Obama’s Re-Election Campaign: Destroying the Country to Save It

Much of the discussion about this Jeff Zeleny piece has focused on Obama’s apparent consideration of cutting regulations that “affect the economy.”

The president intends to offer at least some progressive proposals to help regain a fighting posture that he has not had since the health care debate, but a provision is also being discussed to place a new moratorium on some regulations that affect the economy, excluding health care and financial rules. The proposals are likely to infuriate an already unhappy Democratic base. [my emphasis]

Greg Sargent suggests we ought to wait to see precisely what Obama means by this; I agree, not because I have any faith in Obama, but because the syntax of this line is so strange. Does Zeleny mean “moratorium on new regulations”? A “moratorium–does that mean temporary or permanent–on existing regulations”? Who is doing the discussing here, Mr. Passive Voice Journalist?

In short, I think Zeleny has failed his job as stenographer.

Which is why I’m even more intrigued by this passage.

The Republican candidates, collectively and in distinctive ways, continue to cast him as the foil against whom they ran so successfully in 2010: a big-government liberal who has expanded regulations, created uncertainty for business and failed to revive the economy, with millions more Americans out of work than when he took office. They portray him as an unsteady leader who is unequipped to turn around a country in economic crisis. [my emphasis]

Again, the meaning here is unclear: Who is the “they” here? Does Zeleny mean to invoke the themes all Republicans used to run against Obama in 2010? Or just the ones running for President. I’m not sure Ron Paul “ran against” Obama in 2010, though Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry did. Both complained about health insurance reform, but largely in terms of “freedom” and (particularly in the case of Perry the separatist, state’s rights), not regulations. Perry complained about emissions restrictions, which is certainly a regulation, but Obama’s already caved on that front.

Both Bachmann and Perry got caught hypocritically replying on government pork while attacking Obama’s stimulus bill, and it’s fair to say that Perry used stimulus funds to balance TX’s budget, and given the number of government jobs TX has relied on, it’s therefore safe to say Obama’s stimulus created jobs Perry is taking credit for.

And both Bachmann and Perry called Obama a socialist.

But the theme ignores one of the big things Republicans, as a whole, ran against Obama on in 2010: “cutting Medicare” (in the health insurance reform).

Which makes me wonder whether this interpretation of the 2010 election is Zeleny’s … or the Obama team’s?

It seems a critical issue because some seems to have simplified the reasons for the Democrats’ shellacking in 2010, particularly given that voters still largely blamed Bush for the economy in 2010 (though they’re doing so less now).

In any case, if Obama thinks he can embrace policies that will stop two fools who called a President who has coddled banksters “a socialist” from repeating that claim–if Obama believes that spoiling our air and water will make Bachmann and Perry be nice to him–it’s simply not going to work.

But I do worry that’s what he has in store.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

13 Responses to Obama’s Re-Election Campaign: Destroying the Country to Save It

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @cristianafarias I honestly see it as a 2-4 hr deal tops. But give some leeway, and day day and half at the most. Anything over that is nuts
6mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @neilkli @yeselson Listen, the entire process is controlled by the DA; you seem to think it is about witnesses. It's not.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @neilkli @yeselson No, not when attending prosecutors are vouching for Wilson+ripping apart all negative witnesses+refusing to rec charge.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @neilkli @yeselson @conradhackett @seanpaulkelley Intentionally trying to confuse GJ and take apart any element that wasn't pro Wilson.
27mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @yeselson @conradhackett @seanpaulkelley Exactly. That is a two day gig with either a 2nd degree or voluntary mans. indictment returned.
28mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @neilkli @yeselson @conradhackett @seanpaulkelley there are NEVER 20 witnesses on GJ case like this. 3-4 max inc. 1 investigator + 1 coroner
30mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @yeselson @conradhackett @seanpaulkelley That said, real charge is prob. voluntary manslaughter. It was NOT an accident; was intent to shoot
31mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @yeselson @conradhackett @seanpaulkelley Anything other than a protected cop and this would have been charged as 2nd degree.
32mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @yeselson @conradhackett @seanpaulkelley Actually in any other case, prosecutor overcharges to allow for plea negotiation headroom.
33mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @yeselson @conradhackett @seanpaulkelley Add a day. Anything over two days on a single gun, single shooter is bizarre.
34mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @conradhackett @seanpaulkelley Even any other single gun, single shooter homicide like this would take about 3hrs or less inc. deliberations
38mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @conradhackett @seanpaulkelley Ahem. With due respect, the average grand jury presentation lasts less than an hour. #ComeOnMan
46mreplyretweetfavorite
September 2011
S M T W T F S
« Aug   Oct »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930