It's not about the economy, stupid
President Barack Obama holds a baby while greeting supporters during a campaign rally at the Delray Beach Tennis Club, October 23, 2012, in Delray Beach, Florida. / Getty Images
This post originally appeared on Slate.
DELRAY BEACH, Fla.President Obama moved from center stage to center court Tuesday. The day after the third and final debate, Obama started his day at a tennis stadium grinning under the waves of adulation from an eager and approving crowd. The night before, the president was all sharp elbows and crisp declarations about world affairs, but for those arrayed in the bleachers surrounding him on all sides, he was in full campaign mode, joking, switching accents, and returning to the perils of Romnesia--less Situation Room and more The Situation.
Under a peekaboo sun, the president said Romney was doing the Okie-Doke, playing hide and seek with his true plans. "Last night we had a stage 3 case," he said, in a mock diagnosis of his opponent's condition. "If you can't seem to remember the policies on your website, you might have Romnesia. If you can't even remember what you said last week, you might have Romnesia."
Obama wasn't just revisiting a comedy routine he'd unveiled for the first time last Friday, he was trying to explain exactly why this deficiency made Romney unfit to be president. "This is about trust," he said. "There is no more serious issue in a presidential campaign than trust. The person who leads this country you've got to have some confidence that he or she means what she says. What they believe that they are going to do it. You want someone to look you in the eye and say, 'Here's what I stand for. Here's what I'll fight for. Here's what I care about. Here's who I'm going to look out for in the debates in Washington.' "
The message is that if you think there's something you like about Romney, he can't be trusted to deliver. But Obama is also trying to redefine the race. It's not about foreign affairs or the economy. It's about trust.
There's still a tension in this line of attack. If Romney is not to be believed, then why should people weigh the things he says that are very conservative over the things that he says that are less so? Couldn't it be possible that the moderate-sounding guy who is willing to rearrange his policies and emphasis for a few debates might be a similarly pragmatic president? No, say Obama strategists, he's got a conservative core; what can't be trusted is anything that he does that suggests otherwise. "He knows he can't sell his beliefs," Obama said at a rally in Dayton, Ohio later on Tuesday. "So he's doing everything he can to hide his true positions."
The president brought a new diagnosis of his opponent and a new pamphlet of old policies. A glossy brochure is being sent to more than 3 million swing-state voters outlining his plans for the next term. Inside, Obama is dressed in casual Friday clothes meeting with women, children, the elderly, and people involved in purposeful economic pursuit--a small businesswoman and people in lab coats
Gov. Romney has said the president has no ideas for the future, and even some of Obama's allies make that charge. The brochure was the latest attempt to correct that impression. Obama had tried the night before too, making a few detours in the foreign policy debate to outline his domestic plans in bullet-point fashion.
The agenda is not a mystery. Obama has been promoting it for more than a year: investment in manufacturing, education, infrastructure, energy production, and a trillion dollar start on shrinking the deficit. The American people either haven't been listening, or don't find what he's selling very attractive.
There is one other possibility. The search for Obama's policies may be like a weekend trip to the refrigerator. You open it again and again, staring inside for a minute before you close it once more, unmoved and still hungry. Sometimes it takes another person to come along and point out that there really is something in there to eat, you've just been missing it.
Republicans immediately dismissed the policies in the document as warmed over. True, but doesn't that undermine the argument that Obama doesn't have any plans?
Being warmed over may be a disqualifying characteristic, but if old ideas are bad ideas, then Romney's 20 percent reduction in tax rates is in danger. Marginal rate reductions are hardly a new idea. Indeed, it appeals to Republicans because it has a whiff of Reagan.
When the president said that Romney shouldn't be concerned about Romnesia because Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions, the crowd erupted with such delight that it felt for a moment like we'd been transported to one of those 2008 Obama rallies.
Obama left the stage with a bounce. He was clearly having a blast. In this final stretch of the campaign, he will almost certainly have the advantage over his opponent in sheer performance energy at campaign events. Romney can turn out a crowd and they've been getting bigger since his successful Denver debate, but he just doesn't put on the show that Obama does. Some people in the audience had been waiting in line for six hours, and judging from the constant and sustained applause, they felt the wait was worth it. "I believe in you," said the president, "and I need you to believe in me."
Popular in Politics
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 201 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 359 Comments
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 422 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups 71 Comments
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 338 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare 47 Comments
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people
First on the list of such people are Christians, who constantly quote an opinion (the bible) as if it were fact.
Christians, it doesn't matter if YOU believe the bible. Go right ahead. But remember that what you have is a BELIEF, which is not a FACT. The reason you call it faith is because it is NOT fact. If it were fact, you would not need any faith to believe it. Faith is a firm belief in something unproven, and if unproven it cannot be fact. It may ultimately be true, but that still doesn't make it fact until the truth of it is apparent even to those who didn't believe it at first. Facts require zero faith.
So any attempt to govern America according to such unproven opinions is harmful to the nation. Imagine if there were 100 million Hindus living here, all trying to have their religious opinions (which they believe to be fact too) turned into laws for all to obey. Wouldn't that bother you? I ask you to please stop trying to make our laws match your beliefs. It is massively unfair to those of us who do not believe in what you do, because many of us consider your beliefs to be immoral. We don't just want to be 'bad'; we consider your beliefs to be morally outrageous. You are welcome to observe your own way of life within your own private lives, but to impose your ideas upon others is nothing but tyranny. Just as you say that your God wants all to come to him freely, of their own free choice, you too must stop forcing people to live according to your God's commands. Go ahead and live that way yourself, and if your lifestyle holds merit, others will live that way too. But to FORCE people to be 'good' never works, and only subjects your beliefs to ridicule.
So, stop pushing for laws that deal with your specific moral issues. That means go ahead and decide for you and your kin to never have an abortion, but to impose that choice upon other folks is simply making the police act as your God Squad. That's the kind of thing that happens in all those Moslem countries we complain about all the time.
Don't worry about the fetus. It is going straight to heaven to be with God forever, right? No harm there, if you REALLY believe in your own doctrine. The whole point of this mortal existence is to get to live with God forever, right? So I see no reason why you would object to further souls never having to taste of the pain of sin and sadness and immediately being taken up to the glorious joy of God's abode. Perhaps such souls are so noble that God does not even need them to live here on earth. They are good to go to heaven, right away, and so why wait?
So anyway, stop being a public political faction and return to your righful place. Go ahead and state your opinion about any secular issues that the govt is considering. But to suggest legislation that directly relates to imposing Christian values upon the general population is a very evil thing, even if the doctrines you promote ultimately are good. I have read the bible and not once does God force anybody to worship him or follow his laws. So if even he does not operate this way, what gives you the right to do so? If God grants us free will, who are you to take it away? We will deal with our own consequences whenever judgment occurs.
Thank you.
Well, it's time to settle up.
Apart from the President at that time being scapegoated for all of it, what will happen then? More people showing their intellectual superiority by calling everyone they don't agree with "libtard"?
Gee, like maybe something bigger is going on?
Like speculators and other market manipulators?
But Bush was an oil man, right? Surely he would have brought prices down... oh, wait, for a nice tidy while prices were over $3.50 per gallon as well... Hey, and since Democrats got into power thanks to that, gas prices went down to $1.84... since the GOP re-takeover in 2010, they went up. See, I can spin just as much as you can!
And/or other factors, which might have no spin in any way shape or form...
Oh, and if Obama sidestepped congress, you'd then call him "communist", "dictator", or whatever. We both know that whatever he does, or won't, do, all you'll do is complain. You must think we're morons too, complete with short term memories...
All of the obstructionism that went on during the debt ceiling debate. The constant obstructionism against Obama is very UnAmerican. Their whole plan was to block everything Obama does and then they have to nerve to try and blame him. It's unpatriotic and wrong. I do not believe in winning at all costs. I will not sell my soul or my principles to be first. They blame Obama then get mad if anyone blames Bush. They caused our credit rating to be downgraded then blamed Obama. They talk about forced rape and how God intended for someone to be raped and then when Democrats fire back at them they just say "oh they're just trying to distract from the real problems: the economy". I have news for you'll, every problem is a real problem. If the pit of Hell opened in Downtown Washington Republicans would scream "ignore that, it's just a distraction to the real problems we face"
No! I don't think so. I want a President who will adress all problems equally, not just the economy. I want a President who doesn't say "Government does not create jobs" but "My Government will create jobs" I don't believe that fantasy or illusion that Mitt Romney can make us all rich overnight. I want a honest President. One who believes in me and one I can believe in. I believe in Obama. I don't know what Romney believes in and I hope to God I never find out!
Much prayer and blessing for all of us.
7-LUCKYSEVEN, I love my country, however if Sen.McCain had made President or anyone else, I would not expect anyone to use there magic wand to fix the mess they inherited. I am willing to allow Our current President to finish trying,rather than to start over again with our only other option.
Jobs are intentionally destroyed by the war on coal , oil, timber harvest ,all mining ,EPA regulation on natural resources , factories , industries , small business ,mechanic shops ,home renovators every one is touched. Jobs killed on purpose by liberal democrats who feel God like purpose ,then blame republican Conservatives. hypocricy
Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90%. Today it's 35%.
_______________________________________________
If I hear one more of you armchair economist liberal retards mention this little irrelevant factoid I'm going to have to assume you are all complete and utter idiots.
The global economy now is different, in nearly every way, than 1950, for one. Today's world economy doesn't even remotely resemble 1950.
For two, you don't tell the whole story about the 90% figure.
Actually, the top rate was 91%.
It was the marginal rate on income of $300,000 or more. The first $299,999 was taxed starting at 20% on the first $2000, adding one percentage point to the marginal rate in increments of $2000, until you got to 91%. That was the cap.
Most of you liberal partisan hacks infesting this site can't even define "marginal tax rate" and I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.
Furthermore, guess what the average household income was then? $5000. For a whole year. That means 50% of America earned less than 5,000, 50% earned more. About 6 people earned more than $300,000.
If you did earn more than $300,000, you could escape taxes through loopholes - big ones - so NO ONE paid that tax.
Finally, the US had the advantages of cheap capital, cheap energy, relatively cheap labor and the only intact advanced manufacturing base in the world. The US economy would have flourished in that decade NO MATTER what the tax rates were.
Anyone who quotes that 90% tax rate it a complete moron.
The chronically lazy poor have a better work ethic than the wealthy. At least they are not willing to lie and steal to succeed. And, truth be told, they actually do more work and are less of a drain on America.
Bluff called.