The first poll results since the president's big speech on the economy last week are in -- and they're not very good. According to a new Washington Post/ABC News survey, the president's approval rating continues to fall, driven by fears about the economy. "Forty-four percent of Americans see the economy as getting worse, the highest percentage to say so in more than two years," wrote Dan Balz and Jon Cohen in the Washington Post. "57 percent disapprove of the job the president is doing dealing with the economy, tying his highest negative rating when it comes to the issue."
Back in the heady days of the 2008 campaign, a powerful, impassioned speech like the one Obama delivered would have had a definite positive impact on the numbers. But the soaring rhetoric now comes with a bitter aftertaste.
Perhaps it's because we feel like we've seen this movie before. Call it "Attack of the Impassioned Yet Empty Rhetoric." But this version was even more unsettling than the earlier versions, in which the president delivered great speeches then failed to back up his words with the promised action. In this sequel, his words turned to broken promises as soon as they passed his lips.
It's almost as if the speech was premised on the hope that most of his audience hadn't been keeping up with the news. "They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs? That's not right. And it's not going to happen as long as I'm president," he said, drawing rhetorical lines in the sand. The problem is, he had already welcomed Republicans across these lines and enjoyed a few celebratory toasts with them on the other side.
We got used to the president making strong promises and then caving -- from closing Guantanamo to not extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. Now he's making strong promises he's already broken. He's like a political version of the Guy Pearce character in Memento -- he's figured out a way to break promises outside of the limitations of linear time.
With his signing of the extension of the Bush tax cuts in December and his agreement to cut $38 billion -- including from programs that help the less fortunate he championed in his speech -- his actions pre-belied his upcoming words. As a result, those words, no matter how powerful or masterfully delivered, are no longer working the magic they once did.
So, yes, this was a defiant speech, eloquently defending the idea that the wealthy should bear "a greater share of [the economic] burden than the middle class or those less fortunate" because "of our belief that those who've benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more." But this defense is much less effective when it comes four months after you've allowed the rich to pass along that burden to the middle class and the less fortunate.
In his speech, the president spoke repeatedly about the social contract underpinning our country, and how "we're a better country because of these commitments." "Yes," he said, "we take responsibility for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the future that we share." If we truly want to preserve our freedom and happiness, "we can't just think about ourselves," he said, "we have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community."
Moving forward, there will be many opportunities for him to demonstrate whether his pledge to "not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations" is something more than a stirring statement turned out by the White House speechwriting shop. The special challenge Obama created for himself with this speech is that he cast the budget fight with the Republicans in terms of abiding American principles and moral choices -- and you simply can't compromise on principles and moral choices in the name of political expediency. At least you can't and still expect your words to be credible.
The good news for the president is that, when it comes to one of the key battles over the economy -- how to deal with the deficit -- sticking to his principles is also smart politics: a recent Gallup poll shows that a majority of voters believe that big corporations and rich Americans are not paying their fair share of taxes. As Chris Cillizza puts it, "If Obama can use the idea of rescinding tax cuts for the wealthy to appeal to middle class voters who feel as though they are forever on the short end of the stick, it could have significant electoral consequences next fall."
George Lakoff hailed Obama's speech as a "work of art," "near perfection," and a return "to his moral vision." For that to be the case, the president's actions can no longer be contradicted by his words.
If this speech truly serves as a framework for how the administration will govern in the lead-up to 2012 -- and if these new lines in the sand turn out to be real -- then I'll be overjoyed to retroactively withdraw my uneasy reaction to it. (Hey, if the president can play with time, why can't I?)
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Brendan Nyhan: No Evidence Obama Deficit Speech Backfired
Robert Kuttner: Touch of Class
Robert Creamer: How Obama Seized the Political High Ground in Budget War
HuffPost TV: Alex Wagner Talks President Obama's Campaign With Lawrence O'Donnell (VIDEO)
I am sure I am going to frame his speech on the wall and admire it because whatever he said in his speech will never happen in reality.
Thanks for taking us for a ride! President Obama.
Obama took a hard right the day he was sworn in.
Votes were not cast for him to load his Administration with nothing more than corporate lobbyists who funnel everything possible to their own companies.
Votes were not cast for Obama to become the good fairy of the GOP and corporate, granting their wishes.
We needed Churchill, and got Chamberlain instaed.
We don't even know what the revenue loss will be from this, but the indication is tremendous.
The notion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07tax.html?_r=3
Potential result:
http://taxloopholes.com/?p=535
His only goal is to be a two-term president.
Is he threatening to close federal tax loopholes for the super greedy rich?
To presume that Obama will recognize his base once re-election is no longer an issue is short-sighted at best. He will still have a "future" to think about, and like so many Republicans who have voluntarily left Congress, may already be contemplating the best way to "make money" in the private sector once he has served out his time as president.
Set up a primary for Obama, and we will have a Republican/Tea Party running all three branches of Government.
But the that seems to be the Agenda of the Left for some reason.
Had the Republicans acknowledged that Bush was failing when it became obvious that he was only playing "president" (like a little kid playing "dress-up") and otherwise deferring to his VP and R.ove on the issues (while making a splash at his "pig roasts" and giving unwanted massages), they might have had a lot more credibility in 2008. As things are going now, Dems will have an uphill battle in 2014 and 2016 even if Obama keeps the WH and the Dems retain or recapture at least one chamber of Congress in 2012.
If Obama were primaried (successfully or not), Dems could still vote for progressives in Congress--and the progressives who might stay home if Obama is given a free ride might turn out whether Obama is on the ballot or not, to support progressive candidates for the House and Senate.
To say primarying Obama is the equivalent of electing a Tea-bag-controlled government is the kind of fear tactic I suspect Obama won't try to discourage. It's also the worst way to try to keep a drowning "democracy" alive.
Welcome to the "two (one) party system"
You didn't want to repeal DADT?
You didn't want to guarantee HC coverage for 30 million more Americans?
You didn't want to start regulating Wall Street?
You didn't want to limit the use of the US military to internationally UN authorized peace keeping missions only?
You didn't want to give 12 million more students access to college?
You didn't want withdraw the troops from Iraq?
You didn't want to expand Medicaid?
You didn't want to extend Medicare for the longest period in history (12 years)?
You didn't want the biggest HC subsidies for families in history?
You didn't want to increase taxes for the rich (Recovery Act, Affordable Care Act)?
You didn't want to increase funds for education?
Etc.
What about the failed pork stimulus?
What about his total lack of transparency?
What about his bribed health care bill (Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker kick back)
What about growing the Gov't and not the private sector?
What about starting a new war in Libya, a country that hadn't even threatened us or any other nation?
What about no lobbyists in the White House, another broken promise?
What about putting Kagen on the U.S. S. Ct. when she had not a day of experience on the bench in any jurisdiction and never even tried a case to a jury as a lawyer?
What about the vast carbon footprints that he has left with his many vacations and flying out of the White House for speeches on almost a daily basis?
What about his dithering on the Gulf Oil spill, where he rejected international help and foolishly believed BP's promises that they would get it cleaned up right away? (By the way they gave him their biggest donation ever--any connection? You decide)
What about naming a Jobs Czar, Immelt whose company GE ships their jobs overseas and didn't pay a dime of taxes?
What about the government takeover of GM where only the unions were protected and regular stockholders got the shaft?
I could consume pages on his failed promises but my space is running out.
Question: HOW will they force a GOP Congress to pass progressive bills?
My guess: just like Obama, they won't have the legal tools to do so AT ALL.
So changing one 'Good Guy' for the other doesn't make any sense ...
Is this guy a lawyer? That would explain it all.
You are assuming of course that Obama has any principles to stick to other than immediate self interest and ambition, which is highly doubtful. For almost any statement of policy Obama has made, I can find another statement he's made where he earnestly expresses exactly the opposite position at another time. Go on, give it a try.
Lets face it - those of us who voted for him, contributed to his campaign - and the many who went door to door to build up grassroots support, have been played like a violin.
I hope he realizes how much sharper than a serpent's tooh ingratitude really is.
Quotes from Obama:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
"I taught the Constitution for 10 years, I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution the of the United States. We're not gonna use signing statements as a way to do an end-run around Congress, alright?"
Out of room. tons more though. find them yourself.
Obama: “Yes.”
Video: http://obaÂÂÂmalies.nÂeÂtÂ/obamaÂ-lÂieÂs-abÂoutÂ-siÂgnÂing-ÂstatÂÂementÂs.htÂmÂl
Post without comment because I can't get anything through anymore. I'm done.