We Won’t Be Fooled Again
This morning, the Obama campaign came out with their second quarter campaign contributions report, claiming to have raised $86 million, which is above their $60 million goal and more than what was raised by the GOP candidates combined in the same time period. However, saying that Obama and his campaign raised those funds is stretching the truth. First of all, the Obama 2012 campaign only raised $47 million in the second quarter. The additional $38 million was what was raised by the DNC, which is responsible for aiding not only the presidential candidate in 2012 but also 435 House races and 33 Senate races.[1] Furthermore, when the DNC reported its fundraising for the month of May, over half of the $10.5 million ‘raised’ in that month was actually a transfer of funds from the Obama Victory Fund, which the DNC co-owns. Thus, that $6.5 million wasn’t really new income.[2] It was a transfer from one DNC account to another. Meanwhile, the campaigns of Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Herman Cain received $36 million together, independent of Republican National Committee funds. Rep. Michele Bachmann has not released her numbers yet.[1] Out of that group, Newt Gingrich has been a declared candidate for the longest, since May 11th. Mr. Obama announced his official entry into the contest on April 4th, though there was little question before that that he would run for reelection. What does this mean? Frankly, it points towards a troubled reelection campaign from the get-go. It points to a campaign that’s trying to prime the pump by taking already existing funds and making them look like fundraising success in order to get people thinking that the President’s reelection is inevitable. Let’s face reality. This president is one who is showing at between 45-50% disapproval on the general approval polling data. This is a president who is going into reelection with a 9.2% national unemployment rate. This is a president who, in the Rasmussen poll that came out yesterday is running 5 points behind a generic Republican candidate.[3] This president’s reelection is all but certain, but it’s not a lost cause yet. If this president wants to win reelection, then he and his campaign need to stop telling us how things are and start telling us how they plan to change the present conditions. Instead of moving funds around and having the focus on photo ops and bragging rights, they need to get back to basics and deal with the true facts of the situation. The President needs to lead – on the economy, on education, on the nation’s energy future. The President needs to stop handing issues (re: health care, the deficit) to Congress to come up with a solution and start developing a plan of his own. Instead of getting involved at the last minute, Mr. Obama needs to be involved from the very beginning, make his points clear, and see what deals can be reached. Instead of pointing fingers, he needs to extend his hand, not just to dignitaries and Congressional leaders but to regular American citizens. We don’t need a lecturer. We need a leader. If Mr. Obama can’t be that, then there will be another family residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue two years from now.
[1] Weisman, Jonathan. “Obama Raised $86 Million in Second Quarter.” Wall Street Journal. 13 July 2011. Accessed from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443501556845460.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
[2] Schwarz, Gabriella. “DNC fundraising boosted by Obama’s re-election.” CNN. 20 June 2011. Accessed from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/20/dnc-fundraising-boosted-by-obamas-re-election/
[3] Election 2012: Generic Presidential Ballot. 12 July 2011. Accessed from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot
The one-term pledge
This weekend, an op-ed appeared in the Washington Post which is causing much discussion. Doug Schoen and Patrick Caddell made an argument that President Obama should not seek reelection in 2010. With the mess that this country was in even before the financial crisis began in the fall of 2008, I wondered why anyone would want to run for president as the tough choices that were going to have to be made were likely to ensure the next president would be a one-term president. Two years later that prediction seems to be playing out, whether it’s by the President’s choice or not. Like it or not, President Obama is the target of the frustrations many have about our current problems. Instead of just thinking in the short-term, I urge the President as well as my fellow citizens to think long-term. Should the President take a one-term pledge, it would allow him to do what he could now while someone else is able to fight the battle to ensure that a Democrat is returned to the White House in 2012. Look at how much of the President’s time and attention was taken up by the mid-term elections, and it’s hard to fathom how he’s going to be able to devote much attention to push any agenda through the next two years while campaigning to stay in office. If Democrats are truly worried about a return to Bush era policies, then the party and all of its members should start thinking strategically to ensure that a Democrat retains the seat in the Oval Office. Otherwise, we could end up with a president worse than Bush ever had a chance of being. Imagine – President Christine O’Donnell, President Haley Barbour, or President Sarah Palin. Anyone could be run in 2012 if the President is allowed to run while continuing to serve as a lightning rod for the nation’s anger at economic conditions that most agree will likely be here for the long-term. There is a precedent for this action in trying times.
One is hard-pressed to find an election as interesting as the 1844 presidential election. The president at the time, John Tyler, was literally a president without a party. He still had a few people who urged him to run, and he wanted to seek a full-term after succeeding to the presidency after the death of William Henry Harrison. However, he had teed off most everyone on every point of the political spectrum at one point. Thus, the race was thrown open. Henry Clay had the Whig nomination pretty much locked up, the third election in which he was a party nominee (though he had tried for the nomination even more times than that). On the Democratic side, it seemed like anyone who was anyone in the Democratic Party was trying for the nomination including former President Martin Van Buren, former Vice-President John C Calhoun, former Vice-President Richard M Johnson, and Senator (and future President) James Buchanan, reflecting the divide in the party as well as the nation overall on various issues, including national expansion and slavery. Then there was James K Polk of Tennessee. At the time, Polk had been written off as dead and buried in the political graveyard after losing two gubernatorial elections in a row, but Polk lived up to the tradition of his mentor Andrew Jackson and his nickname, Young Hickory. Polk was able to secure the Democratic election for himself and squeak into the White House. During the election, Polk did something unusual in Presidential politics. Though still a young man, Polk pledged only to serve one term so that he could focus all his energies to fulfill his four primary election promises: securing the Oregon Territory for the US, the acquisition of California and New Mexico for the US, tariff reduction, and the reestablishment of the Independent Treasury System that Van Buren had established during his Presidency but was repealed by the Whigs. When Polk left the White House in 1849, the Oregon territory was indeed a part of the US, as was California and New Mexico, tariffs were lowered, and the Independent Treasury System had been reestablished and would last until the Federal Reserve System was established in 1913. Thus, in a time of political divide following an unpopular president, a young energetic candidate comes to the forefront and pushes an aggressive agenda through bringing about controversial yet undeniably substantial change to the nation. Sound familiar? It could very much be that, instead of Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, or Clinton, the president that Mr. Obama needs to emulate is Mr. Polk if he truly wants to achieve change.
In the modern day, our President has a choice. Either he can devote his entire energies into doing the job which he had been elected to do, as tough as it may be, or he can try to buy himself some more time, knowing that most presidential second terms are typically rougher and even more arduous to get agendas accomplished than the first term. As difficult as this first term has been, I’m not sure why the President would want to run for a second term, but that’s his decision to make. All we as citizens can do is offer our two cents, and I commend Schoen and Caddell for expressing their opinions in spite of criticism being directed in their direction for saying what I’m sure others had been thinking but were afraid to speak aloud. It’s an idea that deserves consideration at least, whether it ultimately plays out or not.
For the original article, please see here.
“Buck Up”: The rallying cry for a failing administration
In less than two years’ time, the motto of the Obama administration has gone from “Hope” and “Change” to “Buck up.” In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, the president said that it would be “inexcusable” for Democratic voters to sit at home instead of voting in the midterm elections and that “People need to shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up.” [1] Now, I have in the course of writing on this blog supported people needing to be more informed and getting out to the polls to make their voices heard. On that, the president and I agree. However, I completely disagree that his administration and Congressional Democrats have lived up to promises. They claimed that they would fix the economy. Instead, we’ve got a ‘jobless recovery’ at best, [2] though Mr. Obama argues that this isn’t a ‘jobless recovery,’ citing the tepid private sector job growth that has not even come close to balancing the jobs lost during the recession. [3] The President promised to close Gitmo. As far as I know, Gitmo’s still open for business. In fact, the first criminal trial of a Gitmo detainee was just delayed. [4] They delivered a health reform, though few people understand what exactly it will do to reform the system except require each and every one of us to have health insurance, [5] which naturally worries people in fear of losing their jobs due to a stagnant economy, especially when a study from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Studies projects that health care costs will continue to climb with the Democrats’ ‘reform’ in place. [6] No wonder we’re being told to ‘buck up.’ There’s nothing but bad news coming out of the Democratic-run Washington.
The latest Gallup poll of likely voters has been drawn on by many in the news media as portending doom for Democrats in the mid-term elections. [7] While a part of me feels that maybe they doth protest too much so that on November 3rd, the administration and Democratic leadership can say of any losses that it wasn’t as bad as people were predicting, it does reveal that people haven’t bought into the plans presented by the Democratic leaders in Washington. The President has said that he should have done more to sell the health reform to voters, and I agree. Instead of he and Biden zipping around the country from fundraiser to fundraiser, it might be a better strategy to focus on their jobs and focus on getting the nation back on track. That, more than any parade, fundraising dinner or campaign rally would motivate voters to keep Democrats in power. I’d like to be proven wrong and to believe that ultimately the government will lead us forward into something better, but frankly we have been given little assurance besides being told to “Just trust the Democrats” and “It would be worse under Republicans.” We need to be told the plans that Democrats have for making things better and seeing results instead of being told that they’re there though we don’t see them. Frankly, the last time we had a president treat the American people with due respect was Bill Clinton. When I think of President Clinton, I think of early on in his presidency where he delivered a nationally televised speech explaining why he was going to have to raise taxes. He laid out the picture for the American people and explained that short-term pains would eventually lead to long-term benefits, and lo and behold, the man from Hope handed a budget surplus to his successor (who then promptly spent that and got us into record debt again). Now, instead of getting explanations, we’re told to “Buck up.” “Buck up” is not the “change we need.” [8] Far from it, and if Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership does not understand that simple fact, if all they can offer us is ‘just trust us,’ then they are no different from the administration and leadership they replaced.
The needs of the many and the inadequate economic policy
In yet another example of just how out of touch this administration and Democratic Congressional leadership is with the needs of this nation, Congress passed on Thursday a small business bill which creates a $30 billion fund which ‘smaller’ banks (with less than $10 billion in assets) could use to provide loans for small businesses. [1] A few problems with this. One, bank executives seem ambivalent about participating in this program. Why not? Thus far, I’ve seen little reason for banks to serve as a ferrying service for funds between the federal government and small businesses. All the work and none of the benefits. The only thing that would motivate them is if they somehow profited from this, and if banks do profit from this, then the Democratic leadership, which has accused Republicans time and again of being friendly with Wall Street bankers, is yet again helping out the banking industry with taxpayer money (or, should we say, taxpayer credit since we’re in the hole). This gets to the third point — why loans? If we really wanted to help small businesses, then why not up the tax incentives included in the bill? Some way of letting them keep their already existing funds to do with as they see fit to help get their businesses on a more solid footing rather than putting more Americans further in debt. The main reason we can’t shake this recession is that Americans do not feel secure in the massive amounts of debt we’ve already accumulated and are reluctant to borrow more due to the ever-present fear of losing our jobs/businesses/means of living. We are being conservative in our spending habits because we don’t see any other choice, and thus, our consumer economy suffers. What is the incentive for small businesses to participate in this?
For the Congressional Democratic leadership, I fear their time is about up, but the administration still has a couple of years to turn their fortunes around. The recent shakeups in the economic team might provide the President with wiser council going forward. Unfortunately, as Obama ventured little beyond the ideas of Geithner, Summers and Bernanke until late in the game of dealing with this financial crisis, ignoring advice from insiders such as Orszag and Romer as well as from former Fed Chairmen Volcker and Greenspan, I wonder how much this shake up will change the administration’s course. Where others screamed ‘jobs,’ Tim, Larry and Ben would say otherwise, and Obama followed their lead. Mr. Obama has been credited for being decisive, not taking much time to deliberate or to listen to numerous opinions as Bill Clinton did during his presidency. After the immediate crisis, the President would have been wise to follow the steps of his predecessor, the man from Hope, and not just trusted the words of a few over the screams of many. That was the way of Mr. Bush.
As Velma Hart put it so eloquently in addressing Mr. Obama earlier in the week, “Quite frankly, I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now.” [2] I say to my fellow citizens, from this point forward, stop. Stop defending the administration. Stop thinking that, due to a sense of patriotism or party affiliation, that you have to just accept what’s being given to us. Running on a ticket of “It could be worse” or “This is good enough” is not the “change that we deserve” that Democrats promised in 2008, and they need to hear it. Do Republicans have all the answers? No. No one person or party does, and if they tell you they do, then call em out on it. But together, we can find some answers. The administration and Congress need to understand this if we are ever to get ourselves moving forward again.
Image and the Continuance of the Bush Era
Did you know that we’re under a national state of emergency and have been since 2001? Well, now you know, and President Obama recently extended it for another year. [1] This state of emergency gives the Executive Branch “a variety of powers under federal law.” [2] What does this mean? While probably not much in terms of power expansion, the biggest effect in my humble opinion is yet another year of living in the Bush era.
For a person who came in claiming a progressive, reformist mantle, Obama has proven all too content to continue to play by the rules of the Bush era. Instead of truly being bipartisan, or as he claimed at one point, postpartisan, the President and his administration have engaged in numerous finger-wagging campaigns — against Fox News, the Republicans, the Tea Party, former President Bush. It’s all their fault that nothing’s getting done or that our economy’s in such bad shape or that people are out of work. It’s all their fault, though the administration’s party is in control of the powers of not only the executive but also the legislative branch. Sounds similar to the Bush era motto of “You’re either with us or against us.”
Recently, the President had a chance to not only show strong support to causes he’s supposedly championed but also to provide a physical symbol of change. In 1979, Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House. They were removed for roof repairs during the Reagan administration and not put back up. A group of environmental activists offered to reinstall the latest in solar power technology on the White House roof. The Obama administration refused, more worried about political comparisons to Carter than actually doing the right thing or at the very least, looking consistent in their message. [3] To me, that’s about as telling as Bush and the plastic turkey incident. [4] Image comes first, substance plays second fiddle.
If this administration truly wants to bring about changes, then it needs to throw out that old beaten up playbook they found in the desk when they came into the White House. They need to get a blank sheet of paper and a pen and start writing their own playbook. I can tell you that FDR did not play by Hoover’s playbook and Lincoln did not play by Buchanan’s. The great presidents define their own eras. They aren’t hampered by moans of “it was like that when I got here” even in the darkest of times.
Whose government is your government?
A friend responded to a post of mine with the postulation that this was not our government. He compared the government to Wal-Mart and said that the government was as much ours as Wal-Mart is. I have had others make the same assertion, and I’ve opposed that thought then as I do now. However, until today, I did not have the words to respond. No, the government has not been acting in our best interests for a while. Occasionally we get thrown a bone, but the government has not thought about the long term future of this country and all of its peoples for quite a while. However, that fact does not change the ownership. This is our government. We still possess it. Until the last person gives up the dream of democracy, this will remain our government. The problem is that so many ordinary citizens have taken the stance of a few of my friends that this is not their government and thus relinquished their power over the government and their responsibility as citizens.
I’m currently reading a book on Thomas Jefferson by Joyce Appleby, a book that I highly recommend as a quick summation of Jefferson. Appleby asserts that one of the big differences between Adams and Jefferson is that Adams felt that only a select few could govern while Jefferson felt that the masses must govern (a note should be made that Jefferson’s idea of the ‘people’ was white landowning males, but I digress). Jefferson threw himself behind the idea of revolution. Jefferson believed that “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” He said that “information is the currency of diplomacy.” Whatever his personal shortcomings, Jefferson’s idealism is much needed in 21st century America if we are to find our way through the fear culture that has resulted in so many giving up so much.
Patrick Henry is attributed as having said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” We must take up that instrument, and we must take back our nation from all those, be they on the left or the right, who dare to tell us that they know better than the people what is right for the nation. We must find the best from within our own ranks and give them the authority to lead us forward. We must inform ourselves. We must stimulate ideas. We must move forward. We must not give up our responsibility. This is our government. Let’s work together to fix it.
On to the General Election
Last night’s slew of primary races continued a trend that seems like it will have long-term consequences starting in November of this year. The public is tired of the status quo. That should have been apparent in 2008, but it seems like even the change candidates didn’t get the memo. Not only was there a major upset in Delaware with Mike Castle losing to Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell [1], DC Mayor Adrian Fenty lost his primary bid for reelection despite indications of success in improving the city’s schools. [2] This brings us to one of the things to be wary of with a “change at all costs” mentality. If you just go for “the other guy” because s/he is not an establishment candidate, you end up with a really poor candidate like Alvin Greene. For those who don’t know him, Alvin Greene is the Democratic candidate competing against US Sen. Jim DeMint in South Carolina. Alvin Greene, without really campaigning, came out of nowhere to win a decisive victory in the primary. Less than a day later, the problems began as people tried to answer the question “Who is Alvin Greene?” Alvin Greene, as people came to find out, was unemployed after being involuntarily discharged from the Army. [3] Alvin Greene, since becoming the Democratic candidate for US Senate, was indicted by a grand jury on obsenity charges. [4] The Federal Elections Commission has launched an investigation to find out where the unemployed Greene got the $10,000 to pay his filing fee to run in the first place. [5] All in all, Alvin Greene has made a race that was a longshot in any case into a “no chance at all” waste of time.
Time will tell whether O’Donnell’s campaign turns out the same way. Thus far, with her former campaign manager coming out and saying that O’Donnell used campaign funds to pay “rent and personal expenses” while not paying her staffers, it’s looking like the seat’s likely to remain in Democratic hands. [6] The furor with Washington is understandable (see pretty much any post on this blog to prove that). However, if we want to change Washington, then we have to do it wisely. Not just anyone is cut out to be a Senator or a Representative or a President. Just showing up doth not a good candidate make. I implore people in this election season, before you go to the ballot, learn about the candidates before voting. I know that sample ballots are coming out today in my district. I intend to download the list of candidates in the races I’ll be voting for, check out their websites, do some research and make my decisions that way. Just being of one party or the other or just being “the other guy” isn’t good enough for me. I believe that I and my fellow citizens deserve better. I hope you do too.
Golden opportunity for either bipartisanship or more partisanship
Yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner went on the Sunday shows and said that he would vote for extending the current tax rates for Americans making less than $250,000 a year “if [that is] the only option.” [1] Doesn’t sound like the party of no to me, at least not this time. However, Robert Gibbs went on the morning shows this morning. His response to Boehner’s concession was as follows:
–Gibbs to Harry Smith on “This Morning”: “We ought not use the middle class as a political football.”
–Gibbs to George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America”: “We’re going to have to see what Congressman Boehner does and says today. … But I think Congressman Boehner was fairly clear yesterday in outlining a position that the president outlined last week.”
–Gibbs to Meredith Vieira on “Today”: “Your poll showed that the second most potent idea against somebody running for Congress would be returning to the Bush policies. We’re going to take the next 50-some days to convince people that that’s exactly what the Republicans are going to do.” [2]
Now, I think that the only thing Boehner could’ve done was agreed to any extension of the tax cuts. If they had said no to anything, it would’ve been easy to paint them A) as the party of no and B) as the party of the rich. Now the ball is back in the Democrats’ court. If they really want to run on trying for bipartisanship, they aren’t going to have any better opportunity to prove it than now. This is a time that the administration could be reconciliatory on the surface while shoring up strength for themselves, take back control of this situation and prevent massive losses in November. The only way they can mess this up is if they come back with more demands, which I wouldn’t be surprised if they do because, whether we like it or not, it’s not just Republicans who, in Gibbs’s words, ”use the middle class as a political football.” I’m afraid they’re going to do as Mr. Gibbs did this morning and, instead of at least making appearances of working together, using this to try to stab at Boehner and the Republicans, which is exactly what Republicans are hoping for. It would make them stronger going into November for them to be able to point and say, “See? They’re as partisan as they say we are, and they’re hypocrites to boot.” If this deal falls apart and the extension isn’t pushed through, at least for some, our economy’s going to take yet another hit. If either side is truly concerned about the middle class, they won’t let an opportunity to help pass by, election or no election. Now’s the time to do the right thing. We’ll see what happens…
Update: 1:20 PM EST
Now Senate Minority Leader McConnell’s spokesman has come out and said that Senate Republicans are joined in opposing any extension of the tax cuts that doesn’t include the cuts for $250K+ earners. [3] I have my doubts as to how long they’ll be able to hold to that position, especially if the economy gets any worse between now and November (as it seems to be doing). Let’s see what the next move on the Washington chess board brings.
The American Parasite, or What 21st Century America Should Be
Alexander Hamilton, in his essay “The Examination,” written for the New York Evening Post and published on December 24, 1801, wrote, “In matters of industry, human enterprise ought doubtless to be left free in the main, not fettered by too much regulation, but practical politicians know that it may be beneficially stimulated by prudent aids and encouragements on the part of the government.” [1] Hamilton, in his “Report on Manufacturers,” which was submitted to Congress in the latter days of 1791 but not acted upon at the time, advocated a broad strategy in which the government could aid and influence the development of various industries in the young republic that was, at that stage, so far behind England in manufacturing output. Due in part of England’s protectionist policies, the colonies had remained primarily the suppliers of agricultural goods and raw materials, not finished manufactured products. With their independence and a strong centralizing force in the federal government, the United States were able to bounce ahead to become the world’s leader in many respects, including the world of manufacture and industry.
Today, we are in danger of losing our status as the world’s largest manufacturing nation by output. HIS Global Insight has projected that we will end our 110-year dominance of manufacturing capacity in 2011 with China taking over our spot. [2] When George Washington took over as President, we were primarily an agricultural nation. Thanks to policy concepts began by Alexander Hamilton and taken on by successive administrations, we became a manufacturing nation by the end of the 19th century going into the 20th century. Now, as we enter the second decade of the 21st century, we seem to be fully entrenched as a consumer nation, but is that truly a sustainable model? Can we subsist as a nation that imports goods and exports money? Even if it was sustainable, the question remains of whether we should want to choose that for ourselves. America has prided itself as a nation of thinkers, doers, be-ers. Where are we left if all that we are known for is consuming? In the natural world, there is a creature that fits that description. It’s called a parasite.
Before we’re flushed out of the world community, our government should take action to restore jobs. Provide tax incentives to companies that create jobs and tax companies that export jobs. Work with business – both on the side of the executives and on the side of the workers – to determine ways that government could assist in providing a good business environment within our borders. Stop handing out money with no preconditions – if money is given directly to any business, it should be given with a clear purpose and defined expectations. If our economy is to start growing again, it is going to take efforts, starting with citizens electing people who don’t view business as a ‘boogeyman’ but also don’t view the all-mighty dollar as a god. Capitalism is a system that is ultimately supposed to serve the needs of the society, not just a privileged few. Currency is a system of exchange, a pseudo-language if you will, for us to be able to communicate the value of goods and services to one another. It can and must serve these functions again, and our government must serve a temporary role in facilitating this transition, before the system goes beyond the point of no return and collapses under its imbalance. Let’s listen to the wisdom of the past and get America to making something again.
My two cents on the President’s Cleveland speech
First and foremost, the most noticeable thing about this speech is that the President mentions Rep. John Boehner by name seven times in this speech. For those who don’t know him John Boehner is the Republican representative from the Ohio 8th District [1] and is currently the House Minority Leader [2]. If you don’t know him yet, you should because unless Democrats really change course between now and November, more than likely John Boehner will be the new Speaker of the House. But I digress. The President attacked him by name seven times in what was billed to be a policy speech on the economy. Amazingly, Rep. Boehner spoke in Cleveland on August 24th on the economy [3]. Hmm, could the President’s speech have been a partisan rebuke to Boehner’s speech? Surely not from the President who began his speech by saying that he “hoped for a chance to get beyond some of the old political divides.” [4] Oh no, I’m sorry. He spoke in Parma. I wouldn’t think that the President would lower himself to feel the need to rebuke the House Minority Leader by traveling to Cleveland and delivering a partisan speech. That’s clearly beneath the dignity of his office.
Further on in the speech, the President goes back to the administration’s claims that the recovery has already happened. “The economy is growing again. The financial markets have stabilized. The private sector has created jobs for the last eight months in a row. And there are roughly three million Americans who are working today because of the economic plan we put in place.” [4] But, hold on, didn’t Peter Orszag just talk about a “jobs deficit”? [5] Oh, that’s right, he’s no longer with the administration. What about that guy who last week said that “our most urgent task is to restore the economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work”? Surely, he’s not still with the administration as that sounds like the complete opposite of what the President said. Oh wait, that was the President in his speech from the Oval Office last week. [6] Wow, that’s a lot of work in one week’s time to go from an economy that needed to be restored to a growing economy.
The President continued by asserting that “most of the Republicans in Congress have said no to just about every policy I’ve proposed since taking office….They’re making the same calculation they made just before the inauguration: if I fail, they win.” [4] Translation: Republicans are responsible for things not going as well as they should’ve. Blame them. No, Mr. President, I think we’ll look at the fact that Democrats have the largest majority that either party has had in both houses of Congress since the days of Carter. But somehow, it’s the Republicans’ fault that nothing’s gotten done. I call shenanigans. If the President fails, then no one wins, but it will be no one’s fault but the President and his party. He’s had a chance to be something different. Democrats had a chance to lead with more of a consideration of the needs of all Americans, not just those who voted them into office. I don’t have high hopes for Republicans to do much better should they get in power, but I do have hopes that the voting public of this nation will look at the situation with open eyes. Choose candidates wisely. Get to know your candidates. Don’t just vote straight party ticket if you don’t really know the candidates. Don’t just vote for the popular person. Vote your conscience. This is our country. Vote for the person who you think will do you the best service in whatever office is on the ballot. Otherwise, we’ll end up with Bush’s third term in sheep’s clothing again.
