22 months will pass before Americans cast their votes on November 6, 2012, but few who saw Barack Obama's State-of-the-Union address on January 25 doubted that the presidential campaign had begun. The president's stirring speech contrasted with the tepid Republican responses delivered by Representatives Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann and established the ideological battle lines for the next election.
Since the Democrats "shellacking" in the November 2 midterm election, President Obama has regained focus and the 2011 State of the Union address found him in top form. At the moment, Republicans don't have a consensus national spokesperson and so they countered Obama with two voices from the extreme wings of the Grand Old Party. Representative Ryan gave the official Republican response, while Representative Bachmann spoke for the "Tea Party" faction.
Obama delivered a positive message: America is recovering from "the worst recession most of us have ever known." "We are poised for progress" and if we work together the US can have another "Sputnik moment," create jobs and heal our society, because "we do big things." In contrast Ryan and Bachmann trumpeted alarm. They warned that America is on the road to bankruptcy and to avoid our "day of reckoning" we must drastically reduce the size of government and cut taxes.
Obama portrayed government as a force for good, an agency to harness America's energy and innovation and create jobs. In contrast, Ryan and Bachmann described government as an obstacle that needs to be removed so the free market can create jobs. Thematically, Obama pushed "reform, responsibility, and innovation," while Ryan and Bachmann called for "a renewed commitment to limited government." The president made specific proposals for job creation, education, infrastructure development, tax code reform, and debt reduction. Representatives Ryan and Bachmann had one focus: repeal of Healthcare reform.
Thus the 2012 presidential campaign opened with clear statements of the polarized perspectives. For Democrats the Great Recession was produced by failed conservative policies, but the actions of the Obama administration and the Democratically controlled 112th Congress solved most of our economic woes, and the remaining challenges can be met by thoughtful government action. The GOP claims the Obama administration caused the Great Recession and the president's actions increased the federal bureaucracy and the national debt. For Republicans the only solution is a drastic reduction in the size of government in order to "unshackle our economy."
Most Americans are concerned about both high unemployment and the national debt. How the contrasting State of the Union speeches were received depends upon which problem was seen as needing the most attention. In the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll respondents overwhelmingly (43 percent) believed that Congress should focus on job creation. In contrast, only 14 percent saw the "federal budget deficit" as Congress' top priority. President Obama got this message and the vast majority of his State of the Union remarks concerned job creation. Ryan and Bachmann didn't get the message and, therefore, focused on the deficit.
Not surprisingly, spot polls showed that a strong majority of viewers (84 percent) had a positive view of the president's remarks. And swing voters were also favorably impressed. Ryan and Bachmann were unsuccessful.
Therefore Obama won the opening round of the 2012 presidential campaign. And, by discussing most of the problems that vex Americans, the president established the context for a series of Congressional battles that will likely take the same general form: the White House will propose a program to tackle a particular problem; the Republican controlled House of Representatives will refuse to take his proposal seriously and, instead, pass draconian budget cuts; and these will stall in the Democratically controlled Senate.
For example, in his State of the Union address the president proposed to create jobs by an investment in "innovation:" a "level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race... in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology." Obama continued, "to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Even though Americans in general liked this idea, Obama's proposal likely will not get a hearing in the House and, instead, Republicans will try to slash the federal budget, to magically create jobs by bleeding the body politic.
The next major battle between the president and Republican ideologues will occur in March. This past December, Congress failed to pass a yearlong budget and, therefore, Federal agencies were funded by a continuing resolution that expires on March 4th. Republicans will use the necessity for another continuing resolution as an opportunity to savagely reduce funds for many Federal agencies. Extremists, such as Representatives Ryan and Bachmann, will threaten to "shut down" the federal government unless their demands are met.
Over the next 22 months Americans should expect total political gridlock. Whether this ultimately benefits Democrats or Republicans on November 6th, 2012, depends upon how effectively the president uses the bully pulpit. The good news about the president's State of the Union address is that Obama appeared to have found his Mojo. He'll need it to fight battle after battle with Republican obstructionists and address America's most pressing problems.
Basics:
Take care of oneself. Get educated/ re-educated with changing skills needed in the workplace.
Be responsible for our first-degree relatives; and
Provide social support and care for second-degree relatives.
First degree: Children, parents, grandparents and siblings.
Second degree: Uncles, aunts, first-cousins, in-laws.
In surveys, about 90% of Americans want to die in the security, comfort and warmth of their own home; surrounded by family and friends. In reality, only 20% get their wishes (+/- hospice). About 45% die in hospitals and 35% die in nursing homes.
Reason: Uncaring Children!
Statistics would change dramatically if bills for non-medical care was paid by patient and/or children, instead of society as rising healthcare costs, taxes or federal debt to be paid by the grandchildren.
Third of total healthcare costs (2 Trillion dollars) is spent in caring for the last few months of life; and 20% treating preventable illnesses (quit smoking, diet, exercise and prevent obesity). The 'wasted' 1 Trillion dollars is added to cost of goods and services, given our employer-based healthcare insurance system.
Human civilizations flourished and progressed over 5000+ years all over the world. Prior to that, since humans evolved; and even prior to that, in animal species; i.e. social duties and responsibilities are in our genes.
Over two generations, some want improvement; with responsibility-free and mobile society; govt responsible for any short-comings and yet-to-be-born citizens paying the bills.
I think all your comments are interesting. But in particularly the: "Often utterly meaningless." not quite a sentence but I will take it to mean - like - without meaning? If so that must mean: Reforming the tax codes - closing loop holes, enabling a lower taxation rate as a percent? How about the enumeration of the benifits of the health care law and the challange to the "repeal" crowd to make it better if they can even offering a section of the law governing tort that needs to be changed. How about the reality check this nation is dumbing down and needs to smarten up to be competative in a global economic system. How about the continued determination of the United States to seek out and destroy elQ? Where ever we find them.
That's just off the top of my head. I am now wondering if we saw the same bit of performance art.
But what really intrest me about your comments is just what did hyou find interesting to watch? Want to share? Thanks
Using what should have been a candid assessment of the state of our country to position himself for another term is an abuse of privilege, IMO. Yet looking at his decisions over the past couple of years, I've come to feel that the point of his first term has been to secure his second.
He START using the bully pulpit, period.
WE lost is.
"The reality, as Mr. Obama understands, is that the country is headed for fiscal catastrophe unless it does some politically unpopular things: unwind the Bush tax cuts, including for the middle class; reduce projected Social Security benefits for future retirees, exempting the poor and disabled; rein in the cost of health care; limit popular income tax deductions. Mr. Obama knows this, but last night he did little to prepare Americans for any of it. "
This was merely the pre-fight weigh-in, press conference, and photo-op session. Artful shadow boxing and taunting was all we got there. Obama handily won the pre-fight press conference in 2009, too.
If Obama could be fancied as Muhammad Ali due to his oratory's grace and skill (compared to Ali's ring grace and skill), I'm fine with that association. However, Ali had a crushing right that would put tired opponents out. So far, the President has only shown skill in foot-shuffling and dodging punches - but due to his macabre fixation on bipartisanship, that's all he's willing to do.
A fighter in this matchup who throws no punches can only hope to win by letting his wildly-swinging opponent fly off-balance and out of the ring. The first test of that strategy was midterm elections. I think it's safe to say the strategy has thus far proved inadequate for Obama (and for the US).
I will be amazed if the strategy changes at all over the next 2 years. 2012 match will be unbalanced ideologues vs. a guy floating like a butterfly with his hands tied behind his back. In that match-up, we can only hope for a strong 3rd party candidate.
I would be much more impressed if it resulted in tangible actions beneficial for the average American.
There is no recession for Wall Street, and most of them still pay a much lower tax rate than those in an ever shrinking middle class.
Until some leader can be found that puts the good of the country ahead of their own political future, or that of their party, the downward spiral continues unabated.
Politicians are so engrossed in "playing politics" they've forgotten what they were elected to office for. How ironic is it, that with so many people unemployed, politicians refuse to do their "jobs".
That's how it works. There is no real difference between the two parties. They both do the exact same things when in power: corporate welfare for the top 0.1% and social welfare for the bottom 10%. And they use social issues, targeted to micro audiences, to surgically split the middle.
That's why social issues are so important. Neither is willing to end wage suppression regulations like H-1b. And both support amnesty for all illegal labor because that too will flood the legal labor market and drive down wages for working Americans.
The conclusion is simple: American workers will continue to lose under either party.
Only Zombies Would Believe This...
Many say that how you deliver your message is more important than the message itself. In the case of Obama he neither delivered nor provided an on target message. I think the Obama-ZombÂies know his failure to measure up to a Roosevelt, Kennedy or a Regan. So to over compensate you many prefer to point out the failing of those who reject the leadership of the current administraÂtion.
Why would anyone think that the Presidents message was a sputnik moment. For many of us we felt it was a Damn the Torpedoes moment. All we heard invest (spend more) on infrastrucÂture (A gift to the trade unions) and education (A gift to the teacher unions) and increase taxes without mentioning a strategy for reducing our public debt or creating jobs at the grass roots level (small business)
I agree that neither of the responses that came from the Republican camps were a Regan moment. However, the message was more reflective of those Americans who have the greatest stake in our future. (Entrepreneurs, land owners and workers).
You may not ever been in a true crisis but for those who have, know what is important. It is not about style points of the delivery but about the nuts and bolts of over-cominÂg the crisis in a fashion that is consistent with the values of the stake holders.
Warm regards,
Michael Winters
"...the [Republican] message was more reflective of those Americans who have the greatest stake in our future. (EntreprenÂeurs, land owners and workers)."
You could do yourself a great service and disavow yourself of mid-19th Century Calhounism: All Americans have an equal stake in their future. It matters not whether they work in the public or private sector. It matters not what they already own. But to the modern day Calhounist such as yourself, some Americans are more equal than others.
Why else would you consider infrastructure a gift to some and not all. Is the Interstate Highway system a gift to you? Are airports a gift to you? Of course. And they were all built with public money.
Society is not dead, just Margaret Thatcher.