Tonight at the Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton is expected to try to make the economic case that we need to give President Obama four more years for his economic plan to work. Leaving aside the fact that beyond a "soak the rich" mentality (which simple math shows will hardly put a dent in the national debt, now over $16 TRILLION), I'm not really sure what Obama's plan is.
The mantra we've been hearing at the DNC is that it took more than four years to get into this mess, Obama needs more time to get us out. One of the more obvious problems I see is that the situation is getting worse, not better, by many yardsticks, the national debt and unemployment being a few. But let's harken back to the standards Obama set for himself at the start:
“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year
from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some
progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have
this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
That was then, this is now.
Clint Eastwood's speech at the RNC was wandering at best, but he had one point dead on: If the guy you hired to do the job isn't doing it, you get someone else.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to wonder how many people will remember Obama's position on his own prospects for a second term some years ago.
I also wonder, though, if the Democrats choice of Bill Clinton to try to remind people of the 'good old days' under Democratic leadership may badly backfire, given the economic juxtaposition between the Clinton and Obama years. It would be one thing if Obama was not running as a sitting president with almost four years under his belt.
UPDATED 9/6/12 7:00 am: Well, former President Clinton went on for almost 50 minutes last night. I presume they gave him 20 or 30. But with Bill, it's always about him. Clinton piled on Romney last night and made a lot of claims, both about his days as president, and what's happened under the current president. How much of that was true? Well, in some respects, not a whole lot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Camp Obama must be really desperate to give a blowhard like Clinton to stage to brag about how great things were whenhe was president. Aside from tyring to make the argument that it took Clinton two terms to really turn things around, there's not much there to help Obama, and a lot to make Obama look like an abject failure by comparing him to Bubba. Risky x3.
Mr. Obama, you are no Bill Clinton.
It's pretty obvious why the Republicans didn't want their most recent president to speak, isn't it? He ballooned the deficit. His administration did nothing to prevent the financial collapse. Oh yeah, and Americans view his performance in office as dismal.
As so eloquently stated last week with the absence of anyone other than Rice form the Bush Administration at the GOP Convention. If your party can run the nation for eight years, and then have a national convention and not invite Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Karl Rove or Tom DeLay, you’re not a political movement. You’re the witness protection program."
Where were the whiners in the 80s when RR tool office with 7.6% uneployement, quickly say it rise to 9.5 and 9.6 and come down to 7.5 for the 11/84 election. A net gain of point one percent?
Yeah, Clinton really killed Obama's chances last night! /Sarcasm Off/. Clinton absolutely killed last night--and he killed the Republicans. Virtually every talking head, including all but the most wingnut right-wingers, agreed that Clinton's speech was masterful (altbeit about 30% too long). But what Clinton did is something that is absolutely key to an Obama reelection: He acted as an honest broker to independents--telling them how it is and how it will be. Republicans might not like that, but as Republican talking head Alex Castellanos said last night, Clinton's speech just ensured Obama's reelection.
-- Tenth District Next Door Neighbor
So my former General Assembly colleague President Obama gave an uplifting speech last night about how we are really doing fine but there is still work to do. He hit all the talking points you would expect him to hit. We all realize he is a fairly impressive orator behind a teleprompter. The problem he has is that the facts do not match up with his words. Today’s jobs report is the FACT CHECKER. For unemployment to keep level the economy must produce 150,000 jobs. We produced 91,000. The President will ignore the significant downturn in jobs created or the fact that everyone expected a better result and just focus on the unemployment rate going from 8.3% to 8.1%. Why did that happen? Isn't that a good thing? No it is not and the reason is simple, 368,000 Americans became so frustrated that they just stopped looking and gave up on trying to find a job. Folks that is called DESPAIR. What galls me the most is that the President had these numbers yesterday afternoon before he gave his so called uplifting speech.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Rep.Ed Sullivan
Thanks, Ed. But, um, for an Illinois House member to even speak of someone else not getting the job done is pretty funny. You get paid two taxpayer salaries and yet you haven't even come close to resolving the pension crisis. You even voted against reforming your OWN pension. Sorry, Ed. You got nothin' on the President. Try doing what the Illinois taxpayers want and not just what your partisan leadership tells you to do.
WUDAS,
If you think my post stating the facts about a jobs report is a partisan attack on the President I really am at a loss for words and that doesn’t happen much. You may need to be a little more thick skinned or stop reading blog posts.
If you are going to attack me at least make some sense. I am sure you are up to speed on Illinois politics so you certainly know that for 10 straight years the Democratic Party has been in complete control of the legislative process here in Illinois. For many years Speaker Madigan wanted to go it alone and ignore the minority party. Only after he lost 6 seats and was 5,000 votes in 6 races away from being called Minority Leader did he decide it might be a good time to work with the minority party. The General Assembly actually began to fix some of the problems that face our state until once again Speaker Madigan on pension reform decided he was done cooperating with the Republicans in the House. So who is the partisan?
Lastly, yes I voted against the dog and pony show that Speaker Madigan called pension reform. You seem to be tech savvy so a simple Google search will tell you what even the most liberal members of the media feel about that farce.
Rep. Ed Sullivan
I don't know about liberal bloggers, but I do know that Governor Edgar thought that legislators like you were weak and lacked the honor and courage to at least pass an "uncomplicated and straightforward sign of leadership."
Thanks for re-ascertaining the worst of the GOP House caucus. You haven't proposed a single bill trying to repay the unpaid balance of pension obligations. You haven't even decried the failure to make sufficient payments in the press. And, why should you? You get to chose from a township pension or a state pension. You are the worst example of the 'pull-up-the-ladder-jack-I'm-aboard' legislative takers. I would say that your insult-ridden response above was beneath you, but, that isn't really true, is it? You can go pretty low.
WUDAS,
Suggesting you may be a little thin skinned for politics was fairly passive but after reading your diatribe I guess fairly accurate. You certainly have earned your Obama merit badge today. When confronted with the facts of a dismal jobs report you changed the subject and attacked the messenger. When that didn’t seem to work in this discussion you blamed the minority party in Illinois for all the woes that befall our state. I do find it ironic that you attack Republicans for all that is wrong in the world and then invoke former Governor Edgar, the last Governor that actually new how to Govern, by misconstruing what he said. Edgar said he would have voted for the GA only pension bill not because of its merits but because he thought it could be used for a test case for when there is the eventual lawsuit. The point you miss, because it is you being partisan, is that if we did the GA only bill pension bill reform would have stopped. The GA pension reform bill would have solved .003% of the problem or $250million of a $83 billion problem.
Rep. Ed Sullivan
Post a Comment