It's a change in tone, of strategy, of tactics. It is at last a bold rejoinder to the charge that apparently has baffled Dems for years, that they (and not the GOPers who actually are fighting and--so far-- winning it) are engaged in class warfare. But I've been arguing that, if you were paying attention, it's not that big a change, and that there's understandable reason for tactical changes that have do to with governing, not electoral politics.
You've read this reasoning here before, but it was stated earlier this week in this way:
Today`s "New York Times" quotes White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer saying, "It is fair to say we`ve entered a new phase. The popular narrative is that we sought compromise in a quixotic quest for independent votes. We sought out compromise because a failure to get funding of the government last spring and then an extension of the debt ceiling would have been very bad for the economy and for the country. We were in a position of legislative compromise by necessity. That phase is over.
This of course doesn't stop commentators of any persuasion, some of whom may legitimately feel that there's another story, but all of whom make their considerable livings promoting themselves and their views. It's amazing how many progressive commentators are taking credit for President Obama's recent policies and speeches. In substance however, there's nothing new--everything he is advocating now he has advocated before. His strategies and tactical objectives have been questioned all along, and are questioned by some even now. But there were good reasons for those choices, even if they turned out to not always yield optimal results. Of course, it is always possible to argue that if he had pursued a different strategy using different tactics, he would have been more successful. There's no way to prove that but there's also no way to prove it isn't true--and there in a nutshell you have the secret of successful punditry.
Time will tell more about the relative success of Obama's strategies and his accomplishments. Much of the health care law hasn't kicked in yet. It's very difficult to make an obvious case that had it not been for his stimulus package, things would be much worse--but those who know those numbers are quite sure it is so. The stimulus benefited state and local governments above all, but mostly by keeping them from collapsing, from firing a lot of police, teachers, etc., but they didn't have to, so while the status quo was a victory, it's not an obvious one.
Even the deal that the White House got under the duress of the debt ceiling hostage crisis may turn out to have turned the tide of GOPer power. Last week the GOPer House tried to force cuts in a green jobs program--for hybrid cars--to balance FEMA funding for emergencies, as part of the overall federal government appropriation. When they couldn't get any Democrats to support it, it was defeated because the more Rabid Right members also voted against it--because it didn't cut enough. Then they passed another such bill, which won't pass the Senate intact. All the while claiming they wouldn't force a government shutdown--a very marked change in tone. It could be because such a shutdown would violate that earlier agreement and set all kinds of things in motion.
House GOPers crow about President Obama's declining favorables, but theirs are in the tank--less than half of the President's. They're on the defensive, despite the media's fixation on the President's numbers.
As for 2012, Cowboy Rick has had two universally panned debate performances in a row, while the debates have exposed the true nature of the Rabid Right, with audience cheers for the high number of executions in Texas and the death of someone because he didn't have health care, and for booing a soldier serving in Iraq because he admitted he is gay.
At the moment the same punditry that was anointing Cowboy Rick as the certain nominee is claiming that he is done. But the next round of polls will tell that tale. If Cowboy Rick hasn't slipped substantially, they may well be stuck with him.
No comments:
Post a Comment