As Obama’s Poll Numbers Fade, He Finally Uses Some Rhetoric to Defend Himself

[bananas]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/297953/obama-popularity-fades-rhetoric/

As Obama’s Poll Numbers Fade, He Finally Uses Some Rhetoric to Defend Himself
By Joe Romm on Aug 17, 2011 at 12:51 pm



Obama has hit an all-time low in unpopularity in Gallup tracking. No surprise, really:

1. The economy is still doing poorly
2. He spent months talking about the debt ceiling rather than the economic issue the voters care most about — and the voters weren’t fooled into thinking cutting the debt would stimulate either jobs or the recovery.
3. His messaging is still lame. As NY Times biz reporter Joe Nocera wrote last week, “When did President Obama become such a lousy speech-maker? His remarks on Monday afternoon, aimed at calming the markets, were flat and uninspired–as they have consistently been throughout the debt ceiling crisis.”
4. He looked weak by the end of the debt ceiling deal — he had been insisting on a balanced approach that included revenues and ultimately agreed to sign one that did not include them.

In short, while Americans suffer, Obama focused on the wrong issue, he didn’t talk about it effectively, and he was rolled.

<snip>

[TwilightGardener]

1. Why do I keep seeing, in the lefty blogosphere, the idea that the

debt ceiling deal was supposed to be some sort of stimulus or was intended to improve the economy? It was a reactive move to Republicans acting crazy, an effort to SALVAGE our credit rating--it wasn't intended to help at all.

[Autumn]

2. No one has claimed that it was supposed to be some

sort of stimulus.

"2. He spent months talking about the debt ceiling rather than the economic issue the voters care most about — and the voters weren’t fooled into thinking cutting the debt would stimulate either jobs or the recovery."

That pretty clear.

[bananas]

4. That's the problem - Obama's deal isn't intended to help at all - and it won't.

Obama blew it big time.

[Autumn]

5. He allowed the pukes to frame the debate

and that is what screwed the pooch. Voters see him as ineffective because in this instance he was.

[a simple pattern]

16. I disagree.

He is a debate-framing puke and not ineffective at all.

[TwilightGardener]

6. No, it was and is a loser. But the idea that it was some sort of

policy intended to boost the economy is just wrong. Obama should have averted the plan to hijack the debt ceiling at least 8 months ago--he'd had time to do it, since GOPers were talking about doing it back in 2010. That said, I understand where he was coming from when it was negotiated and passed--there was no question that not raising the ceiling would have tanked the economy even worse than it's tanking now.

[bananas]

10. I think you're misunderstanding the criticism

You seem to be talking about this sentence:
"2. He spent months talking about the debt ceiling rather than the economic issue the voters care most about — and the voters weren’t fooled into thinking cutting the debt would stimulate either jobs or the recovery."

The Republicans have been saying that the debt has to be reduced to help the economy,
and that it had to be reduced by cutting spending, not raising taxes.
Obama went along with that and put SS and Medicare on the table as well.
This cartoon sums it up:

[Autumn]

11. You are generous. No way a person can misunderstand that.

That's just avoidance and pushing an agenda. Great cartoon. Thank you I am going to keep that.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. Does it matter what he put on the table?

He put it on the table as part of a "grand bargain" that would have presumably including some revenue increases. When those went off the table, any substantial changes to SS and Medicare were taken off as well. I would add that it wasn't even clear what kind of changes might have been agreed to in regards to SS and Medicare.

As far as President Obama spending more time talking about the debt ceiling, I don't think it was by choice. The Republicans were threatening to default (which would've been awful for the economy) and President Obama gradually realized that they would actually "shoot the hostage" and had to be the responsible adult and figure out some kind of solution to the problem- since Congress apparently wasn't capable of doing anything about it in time.

[woo me with science]

17. Because that is the story Obama told this country:

He stood up there and TOLD Americans that that spending and benefit cuts were necessary to yield the "solid fiscal situation" that America needs *before* tackling infrastructure and jobs projects:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

"I mean, the infrastructure bank that we’ve proposed is relatively small. But could we imagine a project where we’re rebuilding roads and bridges and ports and schools and broadband lines and smart grids, and taking all those construction workers and putting them to work right now? I can imagine a very aggressive program like that that I think the American people would rally around and would be good for the economy not just next year or the year after, but for the next 20 or 30 years.

But we can’t even have that conversation if people feel as if we don't have our fiscal house in order. So the idea here is let’s act now. Let’s get this problem off the table. And then with some firm footing, with a solid fiscal situation, we will then be in a position to make the kind of investments that I think are going to be necessary to win the future."

He told this Republican lie knowing that 300 economists had already warned him of the dangers of slashing spending during an already weak economy:

"Three hundred economists released a letter to President Obama (9/2010) with one message: focus on jobs, not on the deficit...."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x560332

Bottom line: He stood up in front of the country and validated this Republican lie about what the economy needs in order to recover.

.

[LWolf]

3. He needs more than rhetoric.

He needs some aggressive, unapologetic action.

[Angry Dragon]

7. When you govern by polls you have no principles

edit: spelling

[SavWriter]

8. Agreed

Worse, governing out of fear. That is why President Obama and the rest are doing what they are. Afraid that Jeff Immelt and the rest of the Corporate Controllers will pull the cash strings.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Principles.

[Angry Dragon]

12. Grammer Nazi

:hi:

Thank you ........ will edit

[tblue]

13. He seems really uncomfortable fighting.

It feels strange to me, like he really hates doing it. Guess it's not his nature but I think, being his constituents and his party, we have every right to expect he will fight to protect us. Whether he wants to or not. And not just for his reelection, which seems to be the reason he's decided to go tough. It's not for us. It's for him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. How can he be an effective fighter if nobody really has his back?

:shrug: