Alana asks a very good question: Is an election on big ideas even possible when Barack Obama is one of the candidates? Another way of asking this would be: What would Barack Obama’s mandate be if he wins? It’s not an easy question to answer. He can certainly argue that, while he’s not proposing any serious plans or policies, he would at least protect the public from Mitt Romney, who would strive to outlaw whatever it is they like. But, like his accusation that Romney would ban abortion, the claims are made up out of whole cloth, and therefore easily debunked.
And that explains why the president looks so lost. I am not among those who think Obama’s visit to the areas affected by Hurricane Sandy elevated him much above his challenger, in part because it’s been so long since he acted presidential that he just looks so out of place everywhere people are trying to do serious work. This is not to take any credit away from him for the federal services provided to victims of the storm, but his press conference and appearances with Chris Christie did not seem to be much to his benefit. Christie was lively, authoritative, empathetic, and always prepared with important information. Obama read names of mayors off a paper in front of him, expressionless and monotone, as if he were standing not in front of a disaster area but a green screen. Michael Bloomberg correctly asked the president to please stay away from New York City, where he would only be a burden, due especially to the traffic congestion caused by road closures, mass transit suspensions, and the malfunctioning crane at 57th Street.
Obama has built his firewall around Ohio this election, which is why someone more popular than the president—Bill Clinton—is currently there on his behalf. Where do you campaign if you have nothing to say? How do you draw a large crowd without large ideas?
This gets to another problem with the election. If Obama wins, it might very well be because Romney ran out of time to catch him, for the polling trends are much kinder to the challenger than the incumbent. Which means that his so-called “kill Romney” strategy, in which the president’s campaign sought to bury Romney early on with the politics of personal destruction that even included whipping up attacks on Romney’s religion, will be credited with making the difference.
It’s possible, also, that the campaign will pat itself on the back for its Big Bird, binders, and birth control attacks. Which brings me back to Alana’s post and her discussion of the Lena Dunham ad. Dunham’s sharp HBO show, which deserves the praise it has received, has been lauded by social conservatives as well as liberal Millennials tired of entrusting their pop culture depictions to those outside their own generation.
Whether you think the show is intended to be literal or just sly social commentary, the characters are aimless. Which is why it’s so appropriate to see Dunham cut an ad for the aimless president she supports. But Obama isn’t a Millennial having too much fun in Brooklyn to settle down. He’s the president of the United States and he’s asking for a second term. Even if he’s not quite sure why.
I'm not sure he has no plan. It's just that it would be suicidal to let anyone know what it is!
You sound like a typical right wing repungicant Brian. This article is trash, just like your party. Obama has saved this country from financial ruin, created jobs, killed Bin Laden, protected women's rights and you have the audacity to say our great leader has no plan? To hell with you Brian!
I'd say he has a mandate not to become a Mormon or a venture capitalist, not to enact tax breaks for shipping jobs off shore, to raise taxes on all millionaires (even if they are insolvent and have an annual income as low as $250,000), keep funding NPR, tell the truth at all times, put daylight between theUS and Israel but guard Israel's back, keep providing "free" birth control and abortion at employer expense (that pesky Free Exercise clause be damned), use profanity on TV, punish those who insult the prophet of Islam, and generally keep being the all around cool hand and celebrity in chief that he is now. nHave I missed anything?
Silly. Way worse than Obama, Romney will not tell us ANY of his plans in any real detail. He will repeal Obamacare, but not tell us what will replace it. He will cut out tax loopholes, but will not give an example. Cayman Islands? Swiss accounts? tax-deductibility of mortgage interest? His only plan to create jobs is the long-disproved trickle-down theory. Re-open the issues of abortion and birth control? Wowee, irrelevant topics to anyone but tea-partiers.
I couldn't have said it better. Do I detect some amount of desperation among the fearless ranks of Commentary's best and brightest who for years haven't been able to find even ONE kind thing to say about the the president – not one! Look on the bright side folks, now you'll have four more years to complain about him. Just think of the thousands of irrelevant articles you could write to your ever shrinking subscriber base! I have been a subscriber since the 1980's and recall a time when honesty on your part won out over partisanship. There was a time when even when you didn't agree with someone, you begrudgingly admitted when they did something right. Those days are long gone as are the people who once managed your magazine and what is left for all intents and purposes is the print edition of Fox News.
No, as Romney said at the Al Smith Dinner, it's his job to figure out a plan to create jobs, and it's the press's job to make sure nobody finds out about it. n nBy the way, please tell me what tax loopholes there are for Swiss or Cayman Island bank accounts, I was not aware that there are any.
It is not Obama who is "lost," but we Americans! n nImagine: n n1. Permitting 18-21 year-old hormonally-confused, arrogant, impulsive know-nothings to determine a presidential election! Do we have the guts and common sense to repeal the 26th Amendment? Isn't it time to stop "rocking the vote?" Why are children—who should be preparing for their adult lives, via working, studying, acquiring skills for a trade or profession—spending their valuable time "working for" a candidate, when they have neither the intellectual nor the emotional wherewithal to judge whether this is the candidate the US needs at this moment of our history? Why have so many American adults come to believe that "kids know best?" Who are these people? Rather, where are their brains? n n2. Choosing a president in 2008, about whom very little is known, on the basis of "wanting our first black president!" As though our nation boiled-down to 'levels of political-correctness." n n3. Putting so many Americans on welfare, food-stamps, unemployment, disability and a virtual grab-bag of other dependency-inducing "government programs" in order to ensure an election victory to a president whose skills are inadequate and whose motives are suspect! The question is asked: How can Obama be reelected, given the state of our economy? And the answer: His dependents will vote for him. They let Obama 'take care' of them, and now they cannot or will not 'take care' of themselves. So they vote for Obama, not because he's been a satisfactory leader, but because they "get stuff" from him! n n3. Voting for a president who has bowed to foreign leaders, including Arab kings he claimed "the US has wronged," and who has a scary idea of how to secure our borders and fight our enemies. Is Barack Obama a "loyal American?" Is a fish a cow? How alarming, that the real problems we will have with the Obama administration won't surface until after they leave office, either in January 2013 or 2017. Once set free of their duties, does anyone seriously believe that a good number of these Obama-kooks will keep the state-secrets they've been entrusted with? Will this be the first treasonous president in our history, and will Barack Obama be prosecuted for what is revealed by those who are offered an "either/or" deal by the FBI or who, miraculously, find "religion" (patriotism, loyalty) at some point after they leave the White House? n nThe list of reasons to call the American people "lost" is endless. Our challenge must be to shorten the list. We'll know whether that's in the cards, by who wins next week. If Obama wins, we'll know what the future will be for this nation. Ireland, Australia—-here we come! Then, who will pay for the food stamps?
The irony is that the vast majority of young people might be utterly indifferent if the 26th Amendment was repealed. Debating the issue could bore them to death. They would rather watch reruns of Jersey Shore.
That's right Blackparrot, those pesky hormonally-confused, arrogant, impulsive know-nothings who enlist in the military to serve their country and are willing to give up their lives to keep us safe, lets take their right to vote away from them by repealing the 26th amendment. While we're at it lets repeal the 14th amendment also and any other amendments the Tea Party doesn't like. I think Grover Norquist should become president, he and his Palestinian wife and children should be the next occupants of the White House. Wouldn't be too good for Israel though as he has repeatedly sided with and financially supported Hamas and Hezbollah through his "Islamic Foundation" comparing Israeli settlement in Judaea and Samaria to the Nazi occupation of Europe but he would make sure taxes didn't go up and what's more important?
"who enlist in the military to serve their country and are willing to give up their lives to keep us safe," nOne thing has very little to do with the other. Selflesssness and patriotism is not the same as maturity. n nI'm pretty sure that we don't give command responsiblity to 18 year old soldiers. They act under the comand of older non-coms and oficers. Perhaps we should confine the 18 to 21 year old vote to those who have demonstrated maturity by joining in the military, and condition it on not being less than honorably discharged before age 21. And are you equally insistent that these 18 to 21 year olds, military service or not, be allowed to buy alcohol? Or to buy a handgun? n nNo, I didn't think so. n nAfter that, your rantings beome more and more nonsensical. The Tea Party is certainly not monolithic, but none of the Tea Party members I have met want to repeal the 14th Amendment. Where do you get such nonsense? n
"Voting for a president who has bowed to foreign leaders" and who has said that the future must not belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam and has been defensive about our right of free speech, when he should be defending it. n nSome of us think that the future must not belong to those who insult our Bill of Rights.
And Obama fortunately does support the BIll of Rights. Your right wing rot is as sickening as the repugnicant party itself.
As all conservatives (and neo-cons) eventually do, Commentary has gone tea-party. I forgive u: tea party is the only way for an irrelevant party to survive. 'fess up, who is Commentary's highly secret sugar daddy? Edelson? the Kochs?
The irony of this article is that Romney has presented NOTHING to the American people. No plan… zip… nada… not an iota of thought. And the repugnicants have the audacity to deride President Obama. Sickening indeed. Four more years, FOUR MORE YEARS OF SUPERB LEADERSHIP UNDER OBAMA!
All the repugnicanst have done is obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. The right wing simply wrong.