The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on January 28, 2014, 01:55:35 am
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/196585-he-has-one-shot-here-and-cant-afford-to-miss (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/196585-he-has-one-shot-here-and-cant-afford-to-miss)
By Amie Parnes and Justin Sink - 01/27/14 08:32 PM EST
President Obama’s legacy and the future of his second term hang in the balance in Tuesday’s pivotal State of the Union address.
Obama will step to the podium reeling from a lost year, and with the window for him to exert his influence closing slowly but surely.
“As much as I hate to admit it, this is probably going to be it,” one former senior administration official said of the speech. “He has one shot here, and he can’t afford to miss.”
The address is intended to lay out the president’s priorities ahead of this year’s midterm elections, which will decide the Senate’s balance of power.
“It’s definitely the biggest stage and the best opportunity he’ll have before the midterms,” added another former senior administration official.
After the midterms, the focus will quickly turn to the race to succeed Obama — forcing the president to share the stage with those hoping to succeed him.
The second official disagreed with the premise that the speech amounted to a do-or-die moment for Obama, however.
“The idea that he can’t do anything in his last two years is misguided,” said the official, who noted that former President Clinton left office with his highest approval ratings and was able to put points on the scoreboard during his last few years in office.
Senior administration officials say the crux of the president’s reboot effort will be drawing and defining a contrast with congressional Republicans by emphasizing a new willingness to act unilaterally. The White House is desperate to distance Obama from an obstinate Congress that has stymied his legislative priorities and left most voters disenchanted with Washington.
“The president is not going to tell the American people that he’s going to wait for Congress,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told CNN on Sunday. “He’s going to move forward in areas like job training, education, manufacturing, on his own to try to restore opportunity for American families.”
Tuesday’s address will focus on how the president can affect economic mobility and inequality — areas that will appeal to his party’s base.
Obama is expected to announce he has secured pledges from some of the nation’s largest employers to not discriminate against the long-term unemployed — a presidential initiative designed to draw contrast with lawmakers who have failed to extend emergency unemployment benefits that lapsed late last year.
White House officials have also said that the president will renew his call to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. Democrats on the Hill have suggested that Obama sign an executive order telling government agencies to award preferential treatment to contractors who pay above that wage, and there’s wide speculation that Obama could announce such an initiative in his speech.
The president will also signal a focus on manufacturing in his remarks, with trips to visit a steel plant outside of Pittsburgh and an engine factory near Milwaukee scheduled for Wednesday. Obama is also to visit suburban Maryland and Nashville as part of a post-speech whistle-stop tour.
Obama is also expected to talk about education, aides say; guests in the first lady’s viewing box will include the District of Columbia’s teacher of the year and a teenage boy who became the youngest intern at semiconductor chip maker Intel after attending the White House science fair. Vice President Biden is expected to travel to Rochester, N.Y., later in the week to discuss education and workforce development.
Other guests of the first lady include survivors of the Boston Marathon bombing, the fire chief from an Oklahoma town devastated by a tornado, and Jason Collins, the first openly gay NBA player.
The address comes as Obama is attempting to regain his footing on questions of competence and leadership. A Quinnipiac poll released last week found that a majority of Americans — 53 percent — did not believe the Obama administration was competent at running the government. And a weekend ABC News/Washington Post poll found half the country disapproved of Obama’s handling of his job.
Still, the White House acknowledged it would still need to work with lawmakers to pursue some of its most substantial second-term policy goals.
“This is not an either/or proposition here,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters.
The second former senior administration official added that Obama won’t provide a knockout punch to Republicans in his address — particularly because he needs to work with lawmakers on legislation including immigration.
“You can’t punch someone in the nose and then ask them out to dinner,” the former senior official said. “I expect he’ll walk a fine line.”
Republicans say the clock might already have run out for Obama — and his intention of working with Congress.
Asked if the speech on Tuesday represented Obama’s last chance to move the needle before lame-duck fatigue sets in, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said that it “may be too late already.”
“The president’s only a lame duck if he decides to be,” Buck said. “But if he plans to announce that he’s done working with Congress, then he’s made that choice.”
-
(http://hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/coyote-and-rocket.jpg)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz65AOjabtM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz65AOjabtM)
-
President Obama’s legacy and the future of his second term hang in the balance in Tuesday’s pivotal State of the Union address.
B.S. His presidency is already a disgrace and history won't make it any prettier. His legacy has been set in stone already and it's one of monumental failure and incompetence verging on treason. To the extent he tries to gin up enthusiasm for his policy goals in this SOTU, he'll be spitting into the wind. I highly doubt we'll see the cocky SOB who thought he could bully the justices of the Supreme Court.
-
I highly doubt we'll see the cocky SOB who thought he could bully the justices of the Supreme Court.
But he did bully them. He was very successful. What has the SCOTUS ever done that Obama did not tell them to do?
Roberts declaring that the Obamacare fee is a "tax", and not a fine, was ridiculous and illegal by any rational measure. The Obama team had just spent weeks/months arguing that it was NOT a tax, and Roberts reversed that on his own volition, while failing to mention that if it is a 'tax', it is illegal as it did not originate in the House. His verdict and opinion was laughable, and stupid.
I agree with you that his arrogance has been slapped down a bit, but not by the Supreme Court or Congress. I would say his 'reality check' came mostly from other world leaders who openly ridicule and laugh at him.
"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. He will jump on the board, knock all the pieces over, crap on the board, and then strut around like he won." -- Vladimir Putin
-
and only last month SCOTUS - actually JOHN ROBERTS himself - refused to hear the case being brought over standing - since the senate took a bill which was not a spending bill from congress, stripped out the entire bill and inserted and passed OCare in it's place... totally illegal the way it was done and Roberts said the court will not hear the case.
-
But he did bully them. He was very successful. What has the SCOTUS ever done that Obama did not tell them to do?
Roberts declaring that the Obamacare fee is a "tax", and not a fine, was ridiculous and illegal by any rational measure. The Obama team had just spent weeks/months arguing that it was NOT a tax, and Roberts reversed that on his own volition, while failing to mention that if it is a 'tax', it is illegal as it did not originate in the House. His verdict and opinion was laughable, and stupid.
I agree with you that his arrogance has been slapped down a bit, but not by the Supreme Court or Congress. I would say his 'reality check' came mostly from other world leaders who openly ridicule and laugh at him.
"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. He will jump on the board, knock all the pieces over, crap on the board, and then strut around like he won." -- Vladimir Putin
C.J. Roberts made a very wise decision and rendered a very good opinion, one that gives us a lot more ammunition, and a lot more cover, than we would have had if he had simply declared the individual mandate verboten.
Think about it: back then we were still years from the rollout of Obastardcare and the democrats would have had sufficient time to fix the monstrosity to satisfy his objections to it, which would leave us in a much worse position than we are now.
For example, suppose Roberts had agreed that it wasn't a tax but something else that was verboten. The simple fix for that is to make it a tax - impose a health insurance tax on everyone, and give an offsetting credit to people who go out and buy the sort of insurance the democrats want them to buy. That would have made the individual mandate impregnable - I am still shocked at the colossal failure of imagination the democrats displayed when they failed to take that route. In fact, they could have set up something along the lines of a mandatory retirement plan akin to the defined benefits plans or even a 401(k), but with the added wrinkle that contributions are mandatory - there would be a new payroll tax imposed requiring employers to withhold x% of employees' pay and contribute it to an employer-funded - or a government-managed - health insurance fund. There would be a similar increase in the self-employment tax that would have to be contributed to a similar sort of plan. Those plans would then provide insurance benefits to the contributors. The redistribution of wealth would be accomplished by overtaxing those with higher incomes and undertaxing those with low incomes so that effectively those with low incomes are getting a subsidy that is paid for by those with high incomes.
Obama hasn't been able to bully the Supreme Court any more than any other president, other than FDR, who did manage to bully them. I also have a slight sense that Sotomayor may ultimately prove a disappointment to Obastard and the leftists who pushed so hard for her appointment.
-
If what you say is true, and it may very well be, then America is so far down the tubes we have lost already. To say this horrible nightmare that happened was a good thing because it prevented a far worse thing, is a strange arguement. And in any case, there is nothing in this decison that pervents any of that from happening anyway.
I agree about Sotomayor.
Instead of playing 'tricks' and 'games', if that is what he did, the Republicans should just stand on straight principle. Had Roberts done that we would all be a lot better off today, and a lot of people, a lot of people, who are going to die in the next six months, would still be alive.
-
President Obama’s legacy and the future of his second term hang in the balance in Tuesday’s pivotal State of the Union address.
A speech!
That ought to fix everything.
In the early eighties, Speaker Tip O'Neil and the rats acquiesced to newly elected President Ronaldus Maximus and helped launched Reaganomics
(http://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum/attachments/general-photoshop-board/6126d1311909534t-how-imagescaziitvr.jpg)
At the time tax-cuts were very popular, and the rats thought tax-cuts would be a budget disaster and deficits would skyrocket..They held the House and they were going to spend like rats.
and they did.
but a funny thing happened along the way. The voters didn't care so much about the deficits when they were allowed to keep more of the money they earned. They got happy and gave Reagan a GOP Senate again in 1982 and 1984. And that is when Reagan appointed good judges.
Politicians and majorities come and go but judgeships last a lifetime.
Reagan enacted real change by being popular and signing deficit busting budgets even though he promised to fight reckless government spending.
Obama came in with majorities in the Senate and House. He honestly thought Obamacare would be popular and if he just got it passed. It passed with no GOP support. and now a lot of rats are unhappy because there is no realistic way to fix it. It is an albatross that will drag them down the whirlpool.
It doesn't matter what Obama says anymore. He's a liar.
-
C.J. Roberts made a very wise decision and rendered a very good opinion, one that gives us a lot more ammunition, and a lot more cover, than we would have had if he had simply declared the individual mandate verboten.
Think about it: back then we were still years from the rollout of Obastardcare and the democrats would have had sufficient time to fix the monstrosity to satisfy his objections to it, which would leave us in a much worse position than we are now.
For example, suppose Roberts had agreed that it wasn't a tax but something else that was verboten. The simple fix for that is to make it a tax - impose a health insurance tax on everyone, and give an offsetting credit to people who go out and buy the sort of insurance the democrats want them to buy. That would have made the individual mandate impregnable - I am still shocked at the colossal failure of imagination the democrats displayed when they failed to take that route. In fact, they could have set up something along the lines of a mandatory retirement plan akin to the defined benefits plans or even a 401(k), but with the added wrinkle that contributions are mandatory - there would be a new payroll tax imposed requiring employers to withhold x% of employees' pay and contribute it to an employer-funded - or a government-managed - health insurance fund. There would be a similar increase in the self-employment tax that would have to be contributed to a similar sort of plan. Those plans would then provide insurance benefits to the contributors. The redistribution of wealth would be accomplished by overtaxing those with higher incomes and undertaxing those with low incomes so that effectively those with low incomes are getting a subsidy that is paid for by those with high incomes.
Obama hasn't been able to bully the Supreme Court any more than any other president, other than FDR, who did manage to bully them. I also have a slight sense that Sotomayor may ultimately prove a disappointment to Obastard and the leftists who pushed so hard for her appointment.
Amazing analysis. Can't say I've read anything like it elsewhere. Bravo.