“Give ’em the old razzle dazzle” goes the refrain to one of the most entertaining and memorable scenes from the play “Chicago.” It seems President Obama drew inspiration from the production named after the city in which he began his political career.
Unlike many who have derided his performance as “flat,” I found it to be reasonably dynamic. It was passionately delivered and vague enough to be inoffensive. The bipartisan applause lines and sprinkle of humor were injected to create the impression that the president was humble and not asking for anything illogical. Just the good old post-partisan and centrist Obama from the campaign days. As the song “Razzle Dazzle” continues, “when you’re in trouble go into your dance.”
At points, I felt as if the President had become a subscriber to our paper and was reading my editorials. A few “Did he really say that?” moments include his calls to: eliminate the 1099 penalty from the health care law, cut the corporate tax rate, reduce frivolous lawsuits, simplify the tax code, and scale back burdensome and archaic regulations on business. If this was his State of the Union two years ago, it may have been remotely believable.
It didn’t take long to realize that the speech was to serve mostly as a distraction from the reality of the president’s agenda for the past two years, and his designs to do more of the same in the next two: more spending, bigger government and completely ignore entitlement reform.
During a meeting with business executives I attended last year, the consensus in the room was that President Obama was smart to jam and ram through the most unpopular and controversial aspects of his agenda in his first two years in order to focus on getting re-elected over the next two. While most opposed the policies, they recognized the virtues of the tactics. The “ram it through” strategy was made even more appealing considering the overwhelming majorities the president’s political party held in Congress.
But that strategy has consequences when the agenda does not represent the “will of the governed,” and primary among the casualties is the president’s desire to be viewed as either a centrist or post-partisan. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, his speech was undermined by the lack of his own credibility on the most critical issues he mentioned; job creation, deficit reduction and tax reform. That tension showed up in the speech itself. Even liberal columnist Paul Krugman commented in the New York Times on the speech: “We’re going to invest in the future — but we’re also going to freeze domestic spending. …I have no idea what the vision here was.”
Anticipating Republican charges that “investments” he promoted in his address were merely code for new federal spending we can’t afford, the president fashioned a pithy defense: “To borrow an analogy, cutting the deficit by cutting investments in areas like education, areas like innovation — that’s like trying to reduce the weight of an overloaded aircraft by removing its engine,” Mr. Obama said in a December speech at a community college in North Carolina. “It’s not a good idea.”
But in this defense lays the principle difference between Republicans and Democrats. The president and his Party believe the “engine” is the government and its bureaucracy, while Republicans believe the driving force comes from private enterprise and the American entrepreneur.
The unemployment problem facing our nation has made a sustainable and meaningful economic recovery very difficult. However, identifying the greatest impediment to resolving it is far clearer; it’s the uncertainty created by new government policies and burdensome regulations. In a two year period, private industry has endured the prospect of new health care mandates, attempts to regulate energy usage through a carbon tax, counter-intuitive financial regulations and the probability of the largest tax increase in American history in two short years.
Is it a wonder that corporate America is sitting on nearly $2 trillion in earnings, rather than investing in their own expansion? Without knowing what to expect over the next two years, the risk takers and job creators have had to assume a more defensive posture, relegating them unable to do what our economic system and workforce needs them to do, which is to grow and create jobs.
Rhetoric cannot replace a record of real achievement. After two years of “razzle dazzle,” the American people must demand more from this president.
The Governor is disappointed that the President did not address the “big things.”
By Art Gallagher
There was no classic “YouTube moment” confrontation at Governor Chris Christie’s Middletown Town Hall meeting today. But if any of Christie’s statements today are to “go viral” or make national news, this is probably it.
Christie reminded the crowd of over 200 who came out in the snow that he broke from tradition in his State of the State address. Rather than an address that “strokes the erogenous zones of every constituency,” the governor said quoting columnist George Will, Christie said his address was designed to deal with “big things;” fiscal discipline, government employee pension and health care benefit reform, and education reform.
Christie said he noticed that President Barack Obama invoked a similar theme in his State of the Union address last night. Christie said that he was flattered that the President was imitating him.
Christie didn’t say it, but I will, maybe Vice President Biden wrote that part of Obama’s speech.
At about 2:20 in this clip, Christie says that he is disappointed that Obama did not address the federal “big things,” entitlements, in the State of the Union address. Christie said that federal entitlements are analogous the pension and employee heath care reform on the state level, and the President “never mentioned boo about it last night”
In the remainder of the clip, Christie made his case for doing the “big things.” He said he didn’t run for governor to be somebody, that he already was somebody. He said he came to do something.
Christie’s not running for President. He is running for another term as governor. He said he “guaranteed” that there will be somebody on the ballot opposite him in three years promising the easy way. He said that his way will return New Jersey to prosperity and that the easy way would lead to economic ruin.
With Repubican Randy Altschuler’s concession on Tuesday to incumbent Congressman Tim Bishop in New York’s 1st congressional district, the 2010 midterm elections have come to a close. Republicans picked up 63 seats while taking control of the House of Representatives, and picked up 6 seats in the U.S. Senate.
The 2010 midterms have frequently been compared to the 1994 midterms when Newt Gingrich lead the House GOP to pick up 54 seats, while Republicans picked up 8 U.S. Senate seats and controlled both houses of Congress for the first time since 1954.
With the midterms behind us pundits and political junkies are shifting their focus to the 2012 Presidential election. Many have pondered whether President Obama will move to the center ala Bill Clinton after the massive loss in the ’94 midterms, “triangulating” Republicans, Independents and their issues on his way to a scandal plaqued second term, or will Obama finish out his term like Jimmy Carter, dogged by a stagflation economy, unrest in the Middle East and challenged by the left in his own party.
My friend Alan Steinberg argues that Obama’s recent deal with Congressional Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax rates for two years ehances the President’s reelection prospects because of the likely improvement in the economy that will result. Steinberg says that the far left wing of the Democratic party condeming Obama for the deal will also help him by making him look like a centrist. Steinberg says an Obama primary victory over a left wing opponent like Howard Dean would boost the President further with an aura of success and centrism.
Alan overlooks the historical fact that every incumbent President since Gerald Ford who faced a credible primary challenge won the primary but lost the general election. Ford was challenged by Ronald Reagan in the 1976 GOP primary and lost the election to Jimmy Carter. Carter was challenged in the 1980 Democratic party by Ted Kennedy and lost the election to Reagan. George H.W. Bush was challenged by Pat Buchanan in the 1992 GOP primary and lost the election to Bill Clinton.
Taxes could well be the issue that dominates the 2012 election. Just as George H.W. Bush’s broken “NO NEW TAXES” pledge cost him dearly with the Republican base that never revered him like they did Reagan, Obama’s broken pledge to raise taxes on the rich and redistribute wealth could yet cost him dearly with his Democratic base. Just as Bush I was no Reagan, Obama may prove to be no Clinton. Clinton, despite moving away from his leftist base, “felt their pain” in 1996. So far Obama’s message to “the professional left” is “you are a pain.”
Should a Democrat like Dean or Hillary Clinton really become a pain and challenge Obama in the primary he or she might argue that the Clinton era tax increases on the wealthy lead to a booming ecomony, the first balanced federal budget in memory and even a surplus.
Of course such a Democrat will ignore the fact that the Clinton 1993 tax increases did not boost the economy as Democrats had expected it would. The “Clinton boom” and balanced budgets didn’t occur until after 1997 when the Republican Congress lowered the capital gains tax rates, added a child credit, lowered the death tax and increased the IRA exclusions.
There is another development on the horizon that might make the 2012 election look more like ’92 when Bill Clinton defeated Bush I, than like ’96 when Clinton was reelected over Bob Dole or like 1980 when Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter.
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg might end up the 2012 version of H. Ross Perot, the billionaire businessman who ran for President as a third party candidate against Bush I and Clinton in 1992, capturing 19% of the popular vote, and many think Bush I a second term.
Bloomberg sounded an a lot like a presidential candidate yesterday when he bashed both major political parties, Washington gridlock and offered a “centrist way” to fix America. Perot built the Reform Party in 1996. Bloomberg would embrace the No Labels movement of centrists that has been building a grassroots organization over the last year. No Labels will have a major event, their “official launch,” in New York of all places on Monday December 13. The event will be simulcast in the Internet on Monday December 13.
The other factor making 2012 look like 1996 in my crystal ball is the Republican field of Presidential contenders. So far only New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has the charisma of a Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or candidate Obama. Christie says he’s not running. I believe him. He will have his hands full in New Jersey in 2011, making the kind of national travel throughout the year that would be required to compete in the GOP primaries that start in February of 2012 very unlikely. The rest of the Republican field doesn’t have “it.” They are reminiscent of Bush I, Bob Dole and John McCain.
In a head to head race of Obama vs a current Republican contender other than Christie, Obama would have to be favored at this point, assuming he keeps moving to the center. If Bloomberg runs as a No Labels candidate and spends the $1.5 billion that has been speculated, history could be made rather than repeated.
Governor Chris Christie is on the receiving end of some Chicago style political payback from the Obama administration machine.
With his rising national star power, and his “put up or shut up” message to the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Christie has become the strong spine of the Republican Party. Obama needs to tarnish Christie’s image and weaken his spine if he is to co-opt the House Republicans into compromise.
Christie is clearly in the Obama machine’s opposition radar. We saw that in August when they quickly released a video of NJ’s education delegation’s testimony defending the flawed “Race to the top” application as a rebuke to Christie placing the blame on the failed application on the U.S. Education Department. That was Obama injecting himself into local politics and creating turmoil for the Governor. Christie came out of the controversy stronger by launching his Reform tour throughout the State, with the facebook/Oprah splash and by hitting the campaign trail for Republicans nationally and locally with a back breaking schedule.
Yesterday we saw the news of a Justice Department audit that criticised Christie for overspending on travel, by $2,176 over 14 trips, while U.S. Attorney. Today we see the news that the U.S Transporation Department sent cash strapped New Jersey a bill for $271 million, plus penalities and interest and an audit to follow looking for more, for federal money spent on the ARC project that Christie terminated last month.
Also today, we see a new Quinnipiac poll showing Christie’s approval ratings in NJ holding steady at 51%, while Obama’s disapproval ratings hit 50% for the first time.
The Quinnipiac poll also said that 61% of respondents said that Christie would not make a good President,that 60% say he will not run for President in 2012 and 67% think the Christie for President talk is political gossip. With polls like these it is all in how word the question. I interpret this poll to mean that over 60% of New Jersey voters are taking Christie at his word that he is not running in 2012 and his own assessment that he is not ready to be President. I take the responses to mean that New Jersey wants Christie to finish the job he started here before moving on.
I would love to see the results of a poll that asked “Who is more qualified to be President? A 2008 Barack Obama or a 2010 Chris Christie?
Christie will likely get stronger as a result of the latest Obama machine strike. Keep an eye out for more anti-Christie news coming out of Washington, especially in the days following Christie appearances on national TV.
The President and the First Lady will celebrate the election of the 112th Congress with a two day visit to India.
A visit with commercial sex workers in Kamathipura is on the First Lady’s agenda, according to a report in The Economic Times.
This will be an expensive trip:
“A team of secret service agents has already arrived, and has surveyed the areas of his stay and the roads and places on his itinerary,” the officer said.
To ensure fool-proof security, the President’s team has booked the entire the Taj Mahal Hotel, including 570 rooms, all banquets and restaurants. Since his security contingent and staff will comprise a huge number, 125 rooms at Taj President have also been booked, apart from 80 to 90 rooms each in Grand Hyatt and The Oberoi hotels. The NCPA, where the President is expected to meet representatives from the business community, has also been entirely booked.
The officer said, “Obama’s contingent is huge. There are two jumbo jets coming along with Air Force One, which will be flanked by security jets. There will be 30 to 40 secret service agents, who will arrive before him. The President’s convoy has 45 cars, including the Lincoln Continental in which the President travels.”
Since Obama will stay in a hotel that is on sea front, elaborate coastal security arrangements have been made by the US Navy in consonance with the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard. “There will be US naval ships, along with Indian vessels , patrolling the sea till about 330-km from the shore. This is to negate the possibility of a missile being fired from a distance,” the officer said.
The President will be accompanied by his chefs, not because he would not like to savour Indian cuisine, but to ensure his food is not spiked.
By Diane Gooch