Have we gotten your attention, yet, Mr. President?
Just days after the Labor Department delivered a dismal employment report for May, you are now seeing new signs that your own job could be in real jeopardy.
A new Washington Post poll indicates that you've has lost the bounce you saw in the polls last month after ordering the mission that killed terrorist Osama bin Laden.
And even more Americans now disapprove of your handling of the economy, and that's not the only bad news. You're now in a dead heat in test matchups against Republican candidate Mitt Romney. It was only days ago that I predicted what kind of threat Romney represented to your re-election.
The problem is, as I've also noted recently, that you are talking about all the wrong things, Mr. President. You need to stop arguing with Republicans over the federal budget deficit. More than twice the number of Americans say jobs and the economy are bigger priorities than is government spending or the budget deficit.
The folks that worry about the deficit and want to cut spending are conservatives, Mr. President. They won't vote for you next year even if you were able to balance the budget on your big toe. You are wasting time — and you aren't listening to all of us who want to vote for you.
Say it with me, Mr. President: "Jobs." Talk about creating jobs today, tomorrow, and every day until November 2012. Talk about how your government is helping to create jobs, even when that assistance costs federal dollars.
Last Labor Day, you proposed a big new federal investment in creating new jobs by revitalizing U.S. infrastructure like highways and airports. You've hardly mentioned it since. Instead, you've gotten caught up in that budget-deficit debate that nobody out in the country except John Boehner and the tea party seems to care about.
Article comments
1 - Cannonshop
At this point, Barack Obama's in zero danger of leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue anytime prior to 1/21/2017, the Republicans haven't got anyone that hasn't already had their political future annihilated by the press except for a few people who can't manage to energize a crowd of true-believers (much less independents.)
It really, truly doesn't matter how he does on the Economy, or foreign policy (short of getting the U.S. nuked by someone), because any failure can be blamed on Bush all the way up to the election, and failing the Bush gambit, his supporters can fall back on accusations of racism or weird conspiracies of vast, (Right wing) size.
2 - zingzing
if the republicans can't field anyone who isn't fucking nuts, then that's on them.
3 - handyguy
Any federal jobs program or economic stimulus with any price tag attached will get a big No from the GOP. So Obama can talk about it, but he can't do it, not unilaterally.
The GOP clings to their superstition that lowering taxes [they're already low!] and cutting spending [no matter who gets hurt] are the magical cure to everything, all evidence to the contrary withstanding.
Interesting analysis in the NY Times today of what Germany has done right during the last 10 years. They have weathered the storm better than we have. It's a combo of austerity in some areas and more spending in others, tax increases and spending cuts, both. The GOP wouldn't eve listen to such a plan.
The column is by David Leonhardt. I recommend reading him every week...always sharp:
The German Example
4 - Arch Conservative
Zero danger?
Unemployment is over 9% and Romney is polling ahead of Obama.
Reality...you know that stuff that isn't the bullshit mythology currently being peddled by moonbats and the mainstream media, paints a very grim picture of Obama's re election chances if the economy/unemployment situation doesn't improve by 2012.
But this is still American which means you have guys have the right to be complete dumbasses.
5 - Cannonshop
#4 Arch, the following presidents had atrocious re-election chances, yet managed (through the foolery of their opponents) to get re-elected in spite of bad approval ratings and such:
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
That's two-out-of-two immediate predecessors to Barack H. Obama, the 1996 and 2004 elections were the opposition's to lose, and lose they did.
In '96 the Republicans chose Dole as a "Familiar name" candidate (in spite of his dismal showings in previous attempts at the White House, where he failed to pull even a majority of his own party to his side), resulting in a damn-good-showing for Bill "Whitewater" Clinton (this in spite of residual anti-incumbent sentiment from the '94 elections).
In 2004, The Democrats thought they not only had a winner in John Kerry, but a winning issue in an unpopular war overseas, and an additional set of winning issues left over from the 2000 election. Bush was polling near the bottom of his term's post-9/11 popularity, and nearly faced a challenge from his own party during the primary season.
Both Clinton and Bush were re-elected by solid margins, both times it was the blundering of their opposites that saved their offices.
The odds say Obama's going to win-it might not be a total walk, but his chances are better than you give him credit for.
6 - troll
breaking news...
multiple subterranean orgasms recorded at Rand grave site as Atlas shrugs
ya gotta ask yourselves worker-punks -- what have you got to lose?
7 - roger nowosielski
Jobs at any cost!
I don't think that was the meaning of the Communist Manifesto.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
troll -
That's a chilling article...and all too true.
9 - handyguy
I generally like Chrystia Freeland, but I think she exaggerates to make the thesis of her article work -- which many journalists do.
If companies can find a way to get richer by employing more middle-class Americans and or selling more products to them, they will no doubt do so. What would be the logic in deliberately shafting the largest demographic in the US?
10 - troll
ain't it though Glenn
Rog - as Chomsky pointed out (somewhere or other) 'jobs' is just a code word for profits
hey - are they ever going to publish your fucking article?
11 - roger nowosielski
You ought to know from past experience it's a delicate subject. Needless to say, the recent events have made it even more so.
It should come to a peak, one way or another, in a day or two.
12 - roger nowosielski
In somewhat less drastic terms, at least the old manufacturing jobs were "value-added." At present, Mickey D is the biggest employer on the block.
13 - Glenn Contrarian
troll -
My memory is famously lacking - which article?
14 - troll
Glenn - Rog has been hard at work on an article for weeks now...apparently negotiating over how much 'child-milding' he has to do to get it published
15 - Cannonshop
#12 But...but...what about the snazzy "Post industrial Service Economy" which was supposed to make everybody rich?
Oh, wait, that's right, I've LIVED in a Service Economy, everyone that lives there is poor and miserable, except for the Officialdom and the tourists.