be terrible again, so they can have the White House back.
And so now we need to try some new measures. Because our economy is not good. What was proposed last night will make it better. Not great, but better. Still, better is better than not good. Great would be even better than better, but great won’t be possible, becasue the Republicans won’t allow it. However, it is just possible that they can be shamed into allowing the measures to make things better to happen. And then things will be better, and making things better is worth doing, even though it isn’t making things great. Of course, making things great would be even more worth doing, but the Republicans won’t allow that to happen.
@Watusie // Sep 9, 2011 at 3:55 pm
This is perhaps the best response I have read in a long while. You channeled Kurt Vonnegut and maybe even a little Richard Brautigan here. I had to stop lurking long enough to say thank you, job well done and that I will be stealing from this liberally. Cheers.
Well, DF, on the road to recovery I think you might have had a misstep. While indeed the two party system is lacking, these characterizations of both parties are about as lazy as they come. You might want to review the step in your 12 step program about promptly admitting when you’re wrong.
Obama’s Re-Election Campaign Begins | my vally // Sep 9, 2011 at 12:34 pm
[...] Which only reaffirms the fact that this was a political speech disguised as a policy address. As David Frum says, it was all quite [...]
Watusie, you pretend to be dumbing it down, but actually that is about the level of the Administration that invented “saved or created”. Your crew rode into town claiming to have the keys to recovery with the certitude of Keynesian economics. Now what have they got? Nothing. $450 billion is not enough for a government-down stimulus. It will not be “better”. You will be reduced to whining that it’s “better than it would have been”, and whining that Barack Obama is not to blame when Barack Obama gets what Barack Obama asks for, because the Republicans didn’t promise a blank check, so the Obama plan HAD to fail.
This is an election policy, not an economic policy.
And for your information, it isn’t the Republicans who close power plants and oil rigs, sue employers for opening factories in the wrong state, demand Wall Street slow down and do more paperwork, and promote talk of taxation, confiscation, nationalization and “punishment” of employers.
I guess I have to simplify it even further:
In 2001-2007 Bad Men did stupid things, and as a result by 2008 our economy was terrible.
In 2009 the stimulus made it better. Not great, but better.
Now, although it is true that great is better than better, better IS better than terrible. Therefore, better is good. Yes, Great it great – however, terrible is bad, and therefore it must be said, with biblical certitude, that better is good.
Now, unfortunately, the Bad Men have been doing their worst again. And now our economy is not good. We need to do some things to make it better. We’d like to do some things to make it great, but the Bad Men won’t let us.
So do we just give up? No! Because we are America, and we are still a great country. Therefore, we are going to recognize that better is better than not good. Yes, great would be even better than better, and great is certainly much, much better than not good. However, we aren’t going to give up and do nothing just because the Bad Men tell us to.
We are going to make things better.
No, its republican’s who gave the bankers who screwed us over a blank check without even record keeping required. It is republicans who insisted on lifting the regulations separating banking operations, enabling this disaster.
It is the Republicans who want to use this crisis to lift regulations intended to protect public health, never mind that with health costs rising, it will cost us more to have sick citizens.
Yes, yes. I get it. The marginal left still idolize the man.
I see him as what he is. A tragic figure. A nice, smart
young family man so taken by the tiny legacy media.
If in your heart of hearts, in your soul, you believe what
you saw last evening was a leader, taking the bull by the ba!!$
or was Presidential in any way…well at least you know you’re marginal.
What precisely is tragic about Mr. Obama? He has kept the global economy alive, dispatched not one but two major US enemies, passed a health care bill, a process that has been blocked since Teddy Roosevelt, and enacted a major civil right gain (ending don’t ask, don’t tell). All this while being subject to the vilest insult and libel.
Despite all this abuse, he retains his dignity and does not deign to speak the same way. He does not wallow in braggadocio or fantasy.
So, it certainly isn’t a tragedy in the classic Greek way, and it isn’t a tragedy in the Death of a Salesmen way either. So unless you know of a plot to kill or overthrow him in the works ( one likely to succeed), there is no tragedy.
Primrose, what “abuse” are you alluding to? “Plot to kill or overthrow”, what kind of ugly horses#!t are you shoveling here?
He’s just an empty suit who’s taken a weak economy and tossed gasoline on it.
I will simply dismiss your misinformed comments. Obviously you’re nothing but a right wing troll.
“Passed a health care bill” wow you REALLY have your finger on it.. or up it..don’t know which. Have a wonderful weekend girl.
“He’s just an empty suit who’s taken a weak economy”
Your “Weak Economy” is the worst recession since the big one in the thirties by every measure. Your weak economy was the entire financial system and the US auto manufacturing industry hovering on the edge of collapse.
“I will simply dismiss your misinformed comments.”
Before you start calling people misinformed you might want do something about remedying your own info deficiencies because they are considerable.
Thank you for that.
The abuse I speak of is the racist crap, the secret muslim, the not born in America tales, the endless racist images and words.
That you are so self-centered you don’t think our healthcare coverage situation needed fixing says quite a lot about you. None of it good.
A little definition here. A figure is not tragic because they succeed at something you disagree with. For the greeks, you needed a fatal flaw that you made you prey to the whims of the gods/state. Antigone’s sense of duty against Creon’s dictates, Oedipus and his mother/queen etc. More modern tragedies deal with flaws that person could change but won’t because of a fatal blindness. Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman, the marriage in Virginian Woolfe etc.
I don’t actually think there is a viable plot to kill him, which is why I don’t think he is tragic, that was rather my point. It’s called sarcasm, sir.
As for your saying have a nice weekend girl. As someone raised partially in the south, I don’t mind when people with whom I have friendly or affectionate relations, use it. Indeed, I smile at it.
We do not have that relationship. You may end your sentence, ma’am or not at all.
(And thanks Otto)
“In 2001-2007 Bad Men did stupid things, and as a result by 2008 our economy was terrible.” @ Watusie
they think everyone’s forgotten that conservative Republicans walked into a surplus economy onJan 2001, were asleep at the wheel on 9/11 and cost 3,000 people their lives and eight years later, they had doubled the deficit, defrauded the nation with the Medicare Part D scam, added over $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities, lied us into a $1 trillion war in Iraq, gave tax breaks tothe super-wealthy, increased the cost of living for working Americans, gave us TARP and, after killing $13 trillion of US wealth handed Obama an economy losing 750,000 jobs a month.
yeah, we really another 8 years of them
From Atlantic Magazine: The Full Scope of America’s Jobs Crisis in 17 Charts
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/the-full-scope-of-americas-jobs-crisis-in-17-charts/244793/
It’s time to put a some solid reality into the debate, and the charts in this article do that.
^+1 great charts.
Methinks that something more drastic is needed. e.g. Forgive all credit card debt and stick it to the banks. It’s now the banks’ turn to bail out the consumer.
Nope.
The drastic steps needed are to stop all government payments to Medicaid except for the mentally and physically handicapped, end Social Security for those in the top earning brackets, stop all Food Stamp distribution, end free trips to hospital ERs, stop Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments, stop free Federally funded public school breakfast and lunch programs, end Section 8 housing subsidies, and prepare for the subsequent social upheaval that will follow.
Questions?
You got one of your wishes. AFDC payments were stopped in 1996.
Now do I get one of *my* wishes – you inform yourself before you spew here.
@Balsz
Your argument is quite funny. Basically, in your eyes, because the first stimulus, watered down by the Republicans, did not work PERFECTLY, then Obama is not allowed to make a new initiative. He should just sit in the Oval Office passively while the Republicans do everything they can to sabotage the economy so that Rick Perry can ride in in 2013 to start W’s third term.
That is ridiculous enough on its face. Now lets add in the fact that you still think the Iraq War was great and that “the Surge” was magnificent. Never mind the blood and treasure poured out, never mind that the whole fiasco damaged rather than served our national interests, never mind that the point of the Surge was to simply spare the Bush Administration embarrassment.
And then you say that Watusie is just a blind partisan.
All in all, it is a mind-bending trip down the rabbit hole. Obviously, you really aren’t the best choice to set out the yardstick by which executive performance should be measured, or to comment upon who is rational and who has a gaping hole in their psyche that can only be filled by an external authority figure.
And you certainly have no concept of “country first”.
Why didn’t the 2009 stimulus get unemployment below 9%?
‘Because the Republicans conspired to keep stimulus to an inadequate level of $800 billion.’
How is $450 billion adequate then?
‘Shut up, traitor.’
‘Shut up, traitor.’
Not much of a believer in free speech, are ya Balz?