Secretary Geitner is having a troubling first couple of months. With his tax problems and now AIG's bonus fiasco, Geitner needs some time to have things go smoothly for a while. While some repubs are calling for resignation (waste of time) it does seem some repubs are setting the stage for a future fight. They are keeping the list of Geitner mistakes so in the future if any more happen they can take some air out of Obama's sails by saying Geitner's useless.
How would they do this? Well, the repubs have nothing right now. No platform, no leader, no solutions. Nothing! All they have is the No vote in the senate. So, right now their whole platform is about finding mistakes with Obama/dems and with Obama's big agenda. They want to derail it anyway they can. Even if it sacrifices the country.
So, in the future, if Geitner has made enough mistakes, they lend wieght to their argument to have Obama fire Geitner b/c they weren't really asking for it now. Basically, they are investing now to have a bigger voice later.
Then, if something does happen, having a distracting call for Geitner's resignation, it distracts Obama, the media, and the people from his agenda.
I would say half of politics is investing now (with letters to government agencies, speeches, ets) so that they can refer back to it in the future saying "I did it way back then."
Where were these people back before the Iraq war?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Obama's Continuous Campaign?
A lot has been written recently about Obama's apparent focus of his speeches in states that were/might be swing states.
Politico has a story:
"Obama has been making down payments on his political future since the moment he got elected – aligning Cabinet picks, political staffers and his nascent Organizing for America outreach effort to lay down a foundation for building support for his ambitious agenda and the campaigns to come in 2010 and 2012."
Huffington Post has this doozy about his NCAA tournament picks.
As well as Politicalwire.
Well, does this mean its true. No. I have two perspectives. The first is good for him. Getting out of DC was a campaign promise and so what if he tends to pick states that are toss ups. Does Obama ONLY go to these states? Of course not. He was just here in lala land with Arnie. They were having the time of their lives.
The second is I really hope he doesn't spend too much time in these states where the talking point might stick. There is something distracting and distasteful to be continuously campaigning. He got in on the change/outsider platform. He doesn't want to lose the persona that he's not "one of them." While he will lose a little of that image b/c he's president, he can't sacrifice too much of it. People are fed up with DC and he needs to keep the outsider image as long as possible.
Politico has a story:
"Obama has been making down payments on his political future since the moment he got elected – aligning Cabinet picks, political staffers and his nascent Organizing for America outreach effort to lay down a foundation for building support for his ambitious agenda and the campaigns to come in 2010 and 2012."
Huffington Post has this doozy about his NCAA tournament picks.
As well as Politicalwire.
Well, does this mean its true. No. I have two perspectives. The first is good for him. Getting out of DC was a campaign promise and so what if he tends to pick states that are toss ups. Does Obama ONLY go to these states? Of course not. He was just here in lala land with Arnie. They were having the time of their lives.
The second is I really hope he doesn't spend too much time in these states where the talking point might stick. There is something distracting and distasteful to be continuously campaigning. He got in on the change/outsider platform. He doesn't want to lose the persona that he's not "one of them." While he will lose a little of that image b/c he's president, he can't sacrifice too much of it. People are fed up with DC and he needs to keep the outsider image as long as possible.
Ironic, Isn't It
Politicalwire has a good pickup. After Obama's gaffe about special olympics, Palin blasts him about it and then turns down stimulus money that would have helped education of special need kids. What was the name of that Alanis Morrisette song? Ahh that's right.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Obama's First Major Political Challenge
Obama has been facing many challenges and some have been political. But AIG's decision to give out huge bonuses to individuals that basically sank the company is a major political challenge. Why?
First, ordinary Americans should get angry at the CEO's decision to give out money to losers. I'm angry. With angry people, there is a chance that anger might get directed at Obama or congress. While technically the TARP funds were approved under Bush, most people won't remember that. So with angry people, Obama has to do something. If he doesn't he will be seen as not standing up for the principles he campaigned on. Definite problem.
Second, the public is starting to get tired of bailouts/stimulus. Obama will most likely need to give out more money in the future (car companies, another TARP payment, etc) So with the public souring on the free money give-away, he might suffer a backlash if he gives out more money and this happens again.
What can Obama do. Well, he's doing it already. He has stated publicly that he will try and stop them. Good start. Then, there have been a chorus of dems stating they will do what they can to stop the bonuses. Examples:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has said she will get them back. One way or another
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has stated she will tax 100% of the bonuses
There are more dems to come also. Why should all dems come out against this? It looks bad if congress does nothing. So they need to do something. Now, I hope it is not political grandstanding. I really do hope they are standing up because it is bullshit that AIG did this.
Update: The Post has an article describing how people's anger might be hurting Obama's agenda.
First, ordinary Americans should get angry at the CEO's decision to give out money to losers. I'm angry. With angry people, there is a chance that anger might get directed at Obama or congress. While technically the TARP funds were approved under Bush, most people won't remember that. So with angry people, Obama has to do something. If he doesn't he will be seen as not standing up for the principles he campaigned on. Definite problem.
Second, the public is starting to get tired of bailouts/stimulus. Obama will most likely need to give out more money in the future (car companies, another TARP payment, etc) So with the public souring on the free money give-away, he might suffer a backlash if he gives out more money and this happens again.
What can Obama do. Well, he's doing it already. He has stated publicly that he will try and stop them. Good start. Then, there have been a chorus of dems stating they will do what they can to stop the bonuses. Examples:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has said she will get them back. One way or another
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has stated she will tax 100% of the bonuses
There are more dems to come also. Why should all dems come out against this? It looks bad if congress does nothing. So they need to do something. Now, I hope it is not political grandstanding. I really do hope they are standing up because it is bullshit that AIG did this.
Update: The Post has an article describing how people's anger might be hurting Obama's agenda.
"The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides yesterday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)