Democratic Party Convention 2012
Explore:
After hope and change, can Obama make the sale?
President Obama waves with former President Bill Clinton after Clinton's speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012.
/ AP Photo/Lynne Sladky(CBS News) CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- In 2008, President Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for president by promising Americans hope and change -- as he put it four years ago, "a new politics for a new time."
As an incumbent president in 2012, he has to run on his record, not just his potential. And that means finding a way to connect to those 2008 voters who rallied around his pre-inauguration promises -- and in some cases are now disappointed that he did not live up to them.
Not even Mr. Obama would claim that he's brought wholesale positive change to Washington. If anything, he's presided over a time when the two major parties have grown more polarized. Few Americans look at Washington today and see, as he put it, a new politics for a new time. Most seem to see the bad old politics of the old days -- only worse. They look at the economy and they see improvement from the depths of the recession, but they don't see the sort of upward prosperity trend that they once saw as their birthright.
Mr. Obama's challenge on Thursday night, when he accepts the Democratic nomination for president, will be to make the case that he deserves four more years nonetheless. And he needs to do it in a way that exceeds the lofty expectations that come with his reputation as a public speaker but is grounded enough that Americans don't see his promises as empty.
"What he now has to propose is there's still hope for change. That it's not too late to invest in him for change. And that's a tough sell," said Jonathan Rauch, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution in Governance Studies.
According to a senior Obama campaign official, the president plans to "lay out a path forward" that will give Americans "a good idea of what a second term of an Obama presidency would mean."
The official said the speech will reflect the challenges both the president and the country have faced over the past four years, adding that "the American people are very understanding of that -- of the situation that he walked into, and what he did about it." The president plans to make the case that while Americans aren't necessarily where they want to be, they're better off than they were when Mr. Obama took office.
Paul Glastris, the former chief speechwriter for President Clinton who now edits the Washington Monthly, said Mr. Obama needs to talk specifically about his accomplishments over the past four years. He argued that Mr. Obama has been reticent to do so because it has been hard for the average American to see how those accomplishments have impacted his or her life.
"He's got to make the case that the achievements of the last four years are the basis for the policy actions for the next four years," said Glastris. "That the first four years are the foundation for a grand plan."
"You make a case for what you inherited, what you did, what the successes were, what you encountered along the way, and why the job isn't done," added Congressional scholar Thomas Mann. "But in the course of it, taking some real pride in what's been accomplished."
Bob Shrum, a longtime Democratic insider lauded for his speechwriting abilities, also argued that Mr. Obama will benefit from getting more specific than his Republican opponent.
"Romney's economic plan [at the Republican National Convention] took up less time then talking about Neil Armstrong in his acceptance speech, and as much as I respect Neil Armstrong, that's not the right balance," he said.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 437 Comments
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 173 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 100 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 66 Comments
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 210 Comments
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 226 Comments
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
Problem he has is that vision without execution is hallucination.
Hope and Change = Median household income down $4,300
Hope and Change = 2 million more Hispanics living in poverty
Hope and Change = $5 trillion increase in National debt
Hope and Change = 3 in 10 young adults living with parents
Hope and Change = Black teen unemployment rises to 37%
Hope and Change = dollar versus gold decline of 95%
*"The largest middle class tax increase in history" - the ObamaCare Tax (2008 Obama Campaign/CBO)
*The proportion of the civilian working-age population actually working, at 58%, is the smallest since the 1981 (Labor Department).
• The federal debt, at 69% of GDP, is the highest since just after WWII (CBO). Note: This does NOT include Social Security or Medicare which would put it up over 100%.
• Federal spending, now at 23.4% of GDP, is the highest since WWII (CBO).
• The national homeownership rate, now at 65.4%, is the lowest in 15 years (Census).
• The rate of new business startups — the engine of job growth — has plunged to an all-time low of 7.87% of all businesses (Census Bureau).
*The average American household spent a staggering $4,155 on gasoline during 2011 (API).
*Real median household income has declined $4,300 since Barack Obama entered the White House.
• 3 in 10 young adults can't find jobs and live with their parents, highest since the 1950s (Pew Research).
• 54% of bachelor's degree-holders under the age of 25 are jobless or underemployed, the highest share in decades (Northeastern University).
2) Working Population - The number is true; the inference that it is Obama/Pelosi policies that created it is conservative propaganda. The economic meltdown was caused by multiple factors and Republicans have at least as much of the responsibility as Democrats - and neither was the primary problem.
3) Debt - The number is true; the inference that it is Obama created it is conservative propaganda. $13T of the $16T debt was incurred due to REPUBLICAN actions, almost $11T due to the Bush tax cuts, unfunded wars, unfunded drug giveaways, and the economic meltdown - NONE of which are Obama's actions.
4) Spending - The number is true; the inference that it is Obama created it is conservative propaganda. See #2 and #3 above. The increase in "federal spending" is virtually all due to increases on interest payments of the total debt, and a little by defense increases pushed by Republicans. The total amount og spending that can be attributed to Obama's actions is the Stimulus package which, over 10 years, is actually a NET ZERO with the savings from the ACA.
5) Home Owners - The number is true; the inference that it is Obama created it is conservative propaganda. Home ownership is low because of the collapse of the housing market and the large number of people unable to make their (now overly inflated) mortgage payments, ALL of which is due to events that occurred before Obama was in office.
6) Startups - New business startups are NOT the "engine of job growth." They are on factor. The larger "engine of job growth" is expansion in small businesses that already exist. That said, however, nothing Obama has done has restricted investments in new businesses - with capital gains taxes at the lowest level in 60 years, and business profits at the highest levels, every possible incentive exists for large players to invest (and they aren't) and the other main source of funds, bank loans, are deeply restricted by banks refusing to lend - not by Obama. In fact, under Obama the Small business Administration has made MORE money available than any previous time in history. http://www.sba.gov/about-sba-services/7367/27101
7) Gas Prices - Obama has NO IMPACT on gas prices.
8) Household income - The number is true; the inference that it is Obama created it is conservative propaganda. See all of the above re the economy. The top 1% have been doing phenomenally well, only the middle class is suffering - which is why Republicans want to give MORE TAX CUTS to the 1% and raise taxes on the middle class AND MAKE IT WORSE.
9) Children at home - The number is true; the inference that it is Obama created it is conservative propaganda. See all of the above re the economy and the bursting of the housing bubble.
10) Unemployed - The number is true; the inference that it is Obama created it is conservative propaganda. See all of the above re the economy.
So in summary, nice list of numbers and complete BS in connecting that Obama's policies created them. REPUBLICAN policies created most of them, and Obama is fixing them.
As Chris Rock so aptly put it, ""If you vote against Obama because he can't get stuff done, it's kind of like saying 'This guy can't cure cancer. I'm gonna vote for cancer.'"
No? That's because he hasnt done ANYTHING to amke it worse - he has only been trying to make it better after things started to burn down around our ears, BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED.
arth, your statement about Taxes and investment above is false. First, there is not one shred of evidence that raising taxes stimulates the economy. Economists actually say the opposite. Second, while it cannot be proven that lowering the tax rates in 1997 fostered a booming economy, neither can it be proven that it was solely due to the tech boom. In fact, a strong case can be made that the environment created by Republicans helped the boom even more.
---- cut here -----
Nonsense.
First, I never said raising taxes stimulates the economy - I said raising taxes raises federal revenues, which is a mathematical fact.
Second, the "economists" that say raising taxes depresses the economy are only the right wing extrme ones. Raising taxes past a certain point can depress and economy, but up to that point (and we are wlel below it) it actually incentivizes spending. If a company has to decide between spending money or putting in their pockets, they tend to put it in their pockets. If a company has to decide, however, between spending money and giving it to Uncle Sam, they spend it. Which is why tax incentives are so powerful to generate internal investment.
Third, regarding the boom in 1997, it CAN be proven that lowering taxes on the rich DID NOT create the boom. Economic growth is due to several factors, and the tech boom may not have ben SOLELY responsible - but it was responsible for the vast majority. Not just in tech sales, but because growing companies hire works, those workers buy bigger houses and new furniture, they have to move more frequently, and all of those things contribute to growing the total economy.
Again, lowering general taxes on companies and the rich DOES NOT create growth. That's trickle down economics which has been debunked by every non partisan (and most partisan) economists. TARGETED tax incentives can create growth - for example, giving companies a tax credit for investing in R&D, or for hiring workers, can help - but just cutting tax rates doesn't do it.
Last but not least, you say, "a strong case can be made that the environment created by Republicans helped the boom even more." Possibly so - why don't you state the case? Or provide references to a case that has been made? Because until you do, it's an empty statement - and most of the "cases" I have had presented start with "cutting taxes on the rich improves the economy" which is FALSE.
But I am happy to entertain a real case - by all means, present one.
1) Balanced Budgets
2) Working with the Otherside
3) Understanding of Public Policy
4) Working with Businesses to create Jobs
1) Blanaced Budgets - Romney's economic plan starts with EVEN MORE tax cuts for the rich, making it IMPOSSIBLE to balance the budget.
2) Working with the other side - Romney isnt suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, the Teapublicans dont want to work with the other side, they want to destroy them so they can implement their fascist agenda.
3) Understanidng public policy - Romney has displayed no evidence of understanding public policy, certainly not any foreign policy based on his recent trip
4) Working with business to create jobs - There is no evidence Romney knows how to do this either, as his expertise was in outsourcing and cutting jobs to create higher profits, not in hiring additional workers.
In President Obama's first-person essay in the official program for the Democratic National Convention, he appears to have mixed up the words debt and deficit. He is clueless on the difference between our DEBT or our DEFICIT.
Seems we've come to expect disappointment from a man whom has NEVER written a business plan, a budget, a Patriotic commentary or a factual statement.
When Obama says he has plans to "Reduce our deficit by $4T" and when Clinton says "Obama has a plan for debt reduciton of $4T" they are saying the same thing. It's not ALL IN ONE YEAR. This is the same "grand bargain" Obama pushed for in 2011. Reduce spending by $3T over 10 years. Increase revenues 41T in the same period. Net impact - a deficit OR DEBT reduction of $4T compared to not doing anything. It is both because if we reduce the deficit, our total debt at the end of the period will be reduced by the same amount.
Can't any of you wing nuts do math?
He didn't propose ANY reductions, it was merely fuzzy math, like obama's twitter followers, pure imagination.
In an ad for the Obama campaign, Clinton talks about all the "investments" — liberal code word for government spending — Obama wants and how that will grow the middle class and lead to a full employment economy.
"That's what happened when I was president," Clinton says in the ad.
Except that's not what happened.
Indeed, when you look at the record of these two Democratic presidents, you'd be hard-pressed to conclude they were even in the same political party, much less had "similar policies." Here's a rundown:
• Spending and deficits. Spending on domestic discretionary programs was essentially flat under Clinton in real terms. And overall federal spending as a share of GDP dropped from 21% when Clinton took office to 18% when he left.
Obama, in contrast, massively increased federal spending and wants to keep it above 22% of GDP forever. And while Clinton obsessed about deficits, Obama is indifferent.
Even now, with runaway deficits and debt, Obama's latest budget proposed adding $137 billion more in spending, and $365 billion more in red ink.
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
• Taxes. Under pressure from Republicans, Clinton agreed to cut the capital gains tax to 20% from 28%. The result was an investment boom that drove economic growth for years. Clinton also said he thought he raised income-tax rates too high.
Obama wants to lift the top capital gains rate to 25%, and the dividend tax rate to 45%, plus raise the top income-tax rates even higher than they were under Clinton.
• Trade. Despite opposition from his own party, Clinton pushed through Nafta. Obama only grudgingly signed three trade deals negotiated years before by President Bush. Since then, he's done nothing, while China has signed 15 trade deals and is negotiating 20 more.
• Welfare reform. Clinton pledged when running for office to "end welfare as we know it," and Republicans pressured him to sign a sweeping welfare reform law that included strict work requirements.
Obama vastly expanded the welfare state, and now, despite what the "army of media fact-checkers" claims, he's trying to dismantle welfare reform by offering waivers to states who want to weaken those work rules.
• Deregulation. Clinton signed a sweeping banking deregulation bill that overturned Depression-era banking rules. Obama complained about that law when running for president, and signed a sweeping re-regulation bill once in office.
If Obama wants to wrap himself in Clinton's economic successes, should he also blame himself for the derelict recovery that resulted from him abandoning Clinton's policies? From Investors' Business Daily Sept 6, 2012.
Nov 6: kick out not my fault job killer not quite shovel ready obama.
The statement "Obama has massively increased federal spending" is a lie, repeatedly debunked - he has barely increased spending at all. And the requested addition of $137B for more stimulus is less than 4% of the overall spending - and was targeted at improving the economy which will reduce the deficit further.
The statement that Obama is "indifferent to deficits" is a lie. Obama is the ONLY one that pushed for serious deficit reduction, but as Republicans were completely unwilling to expire temporary tax cuts and corporate welfare (both REQUIRED to bring down the deficit) there has been no action.
Taxes and Capital Gains - this is inaccurate. There is no evidence that cutting the capital gains rate produced a dollar of additional investment, let alone a massive amount. What drove the economy under Clinton was home computers, Windows, and the Internet - none of which were noticeably impacted by tax cuts other than to reduce the amount of federal revenues gathered from EXISTING wins. Republicans pushed for cuts because otherwise the huge capital gains form the WINS were going to be taxed and they wanted to stop it - so it is exactly opposite of what you stated.
Trade Deals - Obama did not "grudgingly sign" these deals, and they were not fully negotiated under Bush. It is also unclear if these deals helped the US economy - it is clear that NAFTA did NOT. Trade deal that open markets to our goods and services are good, but what Republicans push is for deals that allow more things to be made offshore and re-imported to the US without penalty - which is a BAD THING.
Welfare - You YOURSELF say that fact checkers have proven you (and Republicans) are lying, and then you keep lying? Obama IS NOT trying to "dismantle the work requirement" in welfare, nor has ANY ACTION of Obama "expanded the welfare state" - that again would be REPUBLICAN actions in 2000 to 2006 and the economic meltdown, all of which occurred before he took office.
Regulation - finally something true. Clinton, under pressure from Republicans, signed massive de-regulation of the financial industry which in part CAUSED THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN. Obama took steps to fix it and the steps have not NEARLY gone far enough - and what little steps HAVE been taken, REPUBLICANS have been blocking from being implemented.
Go peddle your propaganda elsewhere. If you want to complain about something, complain about something real - don't just spew lies and ignore facts.
I say that in EXACTLY the same way as saying it is better to play Russian Roulette with 2 bullets rather than 6.
If we had a real choice we would choose none of the above, but since we're going to be stuck one of the two I'll vote for the 2 bullets (Obama).
Mitt ROmney isnt a gamble - he's the "all six bullets" optoin. Electing Mitt and putting the Teapublicans in charge will GUARANTEE our collapse as a first world nation.
The statement that Obama is anti-capitalist, anti business, and/or a moron is conservative propaganda, 10% fact free. He is none of these things - a real anti-capitalist would have taken over the banks and the auto companies instead of bailing them out, a real anti-business Presdident would not be presiding over the highest level of corporate profits and stock value in history.