Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Obama Gives Up
Like Mollie, I’m left a little gobsmacked by the latest communications gambit from Team Obama. Based on the early scuttlebutt surrounding the president’s speech there later today, my first thought was that somebody should dispatch mental health officials to Cleveland — because the Obama campaign is on suicide watch. Here’s how Reuters frames it:
In an economic speech on Thursday that could set the tone for months of campaigning, Obama is not likely to unveil new ideas to boost the economy and create new jobs, according to Democrats familiar with the preparations for the address.
Instead, he will make the case that he needs four more years to undo the damage left by George W. Bush, his Republican predecessor in the White House …
You know that point in a declining relationship where you can no longer work up the energy to decide what to do for the evening, so you just stay at home, watch television, and hope to avoid eye contact with your significant other? That’s where Team Obama is right now.
This is year eight ennui from an administration that’s five months away from a reelection vote. Right now, the Obama team is Tom Hanks on the raft in “Castaway” and the second term is Wilson, gently rolling away on the waves — except, rather than screaming at the top of their lungs, they’ve decided that this is a good time for a nap.
What’s the strategy here? Is this a reset speech? We’ve already had, by my count, 87 of those (to be fair, they didn’t specify which summer was going to be “Recovery Summer”). With this new speech, Obama is now officially resetting expectations more often than Harold Camping.
Do they really think their major problem is that the public’s insufficiently aware that the administration blames George W. Bush for its economic problems? If so, take it from this former White House speechwriter, Obama communications staff: there has never been a president whose problems stemmed from difficulty getting his message out. For God’s sake, George H.W. Bush made one offhanded remark at a press conference 20 years ago and hasn’t received a Christmas card from the broccoli lobby since. People listen when the president talks — except when he’s repeating himself ad nauseam to no great effect. There’s a difference between people not listening to you and people not liking what you’re saying.
And where is it written in stone that, as Obama is fond of saying, it will take a long time to get out of this mess because it took so long to get into it? Funny, that didn’t seem to be the case for Ronald Reagan or Warren Harding when they were faced with similar circumstances. But then, neither of them were Harvard Law Review, so I think we can safely assume that was dumb luck.
It’s not exactly shocking that Obama is ceasing to make a serious argument. Constrained by his ideology, he’s only ever had one bullet in the chamber on economic policy and it has now become painfully obvious that it didn’t work. What is shocking is that his campaign is going out of its way to remind people that they don’t have an argument.
Occam’s Razor would seem to dictate that this is rank incompetence from Team Obama. I guess that’s encouraging … because the other plausible alternative would be that Obama just doesn’t care anymore.
Published in General
What can he bring?
Obama doesn’t have to be a great president to win. He just has to be better than Romney.
If I recall, a lot of conservatives had planned to sit out the 1972 presidential election because of things like Nixon’s wage and price controls. However, the Democrats nominated McGovern and the rest is history.
I don’t want to suggest that Obama will actually persuade people he is better than Romney, but that it is a lower bar than proving he is a good president, which is probably impossible at this point.
Mendel, The Pot dealer didn’t complain about the stolen pot, he complained about the stolen money and gun. But the video he provided to the Police showed my client taking several foil-wrapped, brick-shaped objects out of the dealer’s chest freezer. My client returned the unsold, unopened bricks, and an open, partially sold brick when he went to the Police. The dealer denied my client got the MJ at his house, but the Commonwealth could never explain to the court what it was that my client took from the freezer if it wasn’t the bricks of MJ he brought to the Police. And I introduced the bricks as evidence during my cross-exam of the detective, as well as introducing the portion of the video showing my client taking the bricks out of the freezer. The Commonwealth couldn’t object to introduction of evidence in their possession, supplied by the defendent and the “victim”. Well not successfully anyway.
What can he bring?
Obama doesn’t have to be a great president to win. He just has to be better than Romney.
If I recall, a lot of conservatives had planned to sit out the 1972 presidential election because of things like Nixon’s wage and price controls. However, the Democrats nominated McGovern and the rest is history.
I don’t want to suggest that Obama will actually persuade people he is better than Romney, but that it is a lower bar than proving he is a good president, which is probably impossible at this point. ·2 hours ago
The problem is, most people (except those still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome) probably won’t think blaming Bush is very Presidential at all.
If your strongest argument about why you should still be President, Barry, is because George W. Bush was president before you, then The Smartest Man To Be President is officially out of ideas. That must be hellaciously embarrassing for one so gifted at literally everything, except, of course, for generating ideas that might actually be good for economic growth.
In most companies I have worked for, guys like Barry get walked out on a slow Friday afternoon, after reluctantly handing over their company’s security badge. Why? They just weren’t getting the job done. People who blame others for their own shortcomings do not last long out there in The Real World. Time to move on. But don’t worry – colleges are filled with positions for guys like Barry to slide right into. No innate capabilities required, because results are never truly measured. Talk about a homecoming.
Given that even the political press corps is starting to pan Obama’s speeches, I’d say he’s gonna have a heck of a time selling Romney = Bush. ·11 hours ago
1. I mention it because I specifically don’t want Romney to get caught flat-footed in an interview or debate when he gets asked how he is different from George W. Bush. (Heck, Ted Kennedy got caught flat-footed on the simple question of why he wanted to be president.)
2. I don’t think he has hit the Romney=Bush button very hard yet because I think he would still like to convince people that he is good, not merely better than Romney. He’s too vain to accept so early that he cannot convince people he is good. At the moment, I think he mostly blaming Bush to deflect criticism for his failings. Obama is playing the Bush card on the defense, not the offense.
3. The speech was panned because it was long, unfocused and most importantly it promised to be a major address but had nothing to offer. If you don’t deliver what you promise, even your fans get annoyed.
The problem is, most people (except those still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome) probably won’t think blaming Bush is very Presidential at all. ·2 hours ago
If that’s all it is, then it is a loser of a strategy. But I think there are inevitably two steps here.
1. The current mess is all Bush’s fault.
2. Romney wants to enact the same failed policies.
It’s probably the easiest/laziest of whatever few plausible strategies are left. As long as Romney can distinguish his policies from what Obama will paint as a “Bush Third Term” (without being disrespectful to Bush or the conservative base), Romney should be fine.
If Romney stumbles through the inevitable question about how his policies differ from George W. Bush, we can expect “Bush-Romney” to be a phrase as ubiquitous as “Dole-Gingrich” was in 1996. That’s about the only thing that could keep Obama competitive.
It’s not a sure-fire strategy, but Obama doesn’t have many others at his disposal.
If that’s all it is, then it is a loser of a strategy. But I think there are inevitably two steps here.
1. The current mess is all Bush’s fault.
2. Romney wants to enact the same failed policies.
It’s probably the easiest/laziest of whatever few plausible strategies are left. As long as Romney can distinguish his policies from what Obama will paint as a “Bush Third Term” (without being disrespectful to Bush or the conservative base), Romney should be fine.
If Romney stumbles through the inevitable question about how his policies differ from George W. Bush, we can expect “Bush-Romney” to be a phrase as ubiquitous as “Dole-Gingrich” was in 1996. That’s about the only thing that could keep Obama competitive.
It’s not a sure-fire strategy, but Obama doesn’t have many others at his disposal. ·3 minutes ago
Given that even the political press corps is starting to pan Obama’s speeches, I’d say he’s gonna have a heck of a time selling Romney = Bush.
I dunno, Troy, didn’t GWB’s passivity allow the media to define him, paving the way for Obama’s election?
(I know that’s not exactly what you meant. But how’s that for nitpicking a great article?)
I’ve been reading Ed Klein’s book, and I’m coming to agree with you – this guy really is a Stuttering Clusterbomb of a Miserable Failure, and a true idiot to boot. I used to think he was smart, and all that junk he said was calculated Pied Piper nonsense to lure the rubes over the cliff, because it worked so well.
Now I’m thinking he’s merely plain stupid, like Chauncey Gardiner with late stage mad cow disease or something, and therefore we’re collectively stupid. I’m afraid his popularity is just and fair, because he actually represents a plurality of us. (Can’t yet bring myself to say “maj…major…” no, stop.) And that’s even worse. God help us.
Yikes, how the Democrat Party has fallen since the days of Harry S. Truman. I can see the sign peeking over the zig-zag papers cluttered on the Presidential Desk: The buck stops– back over there!
That’ll inspire the fence-sitting moderates, for sure.
I am enjoying the irony of watching Obama’s team follow in the path of the McCain campaign – no theme, no big ideas, no discipline, etc.
On the other hand, this spectacle shouldn’t be too surprising: Obama and Axelrod (“Oba-Rod”) are not great campaigners. Oba-Rod’s 2008 campaign appeared to run well only when they had the wind behind their backs, thanks to enormous, fawning media support, popular disgruntlement with Bush and the GOP, and McCain’s incompetence as a candidate.
When things didn’t go Oba-Rod’s way, they were all thumbs. Obama couldn’t deal with the brief attacks on his pro-infanticide record except to grow angry and lie. He couldn’t deal well with the issue of energy, which was briefly the top issue of the campaign in August and September until gas prices declined. McCain/Palin shot up in the polls, and Oba-Rod were saved only by the media’s savage attacks on Palin and by the financial crisis.
But few ever talk about those revealing weeks when it became clear that Obama and Axelrod were not especially adept at campaigning.
Obama’s problem with his attempt to refocus on George W. Bush is that Obama himself raised expectations that he could solve the economic situation in four years. It’s one thing for a new president to take on a difficult task and then ask for more time to see it through. But Obama has said that if he didn’t get it done in 3 years then his presidency would be a 1-term proposition. You can’t be that cocky, come up empty and then make excuses. People begin to think that your “big talk” is just talk.
Being a speechwriter for Obama is like being a public defendent for a thief caught on videotape: you argue the best you can, but in the end you can only hope for a lenient judge. ·2 hours ago
Going OT here, but I nearly laughed out loud when I read this. I’m a former attorney who in private practice had this exact case. And I had a very L&O judge, who was a former prosecutor. We went to trial, because of, not despite, the judge. My client had broken into his pot dealers house, and stole MJ to sell, to pay his wife’s medical bills for cancer treatment. “Victim’s” house was wired inside and out w/ cameras. The Commonwealth had video of my client entering the abode from outside, his entry into the house, raiding the dealer’s freezer for bricks of MJ, and tape of him leaving. The dealer went to the Police because my clent also took a gun and cash.
(Continued d/t word limit)
When confronted by Police, and before he was represented, my client said he would bring in everything he had left. This was most of the MJ and about half the money. He threw the gun away because he didn’t want to get caught w/ it. Jury found him guilty, as I knew they would, and recommended the minimum sentence, which was 20 years because of the gun.
Police never investigated homeowner/video hound, which I brought out at sentencing. This was in the days before cheap computer cameras, so I also pounded the question of why a part time farmer and landscaper would have such an extensive CC television system at his farmhouse. The judge probated my client’s entire sentence, and wondered on the record why the Police didn’t investigate the dealer after my client brought them several bricks of MJ.
So, let that be a lesson. There is more than one way to win an impossible case, and don’t discount the community organizer. ( Does that bring this comment back on topic?)
Bryan Preston at the PJ Tatler summarizes:
I’m not so sure. Rasmussen shows Romney ahead in NC, WI, and MO. The race is rated even in IA, OH, VA, FL, and CO. Obama may soon reach an inflection point beyond which recovery is impossible. That’s my hope anyway. ·2 hours ago
I hope so. But I have been talking about “inflection points” and “preference cascades” for two years now, and still Obama keeps chugging along in the high 40’s, and just keeps on getting the benefit of every doubt from far too many voters (he actually hit 50% in Gallup one day this week). The public still mostly blames Bush, and by extension, republicans for the economic calamity of the last few years. Obama is still ahead in every national public poll except Rasmussen (which, for reasons I have gone into before, I don’t trust). We never seem to actually hit the inflection point, and the preference cascade never actually begins.