A Second Honeymoon for the Obama Administration

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Obama needs to radically change the focus of his administration from advancing a range of wise broad policies (a good thing in the abstract) to narrow economic crisis management.

This is essential as national policy and also essential politically.

The calculation was made coming in that maybe the economy wasn't that bad and since major policy stuff usually has to go through in year one the grim realities should be finessed for a greater good.

And that's fine. An understandable calculated risk.

But the economy is that weak and the administration has lost much credibility with the public. Though individual Republicans are not beloved, republican ideas (sic) are regaining currency... sometimes even in the WH. And those pug notions of lower govt spending, less money supply and higher interest rates to fight inflation that doesn't exist will, if they win the day, wreck this country for a generation.

Obama needs a second honeymoon to deal with pressing economic issues. Congress doesn't want to spend a nickel. The pubic doesn't want to spend a nickel. That must change.

Suggestion: Very humble, straightforward address to the nation. Trade on likability, sincerity and what's left of his outsider status.

This economy is kicking everyone's ass. It's kicking yours and its kicking mine. The signs of recovery we have been seeing are weak and unsustainable and if we do not act in strong, and maybe even a little uncomfortable, ways your live will be harder for years and years, your children are going to earn less than you and the national debt will never be reduced. The situation is that bad, people. I must admit to you--the people who pay my salary--that we should have done more already. And more help should have gone to you the people, and less help to big corporations.

I could blow smoke at you about how these top economists said this, or Congress wouldn't cooperate with that, but excuses won't put food on your table or send your kids to college. The buck stops on my desk. We need to do more than we have done and that is on me. That is going to change... I am requesting x, y, z.

[mike_c]

1. if he starts by going to the Pentagon's budget for the money, I'll support him...

...one hundred percent. Gut the MIC and use the money saved to rebuild America. Now THAT'S change I can believe in!

[Tesha]

2. It would be great, but it won't happen; Rahm and corporations wouldn't allow it.

The multinationals will do fine no matter what happens to us.

Tesha

[Sinti]

5. Rahm is not the president

President Obama is and the full responsibility for his actions fall on him and I'm sure he realizes that - he is, after all, a full grown man. I fully expect he can manage his manager. Everything that happened/happens after January 20, 2009 until he leaves office, he owns it - no one else to blame. I'm sure he knows this.

The multinationals could be broken up, at least in this nation. We are not without options for fixing the economy holistically, rather than the piecemeal approach where we try to preserve the monopolization of capital. The strategies exist, but much of the nation would revolt if he did what needs to be done quickly - you'd have something akin to civil war, with gun-toting fascists in the street talking about preserving their freedom - the freedom to be owned by large, paper-obsessed corporations. The corporations also own nearly all the media from which the people get information - it's a very stacked deck.

Before President Obama can do anything major (and he's given no signal that he plans to) he would need to get the public mind to fully understand that these corps are often criminal enterprises, corporations are not human beings, and human beings should come first - IOW, the preponderance of the American public would have to get madder than hell at the monopolies. ATM they don't seem to recognize that they are actually monopolies draining their life's blood.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Obama simply wont' do that. He is more than capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time

There are many problems facing the nation. As President, it is his job to work on everything and advance what appears to be his slightly left of center agenda. As the head of the American empire, he will continue to direct a foreign imperial policy until the empire is broken.

He did not even have the first. The honeymoon concept in politics is a period of time when the opposition will go along with the President's party to reflect the desires of the electorate after getting their ass kicked. He never had a first honeymoon. There is no second honeymoon in politics. The party of no is not going to suddenly become what they have called socialists, though it would probably do their party a lot of good.

If Obama changed his entire policy to exactly what Republicans wanted, they would change what they want to something ever more draconian.

What you ask for here is simply not going to happen. There are more things happening in heaven and earth than a single, focused economic agenda can address, Kurt_and_Hunter. (My apologies to Shakespeare for the paraphrase.)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. As one of Du's resident pessimists I largely agree, but...

As one of Du's resident pessimists I largely agree, but I feel some obligation to the concept of a best-possible (even if wildly unlikely) course, even if it is likely to fail. (Or, much likelier, to never be pursued.)