Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Ummm.... It IS the Economy, Stupid

New York Times economy writer David Leonhardt, falling in line with the  Administration's full court PR charm offensive on "How to Share the Sacrifice and Learn to Love It", has written a piece on how Team Obama thinks it can win even though the economy stinks. (Thanks, "DraftSpitzer", for sending the link).

Another article in today's Times today gushes how "buoyed" Obama is now that there is some real bipartishit coming out of Congress.  Apparently, the fact that the Uniparty can agree to impose suffering on the masses and enrich the corporations is cause for celebration.  As long as it puts the president in a good mood, what more could we peasants ask for?  To further lift him out of his doldrums, the aptly named Moody's is walking back its Debt Ceiling Doom rating threat.
   
The "Headwind" headline is ripped straight from the obsessive-compulsive brain of whatever White House PR hack writes the  speeches.  The president can't get enough of the temporary headwinds buffeting the economy and which, of course, are merely passing zephyrs in his Panglossian world vision --- the Japanese earthquake is still sending shock waves across the ocean, says he.  Then there are those rising gas prices, which actually started falling even before he unnecessarily released the oil reserves.  And those misleading, increasing unemployment numbers, which are always flukes and always so much shockingly higher than expected, even though teachers by the thousands are being laid off this summer, when school's out and nobody notices.

But this excerpt is the real giveaway that Leonhardt's piece came indirectly from Orwell's Ministry of Truth the Obama '12 machine:
The clearest statement of this idea has come from David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s top political adviser. “The average American does not view the economy through the prism of G.D.P. or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Mr. Plouffe said at a recent Bloomberg Breakfast here. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate. They’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ”
Not surprisingly, Republicans seized on the comment to say the White House was out of touch. They are preparing to follow the path of not only Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, but also — in slogans, if not policies — Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, which coined “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Actually, it wasn't  the Republicans who first seized upon Plouffe's ham-handed bluster.  The Progressive blogosphere glommed onto it first.  A recent phenomenon I have noticed is that whenever liberals take Obama to task for his latest outbreak of conservativism, Republicans seize upon the criticism, making Obama their instant victim without having to expend much effort  themselves.  Not much we can do about that, except to say over and over again to David Brooks and William Kristol and Charles Krauthhammer:  Take him -- he's yours!  He wants to rip up the social safety net as much as you do.  He is embracing the latest Baby Grand (son of big Grand) Bargain from the Gang of Six or Seven even though he hasn't even read the thing yet.  It is still in its fetal stage: two pages of bullet points.

Nowhere in his article does Leonhardt mention the pushback against Obama from his former supporters. As of 7:30 a.m. today, all 19 reader comments posted to the Leonhardt story were Obama-negatives from the usual liberal crowd.  And not one clothespin (hold your nose, lesser of two evils) voter among them.  More and more, it's not the Economy Stupide.  It's the fact that a Democratic president is thinking about cutting Social Security and Medicare and other domestic programs during what is increasingly looking like a Long Depression.


6 comments:

Janet Camp said...

Okay, okay, it's official. Off with the clothespin. I'm not voting. It just doesn't mater who holds the office anymore. If we get a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, they will just attack that branch and go around it anyway, as they have been doing in the states with abortion and public employee rights.

I do not understand Obama. I didn't really like him to begin with but supported him when he won the nomination--which I thought he did in a clever but unrepresentative of the majority way. He used a strategy rather than making a case to the voters. I warned everyone who seemed to be in his thrall that he really wasn't all that liberal.

I saw the Times article you refer to on Obama's "buoyancy" and it was just the last straw.

Jay in Ottawa: Will you sponsor me?

Anne Lavoie said...

Bipartisanshit is right, Karen!

Re: Leonhardt's piece. I think the increase in Democrats speaking truthfully about Sell-Out Obama in the comments section is a direct result of others speaking out. A special thanks to Karen Garcia! It really does open eyes and minds. If we want a spark, maybe we have to generate enough heat ourselves to start one.

During the previous presidential primary and election campaigns, it was only when people heard others admitting that they were supporting Obama did people feel they had sufficient cover and they did the same. There was a ripple effect.

Well, the reverse is happening now. The more Democrats speak out publicly, the more people know they are not alone in their feelings, and that they are in very good company. That is how movements are born, if enough people have the courage of their convictions and express them OPENLY.

@Janet - In a previous post you asked who these 'Independents' were that Obama is targeting, I offer this: Independents are those who side with Republicans on some issues and with Democrats on others. They are not wishy-washy, middle of the road voters. What the media and Team Obama are calling Independents should actually be called the GULLIBLES, if it wasn't politically incorrect. They are the ones who vote their hearts, the mushy ones, not Independents. If Obama thinks he is winning real Independents by taking the positions he has, he is in for a rude awakening.

p.s. Eva@DraftSpitzer - For posting comments, have you tried to select Name/URL? If you don't have a URL for a website, simply don't enter anything but your 'name', DS. If you have a website for DS, enter the URL (Uniform Resource Locator, aka Web Address) and it creates a hotlink to your website when your name, which is then highlighted, is clicked.

Anonymous said...

Anne,
It's a hand-held device problem, but thanks for the tip!

Now about those independents... That's why I posted the link to the comments on the "how-do-we-snooker-the-voter-THIS-time" article: There were two posts from self-described independents in the first, I think, five comments. I thought it described them well. I have friends in the medical field who are independents. Many are liberal, the rest are hybrids. But I think the common denominator is that they figured out a while ago that the two-party system is dysfunctional.
-draftSpitz

Napoleon said...

@Anne Lavoie

I agree with what you said in the first 3 paragraphs on the 'Leonhardt's piece' about how people can often be influenced by the comments of others.

Valerie Long Tweedie said...

Janet! I have a lovely clothespin with a cute little ladybug on it - I would love to send it to you! While I welcome your announcement, I am glad you have continually been true to yourself and have spoken your own mind. It has added immensely to the discussion. You have also been great about keeping us all aware that whether or not we vote for O'Betrayer in 2012, the most important thing we can do at this point is work to get as many Progressives elected to Congress.

On a completely different note - I have been watching the Parliamentary hearings with Rupert and James Murdoch. I don’t know how this will come out when all is said and done – hopefully saying that NewsCorp is not a fit company to own a huge chunk of the British Media – but I couldn’t help but compare these hearings with those around Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB.

All the Parliamentary members have been so soft spoken asking intelligent, relevant and direct questions. They did not allow either father or son to get away with prevaricating yet did so in a respectful tone of voice. When Rup and Jim tried to pass the buck or plead ignorance, members pointed out that as leaders of NewsCorp they were accountable. One Member of Parliament referred to the “collective amnesia on the part of the executives at NewsCorp” suggesting, without saying so, that there was a lot of lying going on. These Parliamentary Representatives did a wonderful job of representing the best interests of the British Public and by using Parliamentary hearings to get to the truth.

Contrast that to the last Congressional hearing for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Patrick McHenry, crash pig of a man, was belligerent and disrespectful in his tone and manner from the moment the hearings started. He was like a bully – trying to intimidate and push Warren around rather than attempting to get to the truth. When he couldn’t keep up intellectually with Elizabeth Warren and didn’t have a principle to stand on for why her agency shouldn’t exist, he reverted to badgering her and calling her a liar.

What a shocking contrast to the behaviour I have been witnessing in the British Parliament - and how embarrassing for every American that a buffoon like McHenry is a member of our Congress.

If anyone is interested in Patrick McHenry’s slimy campaign donations from the very groups Elizabeth Warren is trying to protect the public from go to ThinkProgress – Elizabeth Warren – and Lee Fang (You can also go to RealityChex for the link which is where I first saw it.)

Kat said...

@janet
Welcome!