Notes From A Clinton Pollster
It's time for the guy in The White House to get real, writes Douglas Schoen in the WSJ (from a public relations perspective, unfortunately):
I first met with Mr. Clinton privately in early 1995, after the Republicans gained control of Congress for the first time since 1954. I warned him that he could not be re-elected in 1996 unless he turned around his administration's reputation: from one of big-spending liberalism (represented by his attempt to massively overhaul the health-care system) to one of fiscal discipline and economic growth.Mr. Clinton did just that, and now Mr. Obama must do the same--and quickly. Yet the White House seems to believe its approach should be to blame George W. Bush for everything. Polls suggest that this approach is likely to have only the most limited success.
...This means that Mr. Obama should seek to persuade voters that he has, at the very least, taken steps to stabilize the economy, the banks, the financial system and the auto industry. He must emphasize that he has turned around month after month of massive job loss; to do so, he can use the just-released Congressional Budget Office report that estimates the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 and 3.3 million jobs. And Mr. Obama should forcefully explain how the job-promotion plan he launched has the potential to create the kind of private-sector jobs he has promised.
Moreover, he must compellingly make the case that his administration has a consistent plan and policy agenda--something it has not had to date.
Mr. Obama and his Democratic colleagues also need to stop their phony populist campaign emphasizing that they have taken on the banks and Wall Street. Populism--particularly of the left-wing type that seeks to expand the role of government with redistributive fiscal policies and increases in government spending, intervention and ownership--rarely if ever works. In the absence of a successful argument for the administration's overarching policy approach, a populist campaign would be as fruitless as blaming George W. Bush for every ill America now faces.
Beyond that, the administration must emphasize that it understands the electorate's concern about fiscal prudence, the deficit, the debt and the need to balance the budget. The independent voters who hold the fate of the Democrats in their hands are looking for candidates who champion, in a bipartisan context, fiscal discipline, limited government, deficit reduction and a free market, pro-growth agenda. If Democrats don't offer this, they will be branded liberal tax-and-spenders.
They are. Same as the Republicans -- with too few exceptions. The Democrats are somewhat worse than the Republicans, but don't kid yourself; the Republicans weren't much better, aren't much better. And until people get mad enough to stop voting in the same spend-and-spend types, little will change.
I do hear something now I didn't hear in the Bush days (and I was not a Bush voter, nor did I like George Bush). I hear -- with some frequency -- anger and disappointment at Obama from so many of the people who voted for him thinking he was The Answer (perhaps because they projected their wishes onto what largely seemed to be a blank slate; admittedly, one that spoke with some charisma while making empty promises).
Even if the stimulus created jobs, most of them were state and local government jobs (since that's where most of the money went to -- to protect state and local governments from the consequences of their profligacy) that will go away once the fed money stops.
As for all the left-wing populism, not only does it not work, it hurts the economy by striking fear and uncertainty into the people who run businesses, causing them to hold on to their cash and not invest or hire. We're seeing the results of that now -- stagnation and chronically high unemployment, and a general pessimism about the whole thing.
True that Republicans won't spend any less in the long run, but at least they are more likely to stop the demonization that has made the economy so nervous.
Clinton changed his approach because he was a politician. Obama can't and won't because he is an ideologue.
cpabroker at August 27, 2010 4:32 AM
It will end because it has to. Like the drunk neer-do-well brother to whom no one will lend because they cannot be repaid, our borrowing will stop and the game will be over.
I see interbank trades are starting to use renminbi as a currency. We're still sound as a dollar, right?
MarkD at August 27, 2010 5:46 AM
Obama got elected because he is young, good looking ,charismatic, a great speaker (when he has a teleprompter), and claimed to have a new vision. The republicans put up an old, average looking, mediocre speaker, who people claimed was virtually on his death bed for their candidate.
Will Obamma's next book be "I Blame George Bush!" How he stole my second term?
David M. at August 27, 2010 6:52 AM
Not only that, David M., but McCain trotted off to Washington D.C. in Obama's footsteps to sign his approval of the bailouts. That pretty much nixed any chance he had of getting my vote.
One thing I am getting tired of hearing, though, is all this 'Where were you during the Bush years? You must be a Republican who hates Obama, because you weren't complaining during Dubya's presidency.'
YES. I. WAS. So STFU already. The expansion of our already broke entitlement programs through the prescription drug benefit, was enough to make me despise him, even without the wars.
The one thing Dubya did right was talk about privatizing Social Security. And you know what happened? Everyone else screamed bloody murder.
I give up. I have gone through all the stages of grief and have finally accepted that we are surrounded by morons and there's nothing we can do about it.
Pirate Jo at August 27, 2010 7:39 AM
I can't figure the left libs out. Bush is supposed to be an idiot and yet he "masterminded" nine eleven. He pulled the wool over the eyes of all these really smart libs on the weapons of mass destruction. I mean genuises like John Kerry, Hilary Clinton/Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy. And now Bush is so smart he has ruined Obama's presidency.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Bush must be the smartest evil genius to ever be on the planet. On par with Lex Luther. Lol.
David M. at August 27, 2010 7:49 AM
Slightly off topic but related to government, how's this for an invasion of privacy?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/oregon.gps.surveillance/index.html?hpt=T1
Jennifer at August 27, 2010 8:17 AM
McCain trotted off to Washington D.C. in Obama's footsteps to sign his approval of the bailouts. That pretty much nixed any chance he had of getting my vote.
Posted by: Pirate Jo
You an Arizonan Pirate Jo? What do you think of former New Times journalist Dourehty's chances are against McCain
lujlp at August 27, 2010 11:58 AM
McCain's problem for a long time is that he never met a camera he didn't like. For some reason, he dearly cherishes the approval of the mainstream media. Every now and then he'll take a conservative/libertarian position on something, but then as soon as he faces press criticism for it, he backs down. Not only did this annoy the GOP base, it didn't endear him to a lot of independents either -- it presented an image of weakness. And, as PJ hinted at, McCain is as endearing of business-as-usual in Washington (e.g., earmarks) as the next Congressman.
It's been interesting watching the Tea Party drag the GOP, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century in Alaska this week.
Cousin Dave at August 27, 2010 3:16 PM
Even if the stimulus created jobs, most of them were state and local government jobs (since that's where most of the money went to -- to protect state and local governments from the consequences of their profligacy) that will go away once the fed money stops.
Have any of you heard about Ashtabula County, Ohio?
The one I love is from the judge:
Jim P. at August 27, 2010 8:22 PM
Hey David M.,
Thanks for posting all of those quotes. They are a great example of how disastrously wrong conventional political wisdom can be. We should keep them in mind as the drumbeat starts about going to war with Iran.
Christopher at August 28, 2010 10:55 PM
This post is entirely correct about the biggest weakness with the Obama administration; the inability to create a public consensus about anything. Leaving out the stimulus and healthcare bills, which deserved legitimate conservative opposition, I was stunned by the inability to levage public opinion to get a tougher financial regulation bill.
Given the brazen investment bank complicity in the financial meltdown, I'm stunned as to how anyone could not have the people on their side in pressing for reforms that made companies that issue securities more responsible for what the issue. Oh and that again severed the relationship between consumer facing banks protected by the FDIC and investment banks. The failure to do this is a telling example of how our government protects big money and neglects everyone else.
Christopher at August 28, 2010 11:26 PM
I'm a little confused about who is deciding for the public to see prof of his death. Unless you show prof wont the American people disbelieve Obama even more then they already do? I want to see, because I do not trust our Presidential Office!! I'm so tired of asking questions about this man. Is it true is it not true "omg"
kay jewlers at June 2, 2011 6:42 AM
Leave a comment