Home | Virginia
Politics
| National
Politics
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Poll
Should Democrats Move Their Convention Out of North Carolina?
No, I agree with the anti-gay-marriage amendment
No, lots of states have these amendments
No, it's too late to change
No, we want to win North Carolina this November
Yes, we need to take a stand against bigotry
Yes, NC's amendment is particularly heinous
Yes, we're not going to win NC anyway
Yes for many reasons

Results

Weather

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Virginia Blogs
All Politics is Local
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Coarse Cracked Corn
Crew of 42
DemRulz
Dixie Pig
Equality Loudoun
The Fix (WaPo)
Greater Greater Washington
The Green Miles
Leaving My Marc
Leesburg Tomorrow
Loudoun Progress
Moonhowlings
New Dominion Project
Not Larry Sabato
Off K Street
Old Dominion Blogs
Ox Road South Blog
Renaissance Ruminations
Richmonder
Richmond Sunlight
RTD VA Politics blog
Roanoke Times blog
Shad Plank
SlantBlog
Too Conservative
True Adventures of the Doorbell Queen
VB Dems
Virginia Education Report
WaPo - Virginia Politics Blog
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll

Progressive Legal Directory www.criminallawyervirginia.net
www.virginia-duilawyers.com
www.virginia-personalinjurylawyer.com
www.recklessdrivinglawyer.net
www.helpdisabilitylawyer.com
www.criminallawdc.com
www.duilawsdc.com

ADT Home Security in Virginia

Obama Is In a Bubble Inside a Bubble

by: Teddy Goodson

Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:44:32 PM EST


Speaking at the December breakfast of the Northern Virginia Democratic Business Council Friday, 3 December, at the Fairview Marriott, Jeanne Cummings of Politico gave one of her  trenchant, insightful analyses in discussing the mid-term elections, and her estimate of how it will play out heading into 2012. She believes the election was, indeed, all about Obama.  The independents turned against him in huge numbers, mainly because of the stubbornly high unemployment figures (that means, "it's the economy, stupid," although she never said it in so many words), as well as because of the number and size of the rapid-fire changes he and the Democratic Congress delivered.

The public was with Obama on the stimulus, but, beginning in June of 2009, as unemployment stayed in the 10 percent range, they began to complain, "Hey, we spent all this money on the stimulus, but nothing has improved..." Americans, said Ms. Cummings, while dealing with massive job losses, could not at the same time absorb all the changes like health care reform, Wall Street reform, and so on---- it was too much too soon The public, for example, is still convinced that Obama raised their taxes, when in fact the stimulus bill was full of tax cuts. The tax cuts were incremental, gradual, and extended over a period of time, so not only did people never actually notice them, the Democrats never explained  them to the voters. Why, asked Cummings, was the Democratic message never delivered? If this complaint about messaging sounds familiar, it should. Her answer gave some insight into how Washington works (or does not).

Teddy Goodson :: Obama Is In a Bubble Inside a Bubble
Cummings pointed out that, living as we do so close to Washington, we all know that "Washington has a way of breaking people," eventually massaging them into conformity. Presidents, whatever they say as campaigners, once inaugurated, do live in a bubble. Previous Presidents, even Bush, made some effort to meet and mingle occasionally with people outside their inner ring of advisors. This President lives in a bubble within the bubble. When he goes on vacation, even if it's just to Camp David, it is always with the same seven families. In her view, Obama has "completely cut himself off from all the institutions of power," with the result that he has no group to which he can turn for support when needed.  Even his original liberal base is attacking him regularly from the left (she advised her listeners that these attacks from within Obama's own party were going to have "an effect on his re-election in 2012, so keep that in mind").  "The liberals don't like Obama anymore, the women don't like him, labor doesn't like him " she said, and named every group across the spectrum, including of course, Republicans, all of whom have been turned off or ignored by the White House.  

At first, in her opinion, Obama did give signs of making an effort to go outside his inner circle, and since the mid-term election he is promising further Outreach, but it remains to be seen whether this new effort will last. There are signs that the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), is inclined to cooperate in governing when it comes to crucial issues; his roll model for Speaker is supposed to be Tip O'Neal---- she pointed out that Tip had undoubtedly said worse things than Boehner's "chicken crap," so don't discount Boehner's ability to compromise. Boehner was a Congressman during the shut-down of government in the 1990's, and does not want to repeat the experience. His problem is his own caucus.  There are 85 new members in the Republican caucus, and most of them have no compunction about enforcing any of the items on their agenda, including a possible shut-down to get their way. It remains to be seen how successful Boehner will be in controlling his own caucus when it comes to disciplining the newcomers to vote, for example, for a little tax increase here or a government program there. Since Republicans won with the help of corporate money, and "those Democrats who survived" did so because of labor support, the obvious lines are drawn in the sand for this Congress.

During a lively question period, Ms. Cummings gave her opinion that since the election Obama's choices on the Bush tax cut extension were now down to two: temporary extension of cuts for all income levels, or making all the cuts permanent. The window of opportunity for modifications (such as raising the income level for tax cuts to, perhaps, $1million) has now closed. When questioned about education, Cummings said that education was one of the "non-economic issues" on which there could well be compromise achieved, resulting in legislation. The report of the Deficit Commission managed to create the biggest herd of "sacred cows" ever seen in town, including as it does slashing programs dear to left and right, and even the Pentagon and the military.  The fact that two Senators from opposite sides of the aisle have indicated support for the Commission's report is a sign that at last we will finally be having a serious conversation on the subject.  The presidential election in 2012 will bring a much larger group of voters to the polls, and the results will probably once again be largely determined on how the voters view the economy; even if the economy has not recovered fully, even if the unemployment level is still in the 8 percent range, people may have adjusted and learned to live with the new normal, and they will not want to punish Obama.... but, who knows?  Concerning Virginia, it was her contention that Virginia is a swing state, and will continue to be so. This last election does not turn Virginia into a permanently red state.

This was a full dose of Conventional Wisdom, delivered with engaging certainty. However, we heard nothing about why Obama is in his double bubble after a promising start at changing the tone in Washington---- could it possibly have anything to do with Republican obstructionism, their proclaimed intention to make him fail, and the byzantine path to passing any sort of legislation through the Senate, including a sort-of-reform health care bill? Cummings never touched on such an idea. We heard nothing about the corporate co-option of the originally populist Tea Party revolt, or how it was subverted into hyper-corporotism, to the supposed consternation of the inner Republican Establishment.

There was, significantly, nothing about the continued acceptance of the basic premises of Free Market economics, which has created repeated Wall Street meltdowns, and whose adherents now are agitating endlessly about the national debt and deficit.  Why is there such knuckling under by Obama to the Republican version of the Free Market, when the theory has brought us one calamity after another, and clearly no longer adequately explains how the real economy runs, much less how to fix it, or to help it fix itself? Does this subservience perhaps help to explain the utter lack of messaging by the White House, or any effort actually to change the terms of the debate, something the Democratic grassroots plainly had anticipated during the 2008 campaign? I realize it was probably unreasonable to expect an Inside-the-Beltway pundit to touch on such topics, but Ms. Cummings' obvious expertise and deep knowledge of Washington politics gave me a tantalizing moment of hope.... but I guess such a discussion would take more time than allowed for an early morning breakfast talk.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Cummings is way off in her analysis of Boehner (0.00 / 0)
We know from Boehner's words and actions, both in public and behind the scenes, that he has no interest whatsoever in cooperating with Obama -- that is, unless "cooperation" means getting Obama to give in to his every demand.

Great analysis, Teddy!

follow me on Twitter.


For whatever reason (0.00 / 0)
Boehner and the Republican leadership refuse to work with Obama on anything at all.  Ms. Cummings may believe that Boehner would like to work with Obama but his hands are tied by his membership (which gives Boehner way too much credit).  You stated what should have been obvious to Ms. Cummings:  that the Republican plan, since even before Inauguration Day, has been to make Obama fail.  


follow me on Twitter.


More than that (0.00 / 0)
are the on-the-record comments by Mitch McConnell as well, advocating gridlock.... nor did she mention what I call the "hush puppy" thrown to the baggers on ending "earmarks".... a nothing tossed to them by the RepEstab. which costs little and will soon fade from view.

I also had another opinion about her statement that "you" (meaning her audience of Democrats) might want to think twice about so many public attacks on "our" leader, since that will come back to bite us in 2012. While there is some truth to this, I don't see any difference between these attacks and the much nastier attacks by Tea Party and friends against Republicans deemed not conservative enough (although she did mention the two ladies from Maine when she said the Tea Party plans on being present in Republican primaries); those attacks certainly were successful in reminding their leadership of of which side their bread was buttered on, didn't it?


[ Parent ]
Our government is broken (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans refuse to cooperate with the Democrats on anything, and the Democrats refuse to take a stand on anything, since their strategy to this point has been "water down bills until they can get Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and/or Scott Brown to support them". And that's obviously not going to work (as much as it did work) now. And any attempt at responsible governing is met with the hew and cry of socialism, tax-and-spend liberals, death panels, killing small business, and so on.

It really amazes me that the Democrats have failed to learn a single thing in the past two decades. The Republicans have created a media machine that is on-message 99.9% of the time with clear talking points. Meanwhile, the Democrats still flail around looking for a coherent message. Even when it's obvious that the Republicans are hypocrites, with the cut-the-deficit/cut-taxes dichotomy, nobody can call them out on it.

I just don't understand what happened with Obama. Did he really believe that he would just sweep in and everything would change? Was his lofty rhetoric just a campaign trick to get elected? Or did DC change him more quickly than he expected?

It all really depresses me.


[ Parent ]
I think what happened (4.00 / 1)
was that Barack Obama, as Senator, as well as other Dem Senators at the time, managed to cooperate with Republicans -- especially when the Dems controlled Congress while Bush controlled the WH.  This might have given Obama a false sense of possibility, especially since he was not as well attuned to how the House operated.  Obama came into office believing, because of past experience, that progress could be made with Republicans.  Even when this was proven to be blatantly false, his corporatist advisors may have assured him that it was still possible.

Obama should stop holding onto the prevailing notion of "centrism."  Centrism to some means a halfway point between the Democrats and Republicans.  But to the Republicans, and sadly to most of the media, "centrism" means "a Democratic President agreeing to do everything the Republicans want him to do."

follow me on Twitter.


[ Parent ]
There are some (0.00 / 0)
writing on DailyKos, who wonder if Obama isn't a Republican in disguise, mainly because, every time he has to make a choice, he invariably falls back on Free Market policies. I do not agree, I think there is more to it than simply kowtowing to Conventional Wisdom and the secular religion of Friedman economics, which is the current dogma of business, Wall Street, and Washington Insiders. I think what we are seeing is a basic character trait in Obama, not a conscious betrayal of his base, nor a change in mindset---- this seeming lack of convictions is perhaps the flexibility of a man unwilling to be confrontational.  

But I agree, it is depressing.  And I also am almighty tired of being told the "professional left" should go along to get along, hush up now.


[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Johnny,

Great post. I personally think that Obama thought that when he was elected that he would easily be able to work with his former Senate colleagues and especially guys like George Voinovich, Dick Lugar, Snowe, Collins, Graham, Murkowski, Martinez and even McCain. I don't think that he was quite prepared for the onslaught of negativity and "no" that would hit him. The biggest problem was that there was a constant need for 60 votes and Democrats screwed themselves with stupid things like the Cornhusker kickback and Bart Stupak's abortion grandstanding which was already there. I also don't think that they thought that the economy would be as bad as it was when they took over. The day that the stimulus passed and they clearly didn't explain why it was needed and what was in there I became really worried about their messaging. I knew what was in it (and took advantage of the first time homeowner's tax credit) but most people have no tangible idea. I was really worried than that they weren't defining their legislation.

I for one can't believe that they refused to hit many Republicans who voted no to the stimulus but were more than willing to take its cash and would even show up at ribbon cutting ceremonies and such for money they voted no to. Clearly shows that they wanted to politically convenient vote but to look good back in their districts.

PS: I assume you also post on Swing State given your handle's uniqueness and being from VA. Same for me.  


[ Parent ]
Couple of Observations (0.00 / 0)
Cummins certainly failed to admit that Politico and other "establishment" news outlets are very deeply embedded in the corporate state that created the economic mess. As long as the media outlets make darn sure that the GOP viewpoint is covered in depth, while giving grudging time to a few Dems, even if the Democratic message was effective (which it certainly is not!), it would be drowned out by pundit chatter, tsk-tsking, and whiny criticism.

I'm not sure that the "institutions of power" that Cummings says Obama has cut himself off from ever wanted to connect with him...unless it was to make him follow their dictates. After all, that's why they are "institutions of power."

I don't believe anyone - including progressive economists like Paul Krugman - realized that the stimulus money most likely to make an immediate impact on the economy, tax cuts, extended unemployment, etc., went instead to debt repayment (de-leveraging). Plus, much of the stimulus ended up helping states and localities avoid depression-level layoffs. The White House failed to explain that.


The White House failed to explain (0.00 / 0)
a whole encylcopaedia of stuff, maybe because they did not understand it themselves. Remember, Obama latched on to faithful hounds of Wall Street for his economic advisors (Geithner, Summers, etc) and never had input from anyone from the non-Free Market crew. I think myself that Obama, lacking much education in economics and finance, frightened by the mighty power of Wall Street, and uncertain how to deal with the collapse (which apparently was much, much worse than he realized at first) panicked, and turned to Conventional Wisdom as a safe guide. Once committed, it was too late to adjust his course, he was a captive.

The campaign had been about health care and proving that he was not a wimpy pacifist (which was why he came up with the Afghan surge, I think), and he and his advisors were reluctant to wade into finance and economics, and make amateurish mistakes. Which, IMO, is exactly what they did in fact do in the final analysis... They simply had no way of coming up with FDR-type programs because the situation was not on their radar, and Republicans were constantly on their backs---- the cacophony was deafening.

The High Priests of Free Market took over---- they convinced BHO that modern Wall Street finance was too complicated for anyone but themselves to deal with it (like a mystery religion), and everything else follows.  


[ Parent ]
FDR Programs... (0.00 / 0)
President Obama couldn't undertake "FDR-type programs" because those programs already existed. When people who are laid off can receive unemployment benefits, which were extended several times and are likely to be once again in whatever compromise emerges over taxes, they can hold on far longer than people could in the 1930's. The jobs programs set up by FDR won't fly when unemployment benefits exist.

My surprise was that big infrastructure things weren't pushed: rebuilding the national electrical grid, expediting and then building those off-shore wind farms, etc.

I do understand why so much of the stimulus money was given to the states to prop up education and security. That didn't produce extra jobs, but it did keep the unemployment rate from being far worse and from terrible damage being done to education.


[ Parent ]
I agree, but (0.00 / 0)
there again, those electeds who were in the pocket of Big Oil, or Big Pharma (such as, for example, Blanche Lincoln) simply would not have signed on to the bill if stuff like wind farms were really given a major boost. Art of the possible, y'know, that's politics.

I was thinking more of Civilian Conservation Corps to rebuild bridges and such. But that would be socialism, cutting out construction firms (like those which built so many installations in Iraq). And, what about the mortgage foreclosures? Nothing even proposed touched on that problem in an effective way---- the puny effort to renegotiate the terms of mortgages was so skewed to benefit banks not homeowners that it plain has not worked. Where was the innovative program which would have actually helped homeowners, and forced banks to eat part of the bad loans they shoved down the throats of borrowers? Isn't it past time for the bankers to suffer a little?


[ Parent ]
Ah.. (0.00 / 0)
that's the rub...electeds are in the pockets of whoever purchases them with campaign donations and flattery. They either deliver or the money won't be forthcoming next time. So..they usually deliver.

[ Parent ]
Another thing is Politico's own contribution (0.00 / 0)
to the mess with its constant negativism and criticism of Obama.  There's a snarky tone in much of what they write about Obama, a sort of patronizing cynicism which is quite pervasive in many of its articles.  He can't do anything without a Politico writer poking at it.  

[ Parent ]
Isn't Politico (0.00 / 0)
another Republican mouthpiece, or corporatist mouthpiece, masquerading as even-handed professional commentary? Commentary carefully couched in reasoned phrases which appeal to the liberal mindset. In other words, they are playing mind games.... as Ms. Cummings' speech went on, I began to get an uncomfortable feeling, difficult to put my finger on, but I have learned to trust my instincts on such occasions, and it usually turns out the speaker is trying to sell me a bill of goods. Bamboozlement on a level above that of the carny guy or used car salesman, but in the same category.

[ Parent ]
So what is the message? (0.00 / 0)
We all know the tenants of GOP-ism: small government, lower taxes, traditional values & marriage, Christian morality, anti-immigration, etc.

Can anyone here articulate in short phrases progressive principles? Often we argue that our problems cannot be solved with simple messages. But that's the way people vote.  They vote based on an emotional response to a simple message. If it isn't coming from the top, maybe we need to generate from the grassroots.

I've attempted it here, but what are your bullet points?  Complaining about a lack of message without articulating one is a cop-out.  If it's so easy we should be able to do it.

www.CommonwealthCommonsense.com


[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)
I just found your comment, and linked to commonwealthcommonsense.com. Thank you for a list of progressive Democratic principles. We tried to do the same (set up a bullet list of Democratic principles, or at least progressive ones) after my series on "Hard Lessons"  on Bluecommonwealth.com. after the Deed's debacle. It went toward many of the same things you mentioned, but added stuff like social contract. I find that, talking with my hard right son (a graduate of West Point) and what I consider his neo-fascist buddies, that we start from utterly different concepts of the reason homo sapiens have a social system in the first place, and utterly different ideas about the use and purpose of government. That, at root, is where the progressive principles should be stated, in contrast to those of the authoritarian, frightened conservative starting point.

[ Parent ]
Advertising

Donate to Blue Virginia

About
The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, and "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!

P.S. You can contact us at lowell@raisingkaine.com and you can subscribe to Lowell's Twitter feed here. If you'd like to subscribe to Miles Grant's Twitter feed, click here. For Teacherken, click here. For Kindler, click here.

P.P.S. To see the Blue Virginia archive, please click here. To see the Raising Kaine archive, please click here. To see the Blue Commonwealth archive, please click here.



RSS Feed

Subscribe to Blue Virginia - Front Page


Powered by: SoapBlox