1. The president’s incompetence in the debt-ceiling pro-wrestling fake crisis was rather stunning.
2. He said the Republicans were acting irresponsibly by provoking default to get one-sided policy/budgetary reform with no real popular or legislative deliberation. There is something to that assertion. But Obama was too responsible (afraid) to let them be irresponsible. So his charge of irresponsiblity, which had some popular traction, suddenly has no relevance. He caved, in effect, because he wanted the deal more than his opponents. (Our president was, in fact, pretty naive in believing that he could benefit by not pushing up that ceiling last December–drawing the Republicans into some “grand deal” that would be compromise he could actually believe in. He couldn’t even sell the proposition that not all tax increases–including much needed loophole closing–are job-killing evildoing.)
3. It remains to be seen whether this result actually benefits the Republicans. Any fool can see that we need big-time entitlement reform, mainly because of the demographic issues I’ve discussed before. That doesn’t mean that America has bought into Tea-Party constitutionalism or Koch brothers libertarianism.
4. People–ordinary working stiffs who have been drifting Republican lately–aren’t going to be thrilled when they start to figure out all the dimensions of the movement from DEFINED BENEFITS to DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS. They are going to have to be shown that they’re more NECESSARY than CHOICEWORTHY.
5. Pete is surely right below that the Kennedy/Huckabee charge against Romney that he’s basically the kind of guy who laid you off will surely work. Pete is also right (on another channel) that the Ryan-Rubio ticket would seem too extreme and one-dimensional. The Ryan plan is more change than Americans can believe in right now, and an election that turns on its merits will go to Obama. So the Republicans need a candidate with a more populist dimension than any we’re thinking about right now. Pete (again) is right that Bobby Jindal might be able to get the job done, but he’s not running–nor has he signed up for a charisma transplant.
6. One piece of good news: The Democratic left is ticked off enough at our president that a primary challenge is now not inconceivable. And studies show that’s almost always bad news for incumbents.
7. A lot of the cuts we seem to be embracing seem unjust or imprudent–those to programs that benefit the unfortunate (like people with Down’s Syndrome and Alzheimers) and to defense, for example.
August 2nd, 2011 | 11:14 am
I wouldn’t sell Jindal short in the charisma department. He isn’t Obama (and the speech where he tried to be the soaring right-wing Obama fell very flat – and the impact of that response has had a long half life that has distorted perceptions of Jindal’s political skills), but he projects bright, energetic competence. We could do worse, and we almost certainly will.
August 2nd, 2011 | 12:22 pm
So I agree that Bobby is the best candidate around, and I would endorse him if I thought that would the key to getting him in the race. Run, Bobby, run. We really do need better president.
August 5th, 2011 | 7:18 am
Pete & Peter — apparently neither of you lives in nor pays much attention to Louisiana politics. Bobby is solidly conservative, but he has had a rather lackluster 4 years as governor of a “strong executive” state. He pushed for a version of ethics reform that wasn’t much of a change over what we had (although anything was better than nothing) and which does not touch the executive branch in any meaningful way. He has trouble working with members of his own party in the legislature. He couldn’t sell the merger of an academically weak and failing Southern University in New Orleans into the University of New Orleans.
I like Bobby, voted for him for governor, and will probably do so again. But his performance as governor has not proven to me that he would be a strong and effective president who would tackle head on the big issues that are dragging us closer to being the Greece of North America.
August 5th, 2011 | 8:29 pm
Jaime, I read through NOLA once in a while and do Google searches through the news. I know Jindal has cut taxes, restrained spending (not as much as everyone in his party would have liked but enough to get him an A rating from CATO – and if one reads closely one can see that Jindal’s rating was more policy enactment-based than the one given to Pawlenty in the same report), and presides over lower-than-the national-average unemployment (no doubt has at least something to do with Louisiana being an energy exporting state.) He is also knowledgeable and articulate on national domestic policy issues. His most recent dust ups with legislative Republicans haven’t stopped him from being nearly unopposed for reelection so far.
Do I think he has been as innovative as Mitch Daniels (especially on health care)? No. Not even close really (*sob* I promised myself I wouldn’t cry. *sniffle*) Do I think he is a stronger candidate than any Republican currently in the field (though he would have some explaining to do about some stories related to religion), yes. Alas, I think his presidential ambitions are oriented toward 2016.
August 6th, 2011 | 9:19 pm
Pete –
Perhaps by 2016 he will have gotten that charisma transplant and some solid hits running the state. He’s incredibly bright (in fact, not because the doyens of the media have so declared it, as with Mr. Obama), which may partially explain why he sometimes has problems doing the “politics”. In many ways, what I would like to see is a return of the Calvin Coolidge / Dwight Eisenhower approach to governing — modest, strong, and within our means.
August 7th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
Jaime, I don’t think he lacks for enough charisma (I don’t think Eisenhower did either though he developed his speaking style in the pre-television era.) Though he doesn’t have enough to run a charisma-driven campaign.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact