Commentary: Obama’s speech will show government isn’t answer

Darrell Delamaide is an unusual commentator: while he clearly has his own politics, he tries to provide analysis, and not just talking points. Case in point, this column.

The measures being previewed (leaked) — extending payroll tax cuts, business tax credits for hiring, patent reform (huh?) — are just so much small ball, which is all that Obama can play now because of political and budget constraints. He’ll detail the plans in a prime-time speech before Congress on Sept. 7, the White House said Wednesday. So Ronald Reagan and the Republicans are right: Given the current state of play, government is definitely not the solution. Republican obstructionism and Democratic timidity over the past 2 1/2 years have seen to that. 

Not sure what that Reagan reference means, but certainly Republican obstructionism and Democratic timidity over the past 2 ½ years have accomplished nearly nothing.

But here’s the real irony: Private business, without the benefit of significant government help, may step up and give the economy enough lift to get Obama re-elected.

Not exactly without government help: the low level of taxation and the effectiveness of lobbyists in tailoring legislation for the benefit of business are of big help.

Historians can bewail the fact that enlightened policies were available that could have ameliorated the situation. But in a climate where widely accepted scientific theories like evolution and global warming are rejected by willfully ignorant politicians, it’s no surprise that Keynesian management of aggregate demand — one obvious solution to our problems — would also be spurned.

When major political candidates speak of doubting the reality of human causes of global warming to audiences who also do not believe in evolution, mature and effective economic policies are not going to be forthcoming.

So we are left with Adam Smith’s world, with its harsh business cycle and merciless treatment of the working class. Fortunately, some of the shock absorbers, built in by Keynes and other enlightened policy makers before the new Dark Ages of economics descended on us, continue to function and shield us from the worst. 

It is amazing to see middle class voters support ideologues who pander to their fears and ignorance while pushing legislation that enriches the already-rich by taking wealth away from all others – or, perhaps, not so amazing.

Right wing cringes

Michele Bachmann may have won the Iowa Straw Poll, but there's a new frontrunner in town: Rick Perry, who edges out Bachmann and Mitt Romney in a new poll of Republican voters in the state. Perry would take 22 percent of the vote, just ahead of Romney at 19 percent, Bachmann at 18 percent, and Ron Paul at 16 percent. Sarah Palin pulled in 10 percent, only beating the bottom tier of the race, which includes Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Only 33 percent of Iowa Republicans call themselves Tea Partiers, but Perry dominates among that bloc, taking 32 percent to Romney's 6 percent. In other news, only 35 percent of Iowa Republicans believe in evolution, and 32 percent still believe President Obama was not born in the United States.

Well, that proves that (at least) a third of Iowan right wingers are idiots.

Conservative intellectuals don't have a candidate in the 2012 GOP primary, and they're making their worry more and more public. "To many conservative elites, Rick Perry is a dope, Michele Bachmann is a joke, and Mitt Romney is a fraud," Politico reports, citing a series of Wall Street Journal editorials that wrote Romney out of the race and dismissed Bachmann and Perry as unelectable. The Journal's editors wrote that it was time for "someone still off the field to step up." But the options are short: Rep. Paul Ryan shot down conservative pundits' fantasizing about a run when he said definitively that he would not enter the race. Mitch Daniels, right-wing intellectuals' previous crush, also decided not to run, and Tim Pawlenty, whom they saw as a serious policy thinker, dropped out of the race. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said there were still "leading lights" who aren't in the race, and wore a Ryan-Rubio button on Fox News last week.

Paul Ryan? The one who wants to dismantle Social Security? O, please nominate him!

“I would hope that whoever the Republican candidate is, he or she will not tell us that creationism or intelligent design is the equivalent of evolution — just another theory about the origins of the biological man,” said the syndicated Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who declined to weigh in on specific candidates, though Perry was recently recorded telling a young boy on a rope line that Texas schools teach both theories. “To put intelligent design on that level is like offering grade-school children a choice between astronomy and astrology,” he said.

But that is what these bozos consider important, and they pander to the extreme right wing of the Republican party.

Regaining mantle of campaigner

As he did four years ago when he found his back against the wall in his Democratic primary fight with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama seemed intent on showing that he is the partisan fighter that some of his supporters fear he is not. That is the essence of the Obama problem: he is a campaigner, not a governor. He ran a great campaign, and has run a disappointingly mediocre government. As a result, it is difficult to work up enthusiasm for his reelection.

He signaled that he intends to use the rising influence of the Tea Party movement as a chance to undermine Republicans with independent voters. And he bluntly asked voters to begin considering what he believes the consequences would be if Republicans won the White House.

There is no question that the right wing has hijacked the Republican party, and no doubt that combination bodes ill for liberals, for the not-wealthy, not-corporate, not-extremist, but is that all he can offer?

It is premature to suggest the enthusiasm gap is permanent. Democrats are confident that when the general election battle begins — with Mr. Obama matched against a single opponent — the fervor surrounding the 2008 campaign will return.

To wait until the game starts to bring out one's best effort is a dangerous tactic. Fervor? Not again, no. Resignation.

“Everyone was so hopeful with him, but Washington grabbed him and here we are,” said LuAnn Lavine, a real estate agent from Geneseo, Ill. “I just want him to stay strong and don’t take the guff. We want a president who is a leader, and I want him to be a little bit stronger.”

Agreed. He went in with an agenda for change, and compromised every single time, and looked weak.


With his own approval ratings hovering near their lowest point since he became president, and with a new Gallup poll showing that only 26 percent of Americans approve of his economic policies, Mr. Obama singled out one element of Washington that is viewed in an even more unfavorable light: Congress. “You’re supposed to be in public service to serve the public,” Mr. Obama said. “And that means that, yes, you don’t get your way 100 percent of the time. It means that you compromise.  It means you apply common sense.”

Perhaps they are supposed to, but Republicans do not agree with his rules, they do not apply common sense, they apply political sense. And while he waits for his opponents to play fair, they are working to defeat him, as they have for 31 months.

Tea Party: The Christian Right in Disguise?

Without doubt.

Tea Party candidates like O’Donnell and Bachmann have campaigned on libertarian economic platforms, leading some commentators to dig into old Ayn Rand novels for the source of this new economic populism. But what they’ve missed is that the Tea Party’s obsession with the size of government has been part of Christian conservatives’ platform for decades. The Tea Party was just a new name coined by clever activists and the media—a rebranding that has made it much easier for Christian-right candidates to run for office without having to air their views on social issues, which are increasingly viewed in a negative light by the general public.

Science? Just a theory

Rick Perry calls global warming an unproven, costly theory. The Texas governor says scientists have 'manipulated data' to win research dollars. And maybe the earth is flat, in fact.

Without citing his sources, Perry added that the cost of implementing what he called "anti-carbon programs" is billions of dollars: "I don't think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on what is still a scientific theory that hasn't been proven, and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."

O, it gets better.

One of his questioners was Jim Rubens, a Republican from the village of Etna who works as a consultant for the Union of Concerned Scientists. If both "observed scientific data" and the National Academy of Sciences are wrong on the issue, Rubens asked Perry, "doesn't that call into question the entire science discovery process that is the basis for America's status as an advanced technological society?"

That is, if science is hokum, then what does that make the US?

"You may have a point there," Perry quipped, adding that he believed the issue had become politicized. Without citing any specific examples, the Texas governor charged that "there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects."

So, the Guv'ner politicizes the issue, says it has been politicized (which is bad), and it might all be a bunch of nonsense. First he calls the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank a traitor, then backs off slightly, now he calls global warming (and evolution) unproven theories. These are code words to the right wing fringe: all this liberal crap is nothing more than that: crap, and you can count on this good old boy to throw it out, once he get into office.

But the Guv's battles is not just with lefties; he also has a feud with the Bushes and their Bushies.

GOP's Texas bully

Now that he’s declared his candidacy, odds are Republicans will nominate Texas Gov. Rick Perry for president. They won’t be able to help themselves. If Hollywood put out a casting call for an anti-Obama, Perry would get the role. Democrats have been chortling about running against yet another swaggering Texas governor. Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum explains why Perry can’t win:

"He's too Texan...Even in the Republican Party, not everyone is from the South and not everyone is bowled over by a Texas drawl. Perry is, by a fair amount, more Texan than George W. Bush, and an awful lot of people are still suffering from Bush fatigue."

I think this is wrong. The cowboy archetype runs so deep in American culture that even George W. Bush couldn’t ruin it. Besides, the Connecticut rancher was a trust fund poser who rode bicycles, not horses. Deep down, everybody knew that. Now that he’s no longer president, Republicans no longer have to pretend they believe the brush-cutting charade.

I don't see Perry even winning the nomination. He's too much of too many things. He's too openly religious, he's too openly macho, and he's too right-wing. He is the one early primary voters might prefer, but he is not electable.

Perry’s sectarian religiosity and loose talk about Texas seceding might not play among Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania voters whose ancestors fought to save the union. Calling Social Security an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme would doom most candidates, although it’s the kind of big talk that thrills them down at the Tea Party corral.

Exactly. The tea party might love him, but the rest of the Republican party want to defeat Obama, and Perry can not do it. Except for the fringe, people generally do not look at Social Security as expendable.

Another piece in Salon discusses Perry's electability.

The Clinton '92 story speaks to the preeminent role that the economy plays in presidential races. One of the reasons Clinton was able to rebound so easily from his spring nadir was that voters were unsually restive and eager to throw out the incumbent, George H.W. Bush. Thus, they were inclined to give the challenger the benefit of the doubt, and Clinton was able to earn it. Could Perry, despite his early stumbles, do the same thing under similar conditions in 2012? Sure.

even if concerns about his electability are unfounded, that won't stop Republican Party leaders from worrying -- and, if they feel the need, working hard to prevent him from winning their nomination. That's what we've started to see this week, with influential, opinion-shaping voices on the right weighing in to express concerns about Perry's campaign trail antics -- and to call for new candidates to enter the race. Clearly, the "elites" of the Republican Party, who play a vital role in crafting the talking points that shape mass GOP opinion, are fearful that Perry might be a general election liability. And if he keeps behaving as he has these past few days, their concerns will only grow -- as will the number of GOP elites willing to express them publicly.

Just how influential are/will Perry's big-money backers?

Promises, promises

Bachmann: If elected, gas prices would fall to less than $2 per gallon Perhaps she can also get the tooth fairy to up her rewards for lost teeth.

McConnell’s message to Obama: Stop pushing your failed economic policies Those would be the ones that Republicans made sure failed, surely.

Perry: Scientists are manipulating data to prove climate change And they would not get to do so in Texas, coz the Guvner would kick their asses.