On Monday night, President Obama will be delivering his first prime time speech to Americans. I hope that it is a lot less jingoistic, self-indulgent, partisan, and patronizing than the speech he gave to House Democrats last Thursday night. For those of you who missed it and want to know what the President said, watch the video replay as opposed to merely reading the prepared text. Pumped up by an obviously supportive and partisan audience, and clearly enjoying the moment, the President strayed far from his text. The result was a barn burner of a speech, reminiscent of some of President Obama's early primary campaign speeches. What it lacked however was the gravitas, thoughtfulness and balance one might have expected from the President of a country, which, according to the speaker himself, was on the verge of a "catastrophe". It also ensured that the bipartisanship which President Obama said he would foster in Washington, will never be achieved, if this type of "I won and I am way smarter than you" in your face attitude continues.
According to the President, the American people voted for change. They "didn't vote for the false theories of the past and they didn't vote for the phony arguments, and petty politics". The audience was told that quick action was required; otherwise "an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe." And, if those who are not fully on board with Obama's stimulus package did not yet realize it, the President felt obliged to remind them that "this is not some abstract debate" and that "this is not a game". "It is time to set aside some of the gamesmanship in town and get something done." The audience was told that "quickness" is required. This is not just some "lark". The "cable chatter" was mocked. The audience was reminded that the President "found this deficit when he showed up"; the national debt was "found wrapped in a bow". President Obama openly made fun of his obviously dense critics who he thinks oppose the bill because it is a spending bill and not a stimulus bill. "What do you think a stimulus is?? That's the whole point." He then laughed and repeated "That's the point!". The speech went on in a distinctly partisan way, ending with President Obama's now traditional closing, "I love you, guys".
Okay, the speech was supposed to be a crowd motivator and it certainly was. It was not a speech to the nation, although the Obama team deliberately invited the national media to be there. It contained a lot of rhetoric but was very devoid of substance. Questions arise. For example, what are the "false theories" and "phony arguments" which are being used against this specific stimulus bill? Does all spending stimulate the economy by creating jobs, or is there not bad spending? What about the "Buy in America" clause, which the speech did not mention - is that good for America? Does the President really think that opponents of the present bill do not appreciate the urgency of the situation, think it is a game, do not understand what stimulus is, and do not have the same goals as the President? Who is really playing the gamesmanship card here - President Obama or those who genuinely think this is a bad bill?
The President is urging Congress to act quickly because all of the "experts" agree that unless something is done quickly, catastrophe will result. Doesn't that sound a lot like President Bush and Colin Powell's arguments to Congress that intelligence experts stated that Iraq had WMD and unless Congress acted quickly, authorized the war, and asked no questions, disaster would follow? Wasn't Congress told the same thing about the TARP $350 billion spending package, and the auto bail-out - pass it now because there is no time to lose? Is this going to be the standard Presidential gambit, which has so far worked three times - act quickly or else face disaster?
I hope Monday's speech to the nation will sound a bit more presidential and less like a high school basketball coach's locker room address, or worse yet, a self-absorbed law professor's entertaining but glib lecture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not a big Obama fan, and I only read the speech-- I didn't see the video. But I imagine that the "false theories" and "phony arguments" he alluded to are things like:
ReplyDelete- the DeMint 100% tax cut/0% spending bill. 36 of 41 Republican senators voted for this. There are zero economists behind such a plan. GOP leadership has also been misrepresenting scholarship on the tax cut vs. spending multipliers issues, and quoting totally bogus numbers about their own 100% tax cut plan. Boehner said it would create 6.5 million jobs by 2010, which is made out of thin air. It is not an honest proposal.
- Very silly comments by men like RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who this weekend claimed that "not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
- Obama goes to the Hill and has unprecedented meetings with Republican congressmen and senators, who leave the meeting and thank him for working together, bipartisanship, etc., and then not one Republican congressman votes for the stimulus package, and 36 of 41 senators vote for the DeMint plan.
You're absolutely right about "Buy American." There should be more public attention to those provisions. There's been some interesting stuff on Gary Becker and Richard Posner's blog about it lately. The TARP oversight (or lack thereof) and the prioritization of "shovel-ready" spending should likewise be more prominent.
But the Republicans are not being honest. They are presenting 100% tax cut bills as "bipartisan." Not one Republican voted for the House bill. Even the supposedly bipartisan group of Senators (Collins, Nelson, Spector...) is essentially just cutting random programs. Why aren't they also cutting tax cuts that encourage saving rather than spending? Because their pruning is just PR. And even if you take them at their word, and the resulting bill could be called bipartisan, at least 36 of 41 senators will vote against it.
Something else that might be bothering the President? The constant refrain that 60 votes are required for the bill's passage. Baloney. This is only the case because of Republican procedural filibusters. No one seems to be calling them by their proper name anymore. It's irresponsible for the media to call Democratic filibusters (e.g. of judicial nominees) just that and then elide that fact in the discussions of the stimulus. News reports since the Democrats regained control after the 2006 midterms have routinely suggested that they need 60 votes to pass a measure, without mentioning that this is because of obstructionism. If Harry Reid had any balls, he'd force prodecural filibusters to do it old school: actual speeches on the Senate floor.
Yes, Scott, it is politics as usual on both sides of the House and Senate. There has been no change. The lobbyists are still there, some working in the Obama administration, people like Tom Daschle only come clean when it's clear that they need to, both sides blame each other for the mess, Congress gets bullied by the President, and on it goes. The problem is that Obama was going to change all of this. Well, he hasn't. Let's see how he sounds tonight. I hope the address has less heat and more light than the speech last Thursday.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point about Tom Daschle. He and Timothy Geithner should've both been torpedoed during vetting. Appointing Judd Gregg to lead a department he voted to eliminate is another silly decision.
ReplyDeleteAs for the politics as usual: you can say that again. ABC News is reporting that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush stance on state secrets, despite all his talk about transparency.
But I'm not sure it's accurate to describe Republicans and Democrats in Congress as equally culpable for the failure to reach any compromise on the stimulus bill. The Republicans have no incentive to compromise--whatever happens, Obama "owns" the political/economic repercussions. Success or failure, he'll get the credit or the blame.
Case in point: The Senate voted on the compromise measure this afternoon-- one that had a lot of input from moderate Republicans. (The article does not use the word filibuster.) And the vote was exactly the same as for the DeMint amendment--36 of 41 Republicans voted against it, McConnell et al.'s lip service to "bipartisanship" notwithstanding.