Thursday, November 18, 2010

Obama Fails His First Test Already

Obama has now faced his first test since the election. He failed spectacularly. Not only did he show that he learned nothing from the election and that he would continue to put rigid ideology ahead of results, but he roused the suspicions of his base in the process. Indeed, George Soros is talking about progressives needing to “go around” Obama. That’s a lot of failure to achieve in one week.

The issue in question is whether or not to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Last week, Obama puppeteer David Axelrod suggested to the Huffington Post that Obama would agree to a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” in exchange for making the cuts permanent for families with incomes below $250,000 a year.

This set off a firestorm of progressive anger. Not only do progressives not want any tax cuts for the filthy rich, but they can barely stomach the idea of tax cuts for anyone. When they heard that Obama was going to sell them out, they were not amused.

Congressional Democrats were angry too. They thought Axelrod’s statement undermined their bargaining position with the Republicans before the talks even began. After all, if Obama announces that he is willing to meet the Republicans half way, then surely the Republicans now would demand more?

Obama responded, a couple days later, by holding a telephone conference with his left flank, in which he told them that he is “open to ideas, but fundamentally the middle-class tax cuts have to be made permanent.” Then he repeated his “opposition to making the high income tax cuts permanent.” That seemed pretty clear. Only it wasn’t.

The following day, a White House spokeswoman issued a statement saying: “His position has been clear for weeks and he reiterated his interest in a compromise to ensure middle class families have the certainty their taxes will not go up.” In other words, forget all that stuff Obama assured the Democrats about, he will happily trade a tax cut for the rich for an extension of the middle class portion of the tax cut. This is the Axelrod position which upset the Democrats so much.

Thus, Obama angered Congressional Democrats by undercutting them, and he angered his base by calling into question what he really believes by issuing ambiguous contradictory statements. Could he really be willing to cut taxes on the stinking rich (forget for the moment that these aren’t tax cuts, they are instead a halt on tax increases). Grrrrrr. What’s next, a bank bailout?

At the same time, Obama’s vocal opposition to “tax cuts for the rich” showed the public that he didn’t listen to the election. Love the rich or loathe them, it is beyond dispute (unless you’re a liar like Paul Krugman) that raising taxes on the rich will depress the economy, something which would be very stupid to do at a time when the economy is teetering on the edge of a possible double-dip recession. Thus, by seeming to take a hard line against these tax cuts, Obama signaled the public that he intends to put his ideology ahead of intelligent economics. And if the election truly was about the economy as the Democrats claim, then this signal was aimed straight at the very heart of what has upset the public.

Ironically, for once, Obama actually has his finger on good politics. If he agrees to the whole tax cut package right now, then he may stave off a double dip recession and he can avoid an obvious spot of potential blame, i.e. “he caused this by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.” And if he can get a temporary extension for the rich but a permanent extension for the middle class, then Obama has actually managed to lay a bit of a trap for Republicans, who will need to come back in the future to seek an extension for the rich only. But his base won’t accept this because his dithering and ambiguity have made them suspicious about his true beliefs.

Thus, he’s turned what could be a win for him into a stunning defeat with all sides now angry at him. Not smart.

42 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I am so glad you are not advising Obama. If you feel a compulsion to do so, I recommend aversion therapy. Two hours of speeches from Pelosi, followed by one hour speach from Hillary all the while looking at a picture of Murkowski with the caption, "Obama's BFF". Hopefully that will stave off the impulse while we get you some real help. ;-)

Notawonk said...

andrew: i am posting a audio clip tomorrow a convo barry had with move-on folks the day after the election. maybe the same you are talking about today. it's clear in barry's intent, and in my opinion, continued arrogance. my prayer is that soon, even the dems will wake up and join the revolt against barry's vision for this country. if not, well, see you in 2012.

LL said...

Obama is in a tight place politically.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, LOL! Don't worry about me, I feel no desire to help Obama! Plus, he wouldn't listen to me because I've never hated America... ;-)

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, everything he's done or said since the election says that he's an arrogant jerk who doesn't care at all what the public thinks or says. I look forward to seeing the clip!

T_Rav said...

He's an overachiever, Andrew.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, It's a tight place of his own making. If his people had faith in him, they would let me move forward with the plan.... but they don't. If he was more interested in doing the right thing rather than the ideological thing, then the public wouldn't be mad at him. In trying to not offend either, he's ended up offending both.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, When it comes to utter failure, I concur. He is the Master of Fail. LOL!

DUQ said...

Obama is a failure. Everything he does leads to failure. His every impulse is to fail. I hope they run him again in 2012.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, That's certainly been his history, and I see no evidence of change. But let's not count our 2012 chickens yet.

StanH said...

Barry is like the “push-me pull-me in, Dr. Doolittle, the original with Rex Harrison.” He has spread so much BS he doesn’t know if he’s coming or going. Barry is out of his depth, and I look for him to flail about until he is gone 1/20/13

Ed said...

2012 can't come soon enough. Can't we trade Obama to some other country for something useful like a yak?

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I love that you have the exact date of his departure on your calendar! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Obama for a yak would not be a good deal for the other country. Maybe we could trade him for a busload of welfare cheats, that seems about fair.

Unknown said...

Andrew: I've gone Stan one better. I have an Obama Countdown Clock displayed right in the center of my main bookcase. It counts down by days, and the very second that we "fundamentally return America to the people." I'd be tempted to take a quick vacation to my old home on the South Side of Chicago just to welcome him back where he belongs. "Hello, Barry, well hello, Barry, it's so nice to have you back where you belong."

Tennessee Jed said...

"o asshat, Obama be thy name!"

As far as the "love them or loathe" them theme, we certainly hope "love them" rules the day. Don't forget, without the insurance industry, the logo'ed golf ball industry would virtually dry up. ;D

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Someone should put one of those in the middle of Times Square. We should ask Bev to take care of that! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I always find it interesting when people hate the rich, and I ask them the following four questions:

1. What did the rich ever do to you except provide jobs to millions of people?

2. How does it hurt you that they are rich?

3. How does it help you to hate them?

4. Don't you think that wasting your time hating people who don't hurt you and only help society might be the reason for your problems?

StanH said...

Yes Andrew, I’ve been looking forward to 1/20/13 since 1/20/09.

Game Master Rob Adams said...

His farewell address will be something like "I told you this would happen.. ummm.. and you didn't listen to me.. and umm in the end it's all bush's fault that umm... we're in this crisis... umm together.. and it's been a great time being your umm.. president in these umm.. 59 states.

rlaWTX said...

now we know!! ArmChairGeneral has been writing Obama's speeches!!! The man behind the curtain is revealed! LOL

Ed said...

A busload of welfare cheats -- LoL! That still may overvalue the jerk.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I haven't kept the precise time, but I share the sentiment! :-)

AndrewPrice said...

ACG, I can honestly see him saying that.... maybe because he's already said all of it once or twice?

I'll tell you what though, his good riddance speech is the only one of his speeches I'll be happy to listen to! :-)

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, You man the man who runs the TOTUS! LOL! :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Let's just offer him up for free. Heck, I might even throw in something of value... maybe a new car or football team.

Janet said...

I don't think progressives have "turned on" the President, as you keep saying. He's done a lot of good things. While it would be nice if he had done more, he did what he could and he will keep doing what he can. This issue with the Bush tax cuts is a minor issue and we don't know yet how it will turn out. Perhaps we should wait to find that out before we declare him a failure?

Game Master Rob Adams said...

He isn't a failure. He's done a heck of a lot for this country for specific people. What more could a politician, who by the very video thestoryofstuff's own admission, caters only to their constituents and ignores the people ask for?

AndrewPrice said...

ACG, Has he really done a lot for his supporters? The only people he really did anything for are the unions, and even what they got is pretty lousy. Sure, he gave the unions a bunch of cash, but their pension funds are still bankrupt and union membership continues to collapse. If it wasn't for government employees unions, they would extinct by now.

Plus, isn't he the guy who made the point that he's the President of everyone, not just Democrats?

AndrewPrice said...

Janet, The evidence is all there that the progressives have turned on him. They're angry, they withheld funds for the election, they're openly plotting to "go around" him, and voter turn out was very low in the election. What more evidence do you need?

Also, I challenge you to tell me what good things he's done? So far, all he's done is waste 2 trillion dollars trying to create jobs. Even this health care bill he's so proud of did nothing more than increase the profits of health insurers.

CrispyRice said...

Appropo of nothing, with that picture, I can just hear him making that little brrrrrr noise with his lips. Maybe to the tune of Taps??

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, LOL! I can hear that! That or motorboat noises.

Ed said...

Janet, Of course progressives are abandoning Obama because he can't give them what they want. They don't have reasonable expectations.

Janet said...

Mr. Price, I think you will find progressives still support the President. What is the alternative? A republican? A Clinton? That's the same things as a republican. The fact that the President could not achieve the things he wanted because the Senate stopped him does not mean progressives no longer support him.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I think that is part of the problem. The left does not understand or respect the limits of constitutional democracy. They mistake it for "winner takes all". But that's not how it's designed.

AndrewPrice said...

Janet, Just because there isn't a good alternative does not support make. And if blaming the Senate is enough to excuse his behavior, then how to do respond to the fact that his party controlled a filibuster-proof majority for the first year, yet they refused to act? And if Obama is such a good leader, then when wasn't he able to overcome the resistance of his own party?

Ed said...

That's true, I hear that all the time from liberals, and with all due respect to Janet, Obama will fail you. He is not up to the job.

Janet said...

Ed, It amazes me how many conservatives want Obama to fail. Why can't you wish him success? Surely you aren't looking for the country to fail just to support your ideology?

Janet said...

Mr. Price, You make a good point that I cannot deny. However, you know and I know that not all senators from either party are faithful to their parties. Both sides have senators who are loyal to Wall Street and K Street and they will do what it takes to stop either side from changing the status quo. That is why we need to end the filibuster. It does not protect the minority, it protects the wealthy.

Ed said...

@Janet: It amazes me how many liberals don't understand what conservatives mean when they say they want Obama to fail. Hell yes I want him to fail because his goal is to socialize my country. I want him to fail totally in that. I do NOT want the country to fail. I think the country WILL succeed by Obama failing IN HIS GOALS.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I think you're right that Obama will fail the left because he cannot deliver what they want.

AndrewPrice said...

Janet, You could make the same argument about all prior Presidents, yet Reagan was considered a huge success, so was Clinton. JFK was considered a success, so was FDR. None of them had these massive majorities you are talking about.

And you can keep finding excuses for Obama's failure, but the truth is that he is a failure, no matter what the excuse, and he will continue to be a failure.

And Ed is right, conservatives do not want to see the country fail -- though they do want to see the spread of leftist ideology fail. BUT, liberals on the other hand, were actively rooting for the US to lose in Iraq so they could score political points. Now that is despicable.

Post a Comment