It seems the president set the tone for the second half of his first term, his first experience as chief executive with a Republican House (but Democratic talking points notwithstanding, not a “Republican Congress” as his party still controls the Senate) on April 13 when he delivered a speech at George Washington University on the budget.
Supposedly he was going to unveil a new budget plan (he still hasn’t). The president invited House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan whose budget had won a lot of acclaim in conservative circles (and even some praise in liberal ones), but had largely been lambasted on the left.* Instead of releasing his own plan, he spent the better part of his time attacking Republicans.
The House would pass Ryan’s budget two days later. The Democratic Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 913 days.
In his speech, the president would fault policies of the his predecessor for creating the federal spending problem, telling his audience that “we lost our way in the decade that followed” the 1990s. But, after crediting Republicans for presenting and championing one vision, he went on to excoriate the plan:
But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known certainly in my lifetime. In fact, I think it would be fundamentally different than what we’ve known throughout our history.
I believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. . . .
It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. . . .
This vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.
Even the Washington Post reported that the budget speech had a “partisan tone.” Finding that the president “spent much of the afternoon speech at George Washington University criticizing [Ryan’s] deficit-reduction plan, called ‘Path to Prosperity,'” the analysts at the Annenberg Center found that the Democrat’s “critique strayed at times from the facts.”
Seems the imperative was not telling the truth, but instead savaging the opposition. On his various job tours in swing states, the president has attacked Republicans, mixed his partisan rhetoric with backward-looking class-warfare rhetoric (last link via Instapundit).
Which brings me to the title question: Can the president make the case of his economic policies without demonizing the opposition and raising the specter of class warfare?
*Interesting that although the White House had invited this distinguished gentleman, the president did not mention him by name in the speech.
No, because the underlying intention/essence of Obama’s jobs bill (& reelection) is precisely to attack Republicans and engage in class warfare.
Obama is not interested in jobs or recovery or raising American living standards. Rising living standards would not be “green”. Obama is interested in power. As in, clinging to power. And as in, making the government more powerful.
What ILC said.
Are we still thinking there is some other explanation?
This is a rhetorical question, right??? This man will operate per “standard operating procedure” which means that he will always blame others for his own incompetence, inefficiency, ineptness – it is never going to be his “fault” because taking ownership of his lack of ability is psychologically dissonant. Can’t get the “Jobs Bill” passed (actually, the Union subsidy bill), blame the evil Republicans and whine about the children suffering because teachers will be laid off…lol!!! Then go on a “campaign” to posture and imply that it is because he is African American and “The Man” doesn’t want to support anything he proposes. Once again, Obama forgets that he is “The Man” and look at the results – political payoffs, hiring of an inept Attorney General, etc.
Obama is a living piece of shit; he’s the distilled essence of class warfare & demagoguery since he cannot run on his radioactive issues such as Porkulus, ObamaCare, & Frank-Dodd since they are stinkers–much like Obama. Shit stinks & he’s only going to get worse. I’m ready to flush him down the toilet November 2012.
The Labor (sic) Government in Australia is exhibiting similar behaviour. Its policy platform is in smoking ruins, and rather than take a cold hard look at why it’s being murdered in the polls (which predict a near-wipeout in an election), Prime Minister Gillard would rather blame the Leader of the Opposition. Much of his “objectionable” behaviour boils down to not rolling belly-up and baring his throat on climate change and illegal immigrants, though many in the Left-wing press take umbrage at his Catholicism (to the point where they believe it should bar him from government).
Firstly, it may be pessimistic, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If acknowledging reality means being pessimistic, than it’s good.
Secondly, I thought liberals, and Obama, wanted change. So, why would “a fundamentally different America” per se be a bad thing? I realize that liberals want a different kind of change than Paul Ryan is proposing, but it seems dishonest to attack change for the sake of change when you’ve spent your presidency and presidential campaign championing it. It would be better to find actual criticisms of changing the nature of entitlements than fearmongering with empty rhetoric and partisan attacks. But, it’s Obama, so I wouldn’t expect anything else.
If Obama wants the credit for taking out big-time terrorists (even though the organization was put together by Bush), then he has to take responsibility for the economy. You can’t have it both ways…..
Hi Dan
No. I agree with ILC on this,
I also agree that Obama is prompted most strongly by a desire to hold onto power. The jobs bill would create jobs, so it would help his election chances. So, I would add an AND in there–staying in power and raising job numbers/living standards. Otherwise, I agree with you, ILC. Two out of three ain’t bad…
Wait, who’s obstructing whom?
There’s incessant bleating that the Republicans are obstructing Obama’s master plan. Supposedly, the jobs bill is loaded with Republican ideas, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what that’s supposed to mean and nobody will veer off of their lying points memos to explain.
The salient questions must be asked (and answered): What about the liberals who won’t push the jobs bill? How come Obama didn’t even pretend give a f**k about jobs until now? And if he really did, why not put together legislation that actually does something useful?
Nancy Obama is a person who exist for those who have nothing else to do but to know that she exist.
No… Obamer Cannot make a case…. What makes you think the homophobic Bryan Fischer Party Can?
Are you okay, JS? Seem you’re projecting your demons onto something outside yourself? Curious as to why you hate so much.
Do you actually understand what he/she is saying? It is nothing but gibberish to me. His/her comments are too incoherent for me, at least, to discern any hatred (or anything else, for that matter) in them.
Nothing is more common than political “solutions” to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road…. And the current policies coming out of this White House are a classic example. Now true as that is, we must also understand whatever history’s verdict on the Obama administration might be, it is likely to be very different from what we hear now from the talking heads on television or read from the know-it-alls on editorial pages.
Whatever the merits or demerits of Mr Obama butting heads with the GOP, the question whether the Congress is thwarting this administration makes for a better talking point by this president than a serious argument.
Now we all know this issue can be debated, and no doubt will be debated for the next 12 months….. But the irresponsible charge that Obama is fighting against a “do nothing Congress” is being seen by voters across the country, especially in the swing states, as nothing more than repetitious political slander from a president that has no idea what course to actually pursue…. Maybe the president’s handlers figure this is how they can deflect the ire of the people away from him.
Ya know for a president that came into office believing he’d been given a mandate, Mr Obama is not running on his so-called accomplishments. Why do you suppose that is?
Bottomline: It’s looking less and less like Mr Obama will collect that Billion dollar campaign chest his campaign so vociferously bragged about only a few months ago.
.
.
.
“Obama….. One and Done” : Vote Republican / 2012
.
.