"The State of the Union set a cunning trap for Obama’s enemies."

[Pirate Smile]

Snore or Snare?
The State of the Union set a cunning trap for Obama’s enemies.

The ideas and policy proposals in Barack Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address were anything but fresh and original. Much of it could easily have been harvested from any number of interchangeable speeches given during the last 20 years—not just by presidents by members of Congress, governors, mayors, and CEOs—from both parties. Yet that may have been exactly the point. By staking his claim to decades of well-worn political detritus, I think Obama has set a cunning political trap for his enemies.

-snip-
And that’s the beauty of Obama’s address. He basically put together every modest, centrist, reasonable-sounding idea for public investment aimed at job creation and economic growth that anyone has ever uttered; and he did so at the exact moment that the GOP has abandoned the very concept of public investment altogether. He’s thrown into relief the fact that Republicans no longer seem interested in any government efforts to boost the economy, except where they offer an excuse to reduce the size and power of government.
Paul Ryan’s deficit-maniac response played right into Obama’s trap: Ryan barely mentioned the economy other to imply that every dollar taken away from the public sector will somehow create jobs in the private sector economy (a private sector economy wherein, as Obama cleverly noted, corporate profits are setting records). For those who buy the idea that government is the only obstacle to an economic boom, this makes sense. But for everybody else, the contrast between a Democratic president with a lot of small, familiar ideas for creating jobs and growth, and a Republican Party with just one big idea, is inescapable. It’s a vehicle for the “two alternate futures” choice which Obama will try to offer voters in 2012.

Moreover, Obama’s tone—the constant invocation of bipartisanship at a time when Republicans are certain to oppose most of what he’s called for, while going after the progressive programs and policies of the past—should sound familiar as well. It was Bill Clinton’s constant refrain, which he called “progress over partisanship,” during his second-term struggle with the Republican Congress. During that period, the Republicans being asked to transcend “partisanship” were trying to remove Clinton from office. And Clinton wasn’t really extending his hand in a gesture of cooperation with the GOP but, by creating a contrast with their ideological fury, indicating that he himself embodied the bipartisan aspirations of the American people and the best ideas of both parties. It was quite effective.

By playing this rope-a-dope, Obama has positioned himself well to push back hard against the conservative agenda. Having refused to offer Republicans the cover they crave for “entitlement reform,” while offering his own modest, reasonable-sounding deficit reduction measures, he’s forcing the GOP to either go after Social Security and Medicare on their own—which is very perilous to a party whose base has become older voters—or demand unprecedented cuts for those popular public investments that were the centerpiece of his speech. Either way, in a reversal of positions from the last two years, Obama looks like he is focused on doing practical things to boost the economy, while it’s Republicans who are talking about everything else. Boring it may have been, but as a positioning device for the next two years, Obama’s speech was a masterpiece.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/82175/sotu-obama-republicans-trap

[emulatorloo]

1. Thanks for posting. n/t

[yodermon]

2. our only hope is for him to move to the left during his 2nd term

I'm not holding my breath however.

[emulatorloo]

4. our only hope is for him to paint the Republicans into a corner, and for the Democrats

to display some solidarity. We saw some of that in the lame duck, also have seen it during the debate in the house so far (HCR repeal)

[JustAnotherGen]

7. ITA with you

And he brought up a key point of compromise re: HCR last night . . . I.E. the Republican's had a good idea on Tort Reform.


But compromise, compromise - I'd bet my eye teeth that the compromise is only going to be for phsicians that accept medicare and medicaid.

And if that's the case - last night? He opened the door for Medicare for all. Just my little observation and spidey sense - and overall thought.

The Republicans are screwed. They only know how to play this game ONE way and many are in Swing Districts.

[yodermon]

9. "He opened the door for Medicare for all"

hmm.. I like your spidey sense.. can you elaborate?

[JustAnotherGen]

24. Sorry – just came back to this.

Tort Reform - President Obama said he was open to this in the speech. . .

Now in all honesty it's not just my spidey sense ;-) – I thought it was R. Reich while the debate over insurance reform was happening two summers ago that threw this out there.

I.E. – Let’s say we start by providing protections to physicians, dentists, eye doctors, etc. etc. IF they accept Medicaid and Medicare. Wow – that drops THEIR insurance costs down. This means that their costs get lowered and the Medi patients are more profitable to them.

Then the medical community starts to say – why can’t EVERYONE by Medicare? Well then everyone would need to be able to 'purchase' it via a payroll tax if they so opted. Right? And to make the Republicans with their Personal Responsibility/Anti The Little Guy Getting Justice nonsense happy -we say when we opt in: Buyer Beware.

Just thinking ‘out loud’ here on DU. I remember Reich saying something about this I *think* in late August 2009 – it was in his call for counter protests – which caused me to email him from his blog and tell him I would go if it’s being organized.


I’m generally a person who believes: Everyone should get their day in a court of law. But what if we provided protections/lifetime limits on Physicians that accept Medicare? I’m sure there are a LOT of negatives to this but It’s just an idea.

[Clio the Leo]

3. occurred to me making the photo thread....

.... we had a speech that had the GOP and Dems on their feet.

How far we've come.

[hedgehog]

5. Works for me.

[stubtoe]

6. I agree, he pulled the rug right out from under them.

Whatever you think about him politically, he is a masterful orator. I can't help but see him gain considerable traction in his objectives following this SOTU.

[RobinA]

8. Isn't This

just another version of the old three dimensional chess argument? At this point, I'll believe when I see it. I have a small sputtering glimmer of hope that he will take a baby step to the left during his second term, but this is most likely me thinking wishfully. I never have believed he was all that liberal. More like center right.

[newtothegame]

10. Oh def. Chess. Same thing with tax cuts for the rich. Mandated insurance. Etc. nt

[Smashcut]

11. IT'S MORE CHESS!!!

:rofl:

[Kurovski]

12. Yeah.

I wonder who's caught in that "cunning trap" when I end up homeless.

I love chess! I get to be a pawn! :D

[Safetykitten]

16. Yes, yes! More chess. Less actual problem solving.

[boppers]

29. I wonder how many people who make chess comments actually play?

Is DU a secret meeting location for Grand Masters?

[pacalo]

13. In the same vein of the article, what stood out for me was the hopeful talk about

high-speed rail, where California's plans were lauded. It made me furious all over again with Bobby Jindal, my howdy-doody Republican-rubberstamping governor who called it "wasteful spending" during his pathetically blunderous SOTU horror show, then flip-flopped when the national audience was gone & asked for $300 million in federal funds to connect Baton Rouge to New Orleans by high-speed rail.

In addition to that, we've got lots of road construction projects going on in the New Orleans area; most sugnificantly, long-needed improvements on the interstate that will do wonders for previously backed-up traffic during rush hours. On these projects, Jindal has refused to put up signs saying that the work is due to the "Recovery Act". Now, that shows how two-faced Jindal is.

[Pirate Smile]

14. kick

[TheKentuckian]

15. Trap? This has been the way it has been played the whole way.

They either push further out into the distance of regressive batshitness or knuckle under and accept their own bullshit solutions that he has adopted.

The "win" is symbolic at best, probably a loss by mucking about in their failed system and ideology, and at worst a complete cock up that puts them back in charge of sinking the Titanic.

[quaker bill]

27. yes it has

but it is different now. The last two years the republicans were able to hide behind Democratic majorities. Now they are calling the shots in the House. Either they compromise to govern which will truly irritate the TEA party base, or they obstruct, pass meaningless crap that will not get the time of day in the Senate, and become responsible for government grinding to a halt in service to ideology, as opposed to being in service to the people.

Because this time republicans must own up to the results, it is different.

[jillan]

17. He's playing chess again. He set the republicans up for failure.

And made Paul Ryan look like a depressing fool.

[Lucky Luciano]

18. After the midterm disaster, I remember reading that bill Clinton

Was going to start providing Obama with advice. It is quite noticeable.

[golfguru]

19. Could it result in gain of congressional seats in 2012?

If the economy comes roaring back, that is exactly what will happen.
And the president will be re-elected by larger EV's than in 2008.

[GeorgeGist]

20. Still believing that Obama can play chess ...

on a Ouija board? How sad that you can't accept mediocrity for what it is.

[Laelth]

21. If what Clinton did was "effective," then I hope Obama is utterly ineffective. n/t

-Laelth

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laelth]

23. I'll give the author credit for recognizing that Clinton was successful at making himself look good.

But his Presidency was a disaster for the Democratic Party and for the liberal policy agenda, as I am sure you know.

If Obama's choices are 1) to give the Republicans everything they want but to look good in the process, like Clinton, or 2) to do nothing, I would prefer that he do nothing.

And here I am talking about Clinton after 1994. Clinton's first two years in office, despite the failure of Health Care reform and the passage of NAFTA, were O.K.

-Laelth

[opihimoimoi]

25. Obama ROOKED them GOPers.....rope a dope did well....they are flummoxed and confused

[paulk]

26. I don't buy this sort of argument

if the American people were paying any attention to this kind of thing, they wouldn't have voted the same people who got us into this mess back into power in our most recent election.

[quaker bill]

28. precisely n/t