|
|
June 17, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Fighting Words, Winning ActionsPosted on Jan 25, 2010
It’s ironic that President Obama could never be convincing as populist in chief. He had a modest upbringing—his family was on food stamps for a time—and he needed scholarships and loans to pay for his fancy education. He is no stranger to the struggles of everyday Americans. By contrast, George W. Bush was born to Old Money and raised amid great wealth, privilege and power. Yet Bush was able to project an Everyman folksiness that made people forget his patrician heritage. Obama just doesn’t give off that guy-next-door vibe. Even if he were to roll up his sleeves, loosen his tie and start talkin’ like his predecessor, droppin’ his final g’s left and right, nobody would buy the act. So I hope the White House pays no attention to the critics calling on Obama to cultivate a more populist image. Regaining the political initiative will be a matter of substance, not style—and also a matter of passion. Bringing in David Plouffe, the architect of Obama’s brilliant election campaign, is a smart move that will surely help the president deliver his message more effectively. But part of that message has to be a clear sense of Obama’s bottom line. It’s not enough to use variations of the word “fight” more than 20 times in the course of relatively brief remarks, as he did Friday in Ohio. At some point, he needs to—metaphorically, of course—actually slug somebody. I’m not talking about perceptions here. The point isn’t that Obama should be seen slapping opponents and obstructionists around as a way of demonstrating his presidential alpha-maleness. It’s that if Obama’s agenda is as vital and necessary as he says it is, the White House should make its actions match up with its words. Advertisement Similarly, the president can talk about jobs and the middle class all he wants, but the message won’t get through unless people believe his actions are commensurate with his words. He surely needs to do a better job of explaining the impact that last year’s massive stimulus bill has had in keeping people employed. It may be the case that he should push for more economic stimulus. It is definitely not the case that he should allow Republicans to stampede him and Congress into prematurely beginning to take action to rein in the deficit, because if the economy remains in the doldrums, it’s the Democrats who will be punished in November. Obama’s promise to change how Washington works was a major reason he got elected. He has tried to stick to this pledge religiously—heedless of the fact that hereabouts, no good deed goes unpunished. On the stimulus, for example, Obama included a huge package of tax cuts as a gesture to Republicans, who turned up their noses and still voted no. Obama’s bipartisan tango can’t work if one party won’t dance. Despite this outreach, Obama’s approval ratings have sagged. I’m convinced that this is because results count more than process. It’s true that voters are fed up with business as usual in Washington, but not for aesthetic reasons. It doesn’t matter whether Obama speaks in a loud voice. What’s important is that he speak in a clear voice, a definitive voice. When he draws a line in the sand—about health care, jobs, energy, whatever—he should do everything in his power to defend that line, even if it means bruised feelings and ruffled feathers. In the end, voters will respect Obama’s accomplishments, not his aspirations. They will reward his passion, not his polish. It’s fine for the president to tell Americans that he’s fighting on their behalf, as long as he remembers that what they really want is not so much for him to fight but to win. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.  TAGS:
|
This Will Not End Well
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Vic Anderson, January 27, 2010 at 8:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Barrage Obomber needs to draw back 3 YEARS to the Pullosi Punch and instead
Report thisput Cheney/Bush in the stocks until THEY can be extraordinarily rendered unto
the Hague for their WAR CRIMES!
By Tess, January 27, 2010 at 7:31 am Link to this comment
I would like to know exactly why as soon as he was elected he suddenly cared
Report thismore about republican opinion than the public (dem’s) who elected him. We are
still here praying he will find some testosterone and fight “the good fight” so we
can have one small thing to believe in. Gene, could you please whisper in his ear?
By Paul_GA, January 27, 2010 at 5:29 am Link to this comment
Thank’ee kindly for the kudos, Nick. Y’know, I’m a small-“l” libertarian, and though I may differ with the folks here on other things (RKBA for one), one thing that the late Murray Rothbard said in the mid-1950s, about the time I was born, has stayed with me since I first read it: “I am getting more and more convinced that the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business.”
That’s something I hope we can all agree on, Nick, and all you other TruthDiggers—this foolishness about keeping America powerful through perpetual war, regardless of who the “enemy” is or which wing of the War Party is in power in Mordor-on-the-Potomac, has got to end, OR ELSE.
As ever,
Report thisPaul
By Outraged, January 26, 2010 at 11:19 pm Link to this comment
Oh boy, throw your nickel in the tin star decorated cup if you’d like to hear more from the “has beens”. These are folks who believe beating up and misdirecting grammas are something to be proud of…. ahem.
So much for the group think prevalent in the foreboding comments….ummmm…, foregoing comments of course.
But let’s not forget Boehner, who claims…“Given President Obama’s leading role in Washington’s unprecedented spending binge, the American people are right to be skeptical. . . . Middle-class families and small-business owners have been struggling to do more with less, while Democrats in Washington pile up red ink as far as the eye can see,” Boehner said, reiterating a line of attack Republicans hammered throughout 2009”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-speech27-2010jan27,0,1761516.story
NEWS FLASH: THIS SITUATION (IF YOU WILL) WAS DUE TO HIS PARTY. Who are they trying to kid? Sad, sad, sad.
A good, if not more accurate reality…:
” The fright-wing of the Republican party has become more virulent than ever. Instead of joining with him in essential reforms, he has been demonised as a Hitler, an enemy of the American Constitution, and the Wingnut “birther movement” screamed that he is not even an American citizen. It is a tribute to Obama’s resilience that he has kept his cool in the face of this hysteria.”
And:
“The striking thing about Obama’s first year is how much he has been able to work the House and the Senate to achieve his ambitions. Many of the smaller measures escape attention – a law that will help protect youngsters from tobacco addiction; regulation of the credit card rackets; punishment for housing frauds; funding restored for stem cell research; restoration of environmental protections removed by Bush edict. The big achievements are phenomenal. He saved the financial system, a rescue effort begun by Bush. He put the car industry back on the road. He won $787 billion for his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the so-called stimulus bill. The health bill, so near to a presidential signature, will give 30 million Americans health insurance they didn’t have; workers won’t lose their insurance when they move; and there will be a patients’ bill of rights – “on steroids” in Obama’s phrase. These are reforms that successive Democratic presidents have been unable to achieve.”
They’ll keep lying to us to attempt to separate but, do not be misled….... THEY ARE LYING. What else do you need to know. Unless of course, you happen to like liars…. I can’t help you there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7005943/Can-Barack-Obama-turn-things-around.html
Thank you, Harold Evans.
Report thisBy Sadiku, January 26, 2010 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It is sad, but I happen to agree with the comments posted thus far. I will add to the feelings of discontent and disbelief that we electd a wimp. President Barack Obama will be the only president to have allowed the Supreme Court to go all the way opposite his political polarity without a fierce challenge. When it comes to stripping the general populace of their enfranchisement he will be remember. This is the worse that could happen under his watch. It has become so pathetic that it’s actually scary. If he doesn’t hurry up and turn a corner we are doomed.
Report thisBy nick, January 26, 2010 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Right on Paul_GA! I ve been recently telling my colleagues that Obama has stated that he may only run for one term, while I prefer to refrain from validating the superficial fistacuffs between the parties. Obama seems to be on the path of how Carter has been portrayed. Unless Obama starts to actually provide some real governance for the constituency that elected him, he is done. The fact that his boldest move since mass. loss has been to bring back his election team which means he thinks he just need to represent toughness and not actually do is a bad sign. How can he undo the expansion of the war, and today he announces a freeze of discressionary spending-does not appear to be addressing the needs of people.
Report thisBy Barry is a Republican, January 26, 2010 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama can talk all he wants. I’m no longer listening. We’ve seen his actions. His words are empty. One term and he is gone. Then we’ll have to wait for the GOP to run the country into the ground before real change can happen. Of course the real change will likely end up being an even more right wing totalitarian regime. Obama is a loser.
Report thisBy Paul_GA, January 26, 2010 at 7:27 am Link to this comment
In this ABC News story which I read earlier today, Obama claims he’d “rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president”: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9657337
Well, Mr. President, why not? End the Iraq and Afghan wars; withdraw everyone from overseas; quit holding Israel’s hand and tell them they’re on their own now; end NATO; cut the military in size and spending and change their posture from offensive/interventionistic to purely defensive; end foreign aid; spend money on the American people, and quit wasting it on futile wars and the poisonous Status Quo.
Do all this, and I guarantee you, sir, you WILL be recalled as a “really good one-term president”—probably the best since James K. Polk! Refuse to do as moral courage dictates—settle for maintenance of the idiotic, dying Status Quo, no matter what the cost—and very likely, you’ll be remembered as the most useless one-term president God ever put the breath of life into since Jimmy Carter.
And then try and see if you CAN become a “better ex-president”, as Mr. Carter has.
Report thisBy Not One More!, January 26, 2010 at 1:35 am Link to this comment
Personally, I don’t want Obama to succeed any better then he already is doing. His successes include continuing the war on more fronts than his predecessor, gutting single payer health care, bailing out corporations, continuing FISA and spying on American people, failing to rein in corrupt practices.
What is it that Mr. Robinson doesn’t understand? Is he taken in by Obama’s shiny aesthetic so completely that he doesn’t notice the shiny hammer that is quietly dismantling more of the few democratic liberties that are remaining?
The difference between democrats and alcoholics is that some alcoholics eventually realize that their behavior is not beneficial to their own well being or to those around them.
Obama is not the answer, he is the problem.
Support Republicans
Report thisVote for the Democrat
By screamingpalm, January 25, 2010 at 11:14 pm Link to this comment
Despite this outreach, Obama’s approval ratings have sagged. I’m convinced that this is because results count more than process. It’s true that voters are fed up with business as usual in Washington, but not for aesthetic reasons.
Is it despite of this outreach or because of it? Is this speculation? or can you please elaborate? I find it ironic that you talk about aesthetic reasons when this whole article does little more than skim the surface of any real substance. In fact, this entire paragraph is contradictory. The “results” in Obama’s case are actually a direct result of the “process”. Thus…
When he draws a line in the sand—about health care, jobs, energy, whatever—he should do everything in his power to defend that line, even if it means bruised feelings and ruffled feathers.
... there will be no line to defend- or even draw, when in the “process”, he was bought by the same special interests that you ask a line to be drawn against.
Obama’s promise to change how Washington works was a major reason he got elected. He has tried to stick to this pledge religiously—heedless of the fact that hereabouts, no good deed goes unpunished.
Religiously… beginning on day one when his inauguration was paid for by Wall Street. Go back to sleep Mr. Robinson.
Report this