In his remarks in New Hampshire yesterday, President Obama said this:
There are too many people out there who are struggling, too many folks out of work, too many homes that are still under water. Of course, we need to do better. The debate is not whether, it is how. How do we grow the economy faster? How do we create we create more jobs? How do we pay down our debt? How do we reclaim that central American promise that no matter who you are, you can make it here if you try?
Obama has framed the election in exactly the right way. The problem for the president is that in answering his questions—how do we grow the economy faster, create more jobs, pay down our debt, and reclaim the central promise of America—you could do worse than to say, “Do the opposite of what Obama has done.”
There is something slightly astonishing in Obama—given his staggering record of economic incompetence —pretending he has answers to economic growth, job creation, and cutting the debt. He’s had nearly an entire term as president to show that he has solutions to the challenges facing America; instead, he’s produced the weakest economic recovery on record and failed to meet virtually every goal he set for himself.
The president is making two arguments for his re-election. The first is that after nearly four years of his stewardship, too many people are struggling, too many folks are out of work, too many homes are still under water, and we need to do better; the second is that the same ideas that contributed to our misery in Obama’s first term will lift us out of our misery in his second term.
Good luck with that.
"There is nothing wrong with my policies that can not be cured with what is right about my policies."
Obama promised transparency and he delivered. nAmerican’s can see right through him… n
It does "feel" a little different now than it did a couple of months back, before Romney sewed up the nomination. It feels like the country is waking up. It feels much more hopeful. Still, too much of the public blames Bush more than Obama, and his argument about how Congress won't do what he wants, which he insists would work, is still too potent when the public thinks Republicans control both houses of Congress. I don't think Obama will have a chance if the numbers fall on blaming Bush and if people finally realize the Dems control the Senate (which they might if there's enough talk about it, like about who's favored to win it in November). It does feel more hopeful, though!
It's good that they blame Bush too. Most people know that Bush was a big spender (Democrats harped on it incessantly until about November of 2008). Time to try something other than massive spending and massive spending on steroids.
Bush was FULL RINO. This election should be easy to beat Obama but because Bush didnt know what "veto" meant, it has made what should be easy, difficult. This will be my last election backing Republicans if Romney does not win, AND governs like a conservative.
You convinced me, stout. I promise I won't vote for Bush! Cross my heart!
))
I like your post alot. Its real and honest. Piggybacking on what you said about what the people know about Congress, forget it. Most people dont have a clue whats going on in the White House, much less the Congress. Obama knows this and will continue to contradict himself while fully knowing most people dont really know the truth. Hes the first President to boldly go where most fear to tread by going after ignorant voters who just listen to talking points, headlines, tabloids or Oprah. He knows half the US population doesnt vote so he is going after that block. Bottom line – Obamas entire campain is based on emotion, primarity anger and jealosy and the more voters he can get to the polls who dont have a clue whats really going on, the better.
The plan in 2008 was to get elected; everything else was supposed to magically fall in place due to Obama's extremely charismatic charisma. Looks like the plan hasn't changed for 2012.
I am gonna be a much 'better' Republican I tell ya…__The past 10 years or so I flirted with voting independently and every Democrat I voted for that got into office has PISSED ME OFF. I do NOT agree with them on most issues that really matter. Except for the treehugger stuff…I am partial to that
__Of course Bush pissed me off too, and I did not vote for him the second time. __Look people….don't vote for Obama again….he is bad news._
nThe 75 most dangerous days in American history will begin on the evening of November 6th, 2012 and will run through the late afternoon of Sunday, January 20th, 2013. n nGod help us.
I. Agree. Completely. Once 0bama acknowledges "it's over" what will he have the power to do. The recent recess appointments, EO, and cavalier behavior is establishing the presedent for what he might get away with between Nov 6 2012 & Jan20 2013.
Are you saying there will be a contrived "emergency" with Obama declaring himself king obama the first and ruling by decree?
You got that right, Chester! It's gonna make his response the AZ look like a cakewalk. God help us indeed……
You got that right. AZ is gonna look like a cakewalk. wow……
"There's a reason it's called Capitalism; it's because Capital is what fuels it." Jacksonian Libertarian n nThe Democrats are sucking $1.3 Trillion per year out of the capital markets, money that would have been loaned to consumers and businesses to create jobs. $1.3 Trillion is enough money to fund 13 million $100k per year jobs, real jobs that produce goods and services and have a multiplier effect from increased productivity and an expectation of future growth.
Dear Mr. Wehner: If you are contrasting the President's "economic incompetence" with Mitt Romney's total lack of preparedness on the economy (in his rush to say anything at all that will get him right-wing support, repudiating what he's supported for the past 10 years) and his proposing only the old, failed "trickle-down economics" — I can't respect your arguments. The nation is making slow, but real progress, which the Republicans' "quick fixes" will quickly reverse, and only enrich the 1%.
"Slow" is an understatement. n nAt the present rate (which tracks Geithner's revised predictions fairly well), we won't get back to full employment till 2018. By that time, China will have passed the U.S. as the nation with the world's largest GDP. n nTry defending THAT to the voters.
That is a sad problem with the voters — we elect a President and have mythical expectations, even with a recovery that was never going to be easy, or certainly linear. Most of the population has no involvement with the government, never contact their representatives, and plenty still don't vote, either, which would give us better government. And then people say "The King In The White House Didn't Make Magic — Off With His Head!" And they believe the distorted, jingoistic media, that makes things even worse by slanting news negatively — because news has to be negative to get people's attention — and, all in all, reason goes out the window. n nI'd have more respect for Mr. Romney if I knew what he even stood for — his record speaks to his being closer to the President's policies than he will admit — but he has now totally sold out. That is a very dangerous kind of President to have ("Should we attack Iran? Shouldn't we? Ooops, too late, I pushed the button"). It is strange to see a man of such wealth subjugate himself like this, but there it is.
I contend that it is Obama and his '08 campaign that quite deliberately created this "messiah' like aura (and mythical expectatins) around his candidancy and presidency. n nAs for who is dangerous, putting ideology aside, I'll vote for the guy who actually respects the Constitution, respects the concept of three coequal branches of government. n nExactly what in Romney's record speaks to trillion dollar annual deficits, executive orders that defy or illegally overrule Congress or the Supreme Court, borrowing trillions from China to generate public sector jobs (which only reciruclates borrowed cash, it does NOTHING to grow the economy) and a complete inability to work with the other side of the aisle?
This is my last post to all of you, because I wandered in here, never read Commentary, just followed a link on RealClearPolitics. And I just read the author's credentials. n nPeter Wehner was a Senior Fellow of ETHICS from the BUSH Administration, for SEVEN YEARS? That's like a Jew serving in the Wehrmacht (I'm Jewish). n nTherefore, I can't take any of these comments seriously, because it means you're actually taking this guy seriously. The comments don't descend to the Townhall.com level, but at least choose a Conservative without blindfolds on.
I'm Jewish, too, and I'm voting for Obama.
I'm sorry you have such a low rating, brooklyn. your arguments are well reasoned, and you write well too. but I have to say, what Romney "stands for" is of secondary importance to me. the most important thing is to get Obama out of office. I'm only being a little over-dramatic, but I honestly believe the future of the country depends on it. n nand when it comes to Iran, I'd rather have an "oops I pushed the button" president than a "they're not making a bomb oh oops turns out they were making a bomb I guess I was wrong hey what happened to Tel Aviv?" president.
what r u smoking where is this progress your talking about. More massive debt, little or no job creation, personal debt up, housing still crashing. Top down govt excuse me obama knows everything. No transparency. No limited govt, food stamp king.
You entirely misstate the argument for Obama. n nThe lame performance of Obama these last four years is not a reason to return to insane self destruction under the Republican policies that brought us to the edge of another Great Depression. Obama did not get us out of this hole, but the alternative on offer is what put us into this hole, and it made a truly gigantic hole. n nWhat we need is exactly the opposite of anything we could possibly get from Romney. That is Obama's argument. "I may be incompetent, but they are crazy." And he's right on both counts.
"insane self destruction under the Republican policies" n nAt least you don't resort to hyperbole.
I would contend that you provide good evidence of the correctness of my point that President Obama's current argument for re-election is: n nVote for me, Don't vote for Romney because he's an even bigger [supply your own choice combination of expletives] than I am. n nAs I see it, that's what your argument boils down to.
You contend wrong, I didn't say there was anything wrong with the President. I put the term "economic incompetence" in quotes. In fact, I think he's doing things right, although slowed by obstructionist Republicans. n n
No what brought us to the recession was n1. Bush spending like a Democrat along with a Democratic Congress n2. 9/11 and two wars (supported by both parties until it wasnt appealling in elections) n3. The Family Reinvestment Act that exploded the subprime mortgage crisis and Fannie & Freddie – all of which were shoved down our throats by Dodd, Frank, Waters, Schumer….. n nAnd it is not obstructionist when you dont support something you think will not solve a problem but rather exacerbate existing problems. Why doesnt Harry Reid put the 30+ jobs bills passed in the House up for a vote in the Senate? Who is obstructing there?
I read about the "30+ jobs bills" and they are all bogus. They wouldn't create jobs. They would create toxic pollution, allow employers to endanger workers by tying the hands of OSHA, reduce SEC oversight, and they would pander to special interests.
And Bush spent like a Republican, and, when he took us into Iraq and spent all that money fighting and rebuilding Iraq, Republicans had the majority in Congress.
Yes. It is. And Obama's right about that. There is no good choice this year, just bad and worse. I didn't make it that way, and I don't like it, but I call 'em as I see 'em.
How is Romney "crazy"? n nHe's as bland and white-bread a candidate as you could have. And a successful–if somewhat cold–businessman and investor. n nIf the Democrats couldn't successfully paint Reagan as too crazy to be elected President, how do you plan to do that with Romney?
The hole you refer to was a direct result of Democrat's pandering to minorities, that led to the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and then to this terrible economy. Bush was certainly a big spender, but Obama is even a bigger spender although a portion of what has been spent would have happened regardless who was POTUS. From 2006 to 2010 the Democrats had a majority in Congress, their spending record is what's insane, and incompetent. Unleash our economic capabilities and watch what happens, which is why Romney is the answer, Obama can argue with himself until November but he can't hide from his dismal economic policies.
If a gun were placed to your head and the head of your children you couldn't state what the "Republican policies" were that got us into this mess. You're simply repeating the most simple-minded of talking points. n nThe mess we were — and are — in was the bursting of a gargantuan housing bubble. That is 99.9999% of it. That bubble was the child of unsound mortgage-lending policies invented and pursued with incredible blindness, mostly by Democrats and defended to the bitter end by same but with plenty of Republican fools along for the ride. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and the Congressional Black Caucus bear most of the political blame for inflating the bubble and preventing anything being done about it; as for example, in 2003 witness Treasury Secretary Snow running into a buzz saw when, really rather mildly, he suggested that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "undercapitalized." That was during the infamous banking-committee hearings when that repulsive scoundrel Frank joked – he's such a wit, you know – that "now is NOT the time to put on green eyeshades," that he wanted to see the regulators back off and "roll the dice a bit" when it came to, say, giving anyone with a library card and a bus pass a $300,000 mortgage. Right behind him and Dodd, like the chorus of demons from Hell in Faust, were the Maxine Waterses and James Clymers and Elijah Cummings screeching about the racism — what else could it be? — motivating any attempt, no matter how tepid, at slowing the flow of borrowed money into the mortgage abyss. You had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac standing practically on street corners screaming "Write a mortgage! Any mortgage!! To anybody!!! We'll buy it!!!!" And of course the brokers like Ditech and Countrywide and Lending Tree jumped in with both feet. Wall Street too, in a big way. With Fannie and Freddie making the market come what may, there were guaranteed profits from fees to be made. Besides, if you were (understandably) a little nervous, you could always insure with some fool at AIG. The proof is in the pudding though. When the dust settled we learned that whereas white household wealth had decreased by 16%, minority wealth had gone down by more than five times that. As I said, a housing bubble with a noteworthy left-wing tint to it. n nBlaming this clearly "progressive"-inspired feeding frenzy on George Bush is grotesquely feeble-minded. Bush certainly didn't do much about stopping the hucksters, but that particular express train to catastrophe had been building up steam well before he arrived on the scene.
Bush deregulated the banks and facilitated predatory lending, in the mortgage industry as well as the credit card companies.
When on earth did Bush deregulate the banks? Name the act, order, whatever in which he did such an incredible thing? I defy you. Come to think of it, when did Bush deregulate anything? You're simply repeating MSNBC headlines. It's a bad habit, which you've simply got to get a handle on. The significant banking-deregulation action, the one that the Left is forever complaining about, was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a Depression-era law, which repeal occurred in 1999, two years before George Bush took office. By the way, leaving GS in place would have had little-to-no effect on the explosive growth of the housing bubble. n nAs for "predatory lending," that is a hostile characterization designed to short-circuit rational thinking; it is not a description of anything that actually happened, such as charging deadbeats high interest rates on their credit cards, in many cases the same deadbeats who managed to get Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-approved mortgages for hundreds of thousands of dollars based on little more than their looks. I mean that last quite literally when it came to lending to minorities. n nWhy would anyone believe that there is such a thing as an easy-to-get mortgage, a transaction that historically required years of savings and hard work on the part of SOMEBODY for him to be in a position to afford it? All of which common sense was blithely tossed aside in yet another disastrous "progressive" effort to buy votes with other people's money. Any fool who signed up for an ARM and later found he couldn't afford it, has only himself to blame. You will look in vain, I fear, for George W. Bush's signature on the purchase-and-sale agreement. And I am leaving out those many, many thousands of scamster borrowers who happily signed disadvantageous mortgage papers knowing that 90 days or so later they were going to resell the house at a profit. How many times did THAT happen, do you think? The music had to stop sometime, didn't it? And there were not enough chairs to go around.
Actually, Clinton did that. The only blame Bush can bear is that he didn't do anything to stop that trainwreck in progress.
Bush was a "big government (social) conservative", Obama is a "big government (social) liberal". The problems with the economy are what those two had in common. n nAs for "the opposite of anything we could possibly get from Romney" what do you have against competent management and economic literacy? I mean seriously, Rom went from economic success to economic success, even turning around the Olympics. If Obama had run the Olympics we'd be hearing excuses on how hard it is and how it's really someone else's fault.
Obama could do more if the American voters could give him a Congress he can work with. The teapublicans block him at every move. They want the economy to fail so they can get a Republican president who will deregulate the banks, which is what Romney has said he would do. It will be more of the Bush ideology.
We needed a bigger-than-life President – we got President Zero. nWe needed a well-grounded stable President – we got a certifiable narcissist. nWe needed bold leadership – we got a teleprompter nWe needed a seasoned hand – we got a hand in in our pockets nWe needed a champion for American citizens… we got a champion for the invading horde of Illegal Aliens nWe needed a skilled bridge builder – we got a class-warfare specialist and inciter-in-chief. nWe needed practical, proven policies – we got socialist dogma and monumental waste nWe needed an inspirational visionary – we got an ideologically blinded, left learning-impaired radical nWe needed a Constitutional champion – we got a domestic enemy of the Constitution nWe needed a restrained, intimidating warrior – we got groveling, bowing, Barney Fife nWe needed a patriot – we got G. D. America, G. D. America, G. D. America. nWe needed someone to unshackle our economy – we got someone who is a friend to our enemies and an enemy to our businesses nWe needed a president beyond color – we got a green president embracing every whim and myth ever spoken by the kook environmental fringe. nWe needed mature, principled leadership – we got a petulant, lying, whining, blaming, sulking, accursing, excusing, man-child. n nIt is a national disgrace that someone this inept, incompetent, racist, and a American hating Socialist could be elected to the office of the Presidency.
As I see it, President Obama's current argument for re-election is: n nVote for me, Don't vote for Romney because he's an even bigger [supply your own choice combination of expletives] than I am. n nI don't see that as a winning argument because he has spent the last three and a half years proving what a big choice combination of expletives he is, so I expect that many will conclude that Gov. Romney could not possibly be worse. They could be wrong — but the odds are against it.
Obama's real argument is identity politics: n n"All you blacks, Hispanics, single women, welfare recipients, and public employees: Vote for me and I'll take away the country from those white men in the private sector and hand it over to you."
You forgot to mention married women, seniors, people whose employers don't offer health insurance, especially those with pre-existing conditions, children, and others.
when elected, he had NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE n nsince then, he's proved he has NO RELEVANT SKILLS n nand this is the resume of the next POTUS. Just imagine the nominees/appointments he will put forward for SCOTUS.
Example: Elena Kagen.
Commentary is fast becoming an obedient servant of the Republican National Committee. Your knee-jerk anti-Obama diatribes are sickening in a publication that used to pride itself on its independent judgment and objective insights. This is not the magazine I thought I was subscribing to when I signed on. Where is your criticism of Romney? I'm disgusted by your one-sided treatment of the election.
Bottom line: ABO (Anyone But Obama). Obama has proven to be lazy, incompetent, ignorant, and arrogant. He is the most singularly unqualified person ever to be in the White House. We cannot afford four more years of this narcissistic slug moron as president.
Repeating the same thing that hasn't worked and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. n nObama wants america to join his insanity.
have any of you taken time to review the positives president obama has accomplished during his first term. from lily ledbetter to credit card overhaul. no president is perfect, but give props where they are deserved. we knew no president would undue in 4 years what took over 10 to create, especially mccain/palin. there were decisions i would have liked to change, like employing the same financial folks who created this mess. that was a bad look. but in lieu of all the republican filibustering, much has been done to help americans.
Does anyone else feel like Obama saying that there are still too many people out there struggling, hurting, etc. ….. (After 3 + years of his effort) IS a REAL Admission of Failure from Obama ? ____So why would anyone want to re-elect him?
The economy will improve if we get rid of the teapublicans. If Obama had a congress he could work with, the economy would get better. For example, Rand Paul added a personhood amendment to a non-controversial flood insurance bill. The teapublicans are ruining this country, and everybody knows it. And do we want to elect a president who sent American jobs overseas when he was CEO at Bain Capital? And in 2004, Gov. Romney vetoed a bill that would have banned state contractors from outsourcing state work overseas.
I read your posts and am bewildered. You realize that our founding fathers had enough sense to put in a system of checks and balances? Their intent was to make it difficult for our government to do anything and prevent any majority from being able to dictate to a minority. Ignoring the fact that the Democrats controlled the Executive and both branches of congress for 2 of Obamau2019s almost 4 years, the u2018teapublicansu2019 are doing EXACTLY what they are supposed to: prevent anything from happening unless everyone agrees on it. How many Democrats voted u2018yesu2019 to Obamau2019s budget? Oh yeah, zero. Obama dictates, he has not compromised yet. Itu2019s a fast and furious attempt to his way, or his way, or his way and dam anyone who dare stands in his way. That is when heu2019s not playing golf or on vacation.
Um, say, Diane, do you actually read the links you provide — before you provide them, I mean? I did. And not one of them amounts to anything like even the suggestion of bank deregulation. The word "deregulation" has a discernible meaning, you know. It doesn't mean "whatever it is I disagree with" in the policies of the previous Administration. n nThe second and third citations are particularly ridiculous, at least as you characterize them. Bush "owned" by a "predatory lender"? Do you know the difference between a fact like, say, "ownership," and rhetorical bulls**t like "predatory"? I doubt it. Moreover, the example cited therein is carefully written to conceal the fact that the idiot woman you evidently sympathize with signed loan papers that AFTERWARDS she tried to get out of. Too bad for her. A deal's a deal. The best way to protect people from signing contracts that are too good to be true, as this one appeared to be, is to let the saps who sign them without taking them to an attorney FIRST suffer the consequences n nTo use State power to sue a salesman for being a salesman is terrible policy. Also — and, really, I shouldn't have to point this out — ANY legal document that has a figure like "$178,000" ANYWHERE within its four corners is screaming for the closest possible perusal. Instead, this fool filled in a questionnaire in an online "pop-up ad" and even then had to sign the papers brought to her; but she still wants the government to make things right. What then? Tuck her in at night? If she'd have saved the money she thought she was going to save, the world would never have heard of her. So why should we care now? n nThe second article you cite also demonstrates nothing like what you claim it does. In fact, in the one substantive part of the article, the part that is more than just competing ex parte versions of what happened in this or that state, the Supreme Court sided with the Bush Administration in an opinion written by Justice Ginsburg! Good grief, stop wasting time flogging garbage like that. n nBush deregulated banking? Hah!