Barack Obama won’t triangulate, because he can’t:
That Monday tax deal had to be the worst day of Barack Obama’s presidency. I’d be surprised if this most insouciant of presidents was able to sleep Monday after the statement he issued at the White House about the deal. That was no mere statement. It was a class warrior’s cry from the heart.
He lashed “the wealthiest Americans” three times, not to mention “the wealthiest 2% of Americans,” “tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires,” “wealthy people” and—channeling the French revolution—”the wealthiest estates.” (Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, answering the party’s casting call for the role of Madame Defarge, denounced the deal as “morally corrupt.” Keep her away from knitting needles.)
I don’t buy that all this was said as a sop to the angry left. One month into his presidency, the Obama budget message repeatedly ripped into “those at the commanding heights of our economy.” When at the White House Monday Mr. Obama suggested his next campaign will be “a conversation with the American people” about ending those rates (35%!) for “wealthy people,” I take him at his word. He won’t be at peace until this violation is erased.
…Will the nation’s new economic royalists step forward, rope in hand, to produce enough economic activity to help Mr. Obama to a second term of retribution? Maybe not. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, some 70% of manufacturing concerns in the U.S. have owners whose business is taxed at the individual rate (S corporations and the like). These are the people expected to commit capital to new hires and equipment.
But if an angry, let-me-be-clear Barack Obama just looked into the cameras and said he’s coming to get you in two years, what rational economic choice would you make? Spend the profit or gains 2011 might produce on new workers, or bury any new income in the backyard until the 2012 presidential clouds clear?
No matter how much economic bump Mr. Obama gets in 2011 from extending the Bush-era tax rates, the 2012 election will be fought over a deep national anxiety that he rightly identifies but misinterprets.
I don’t think he’ll be able to fool the people again in 2012, at least not enough to get reelected. Now they understand what he meant in his brief conversation with Joe the Plumber, and they understand what it means to elect a Marxist.
[Update a couple minutes later]
It’s too late for a “third way.”
“I don’t think he’ll be able to fool the people again in 2012, at least not enough to get reelected.”
I’d love to believe that but I think that, in part, it depends upon who is running against him. We pick a Bob Dole? Obama wins.
The opponent has to be credible, serious, unambiguous. Or Obama wins.
There’s a saying that goes, “Good decisions come from experience. Experience comes from bad decisions.”
Through most of his political life, Obama voted “present” rather than make a decision. Before becoming president, he had almost no experience doing anything in life. Seriously, what had he accomplished? What decisions had he made, good or bad?
Bad decisions – if they don’t kill you – can be a wonderful teaching tool. But you have to be willing to do more than vote present. You must make a decision and live with the consequences.
I think Obama has about no chance, even if the GOP puts up someone less than exciting. And even that’s not very likely. I’ve some hopes that Gary Johnson might be able to squeak through the primaries to win the nomination. He could easily beat Obama.
Obama has lost the X-factor of being an unknown, he’s no longer important for breaking through racial barriers, and he’s obviously not good at being president. He also appears to be needlessly combative with the GOP, which will make him look bad over the next two years.
The tax RATE cut extensions, if they pass, should keep the economy from getting much worse. They’re not nearly enough to bring about economic recovery against damage wrought by the health care takeover, threats of administrative mismanagement, and gross malpractice by the Fed central bank.
As for the X factor of being an unknown candidate, some of us are instinctively suspicious of a candidate without a known record.
Seems to me that he’s pulling off triangulation pretty well. Triangulation as Bill defined it was positioning oneself on the middle ground between the “radical right wingers” in the other party controlling congress and the more radical left wing elements of his own party. By agreeing to a tax deal that the lame ducks won’t, he looks more moderate than they do. It’s still triangulation, he’s still in the middle ground, he just didn’t have to go as far left as Slick Willie to get there. Thing is he still probably isn’t far enough right to sucker the once-bitten moderates into trusting him again (I hope)
“I’d love to believe that but I think that, in part, it depends upon who is running against him. We pick a Bob Dole? Obama wins.”
I’m not so sure. As of yesterday, George W. Bush’s approval rating was 47%, and Obama’s was 46%. I don’t see anything on the horizon which could reverse Obama’s trend. If the most-hated man in American history now polls better than Obama, I don’t see Obama even being nominated in two years.
It hasn’t been pretty to watch, but it’s sure been instructive. It’s now apparent that the absolute highest priority of the Democratic Left is to beat the, rather broadly defined, “rich” senseless with a tire iron regardless of the consequences. Having, Titanic-like, steered the ship of state straight into the iceberg with the Fannie and Freddie-led housing finance mess, the so-called “stimulus” and the health care and financial services “reform” monstrosities, they’ve now decided that the most important thing to do is storm the first class cabins and beat the crap out of the Astors and the Guggenheims. Swell.
He lashed “the wealthiest Americans” three times, not to mention “the wealthiest 2% of Americans,” “tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires,” “wealthy people” and—channeling the French revolution—”the wealthiest estates.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the two wealthiest estates in the US be the Gates and Buffet estates? Whose wealth is largely sheltered in a non-profit foundation, while Bill and Warren call for taxing away other people’s money?
(Of course, the Gates Foundation is non-profit, so its money will only be spent for the public good, such as building a $500-million, 900,000-square foot cluster of office buildings for itself in downtown Seattle. This will obviously not provide any personal benefit to the 800 employees who will occupy the complex. It’s simply impossible to “work to reduce inequities and improve lives around the world” without having a $625,000 office for each employee.)
Yeah, Ed. They could’ve had all that money taxed away by the government. About 80% of that would’ve gone to pay for bureaucratic overhead. The remaining 80% (government is bad at math) would’ve gone to buy votes through “stimulus spending”, creating 18 bazillion jobs.
Yeah, Ed. They could’ve had all that money taxed away by the government. About 80% of that would’ve gone to pay for bureaucratic overhead.
So, that would be bad if it happens to their money but good if it happens to our money? I think I missed something here.