Month: January 2012

Dan Drezner lists three reasons he is buying what Beckley is selling. Number One:

The United States is successfully deleveraging.  As the McKinsey Global Institute notes, the United States is actually doing a relatively good job of slimming down total debt — i.e., consumer, investor and public debt combined.  Sure, public debt has exploded, but as MGI points out, that really is the proper way of doing things after a financial bubble.

Phil Arena defends one argument for a rising China. Erik Voeten also pushes back. Walter Russell Mead sides with Drezner and Beckley:

Drezner skewers the newly fashionable notion that America is in decline.  It’s a refreshing and badly needed corrective to the chorus of naysayers who start at every shadow. There is a kind of hypochondria of power that is all too prevalent among US pundits; part of it is simple ignorance of history and the nature of US aims and capabilities, part is a general pessimism about capitalism and the human condition, and part is a healthy concern for trends that, left unchecked, could well result in big problems down the road.

Nate Silver tallies Reagan mentions:

Mr. Gingrich failed to mention Reagan’s name at just one debate, on Oct. 11, 2011, in Hanover, N.H. However, Mr. Gingrich had mentioned Reagan nine times at the Sept. 7 debate, which was held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif. His use of Reagan’s name has picked up recently, with 22 mentions in the past four debates.

Adam Serwer explains:

[M]ake no mistake, when Romney is discussing "self-deportation," he's talking about creating a United States where parents are afraid to register their kids for school or get them immunized because they might be asked for proof of citizenship. He's talking about the type of country where local police can demand your immigration status based on mere suspicion that you don't belong around here. "Self-deportation" is just a cleaner, less cruel-sounding way of endorsing harsh, coercive government polices in order to make life for unauthorized immigrants so unbearable that they have no choice but to find some way to leave. The human cost of such an approach, let alone what it might do to American society, is viewed as a price worth paying.

The Romney campaign and the pro-Romney Restore Our Future PAC have together thrown down $13 million for ads in Florida, where they've had an on-air presence since mid-December. He just released the following anti-Gingrich ad online (note that it ends with Newt referring to "Marianne"): 

Gingrich's Super PAC, which just received a $5 million infusion from Sheldon Adelson's wife, hits back hard: 

Greg Sargent is wowed: 

A number of observers have been rightly mystified by the failure of Romney’s rivals to fully exploit this line of attack, particularly since all this stuff is right there in the video files. Now it’s getting a full airing at a moment when conservative doubts seem to be mounting about Romney at an exponential pace. The inventor of government run health care? Brutal. Just brutal.

The SEIU and the Democratic Super PAC Priorities USA have joined forces against Romney in Florida. Listen to the Spanish-language radio spot, entitled "Dos Caras" ("Two Faces"), here. From a translation: 

On the one hand, he launches a commercial here in Florida targeted to Hispanic voters to try and convince us that he shares our values. But in another state he boasts about having the endorsement of Kris Kobach, a leader in the anti-Hispanic movement and author of many anti-immigrant laws like Arizona’s SB 1070 that unfairly attack our families and spread fear and uncertainty in our communities. 

Ron Paul's PAC is reportedly gearing up to go negative against Gingrich in Florida. Meanwhile, here's the RNC's rebuttal to the State of the Union address (running in Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, and DC): 

Karl Rove's version:

Today on the Dish, Andrew developed a blueprint for Obama to attack Romney and save the country in the State of the Union (hint: tax reform), expanded on its political importance, prepared for disappointment in the actual speech after a chat with the White House, liveblogged it, preferred Daniels' response to Obama's speech, and clarified his disappointment. Your take on SOTU here, here and here. Blogger reax here.

Earlier in the day, Andrew knew hope about the future of marriage equality, flagged a particularly incisive piece on Romney's taxes, heralded a small victory for beards at Disney, spotted a gayer YouTubed version of his Newsweek piece, and recapped coverage of last night's debate. We grabbed blogger reax to Romney's 13.9% tax rate, scored some hits on Romney's electability argument, noted Mitt's vulnerability to free market populism, found out his tax rate depended on the election results, and fact-checked him on the size of the Navy. Newt's campaign was a book tour gone wrong, the man had grandiose albeit totally silly ideas, and today's candidates seemed to be calling Adam Smith a socialist. Pundits guessed at the SOTU message (occasionally by parsing the guest list), prepared for a lackluster address, wondered if Daniels' response would wreck his "fantasy candidate" status,  thought the speech was worthless. Also, the campaign got awesomely autotuned.

Hamas' purported moderation was questionable at best and defense spending (protected by the GOP) retarded strategic growth. Readers sounded off on Obama's birth control decision, Chris Christie seemed afrad to veto marriage equality, baby-kissing went way back in American politics, Paterno's tarnished legacy cast a new light on our own lives, and church groups took the largest chunk of charity. Dating shifted spending habits, regulations upped the rent, small colleges handled diversity better than big state schools, and some kinds of teachers were (debatably) smarter than others. Fantasy novels put women in absurd positions, the relationship between intelligence and alien life was complex, and a chart broke down the streaming/DVD availability of 2011's top films.

Chart of the Day here, FOTD here, Hewitt Nominee here, Yglesias Nominee here, VFYW here, VFYW contest winner here, MHB here, Quote for the Day here, and Correction of the Day here.

– Z.B.

(Photo: U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) talks to U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) before U.S. President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union address on January 24, 2012 in Washington, DC. Obama said the focal point his speech is the central mission of our country, and his central focus as president, including 'rebuilding an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded.' By Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

A reader writes:

I have to disagree on your take – I liked the tone of optimism sorely missing from debates, the appeals to reasoned patriotism, and the attempts to propose some areas of common interest that will at least paint the GOP into a corner.

However, you I will give you this much  – as a tax lawyer who earns his living navigating the complexities of the Internal Revenue Code for the Fortune 500 and a variety of technology companies, financial institutions and investment funds, this speech has me salivating at my own career prospects for the foreseeable future.  I can picture my clients’ sweat and anxiety trying to unpack the various credits, costs, incentives, opportunities, penalties and pitfalls that were outlined in only a small portion of that speech.

And the openings for lobbyists, large and small! This was a very Washington speech. But look, maybe I was cranky today. Maybe I misread the entire thing. I'm totally fallible. I have to react in real time. This reader makes the most cogent case for why I'm wrong:

C'mon man.  The speech was a political masterstroke.  Remember the chessmaster debate?  Well this puts him two moves from checkmate. 

It did exactly what it needed to do, which was to make him sound like the reasonable adult in a town full of insolent children.  So…what?  He should have proposed another hopeless grand vision that would proceed to go nowhere and play right into a Republican narrative about his ineffectual, overreaching nature?  Or he should frame himself, and democrats at large, as the sober party in Washington.

My 84 year old grandmother, who has been taking a 20 minute break from Fox news every week to call me and comment bitterly on what "that boy" (yeah she goes there) is doing to this country, just told me that she found it refreshing after listening to the Republican candidates' insanity for 7 months.  "He'll get the job done," she tells me!  If she votes for him, the Republicans are in more trouble than they know.

You know when the grand vision will come? A year from today, when Obama's back in office with, Newt willing, a democratic majority and republicans who may finally see that rank obstructionism isn't a key to electoral success.  You're telling me that Obama's second inaugural wouldn't be one for this history books?  You think we have a better chance at tax reform under Mitt Romney?

Buck up, Andrew!  Have some faith in your own thesis – Obama's playing the long game and doing it rather well.

I'll get some sleep, and think this through some more. But thanks for all the emails taking me to task. There was a lot of love in that stream of vitriol. Seriously. You wouldn't be so mad if you didn't give a damn.

Josh Barro digs into the substance of the speech:

Obama is calling for protectionist tax policies, aimed at rewarding companies that manufacture here and punishing those that manufacture abroad. This is economically inefficient–less expensive manufacturing abroad is a key downward driver of the price of consumer goods, which raises Americans’ real incomes. It’s also a fool’s errand. There is nothing that forces multinational corporations to incorporate in the United States. Attempting to use America’s unusual system of worldwide corporate taxation to tax the foreign operations of U.S. companies just advantages foreign-incorporated multinationals over American ones.

Josh Marshall mocks Romney:

Great idea for Mitt to release his tax returns today. True stroke of genius. Because who could have predicted President Obama would make the Buffett Rule a centerpiece of his speech?

Mark Steitz liked the mortgage refinance plan:

Tonight, the president announced that he is sending the Congress a plan to allow for the refinancing of the mortgages of every responsible homeowner. Conventional wisdom in Washington has it that little if any serious legislation will pass this year. But this issue may and should be different. Many of the primary beneficiaries of this streamlined refinance policy are Republican voters in Tea Party districts. Broad based refi represents a market based approach that doesn't require significant taxes or an increase in the deficit, but will strengthen the real estate market. Shouldn't Republicans line up?

Howie Kurtz is more critical of the policy proposals:

Obama offered a number of small-ball initiatives, such as asking companies to work with community colleges on hiring. And there were lofty promises, such as urging schools to reward good teachers, with no concrete proposals attached. And even if there were, where would the money come from with both parties arguing over the deep budget cutbacks mandated after the supercommittee’s demise?

Stan Collender wanted more discussion of the deficit:

The budget debate didn't move forward by an inch with this speech. No hints about what's planned for the deficit. A non-event as far as fiscal policy is concerned. This was a campaign speech with lots of positives and optimism and almost nothing about the costs.

Jared Bernstein says the speech was about short-term economic fixes: 

 This wasn’t “win the future” with a long-term investment agenda.  It was “build on the momentum we’ve got right now“ by creating incentives for manufacturers, skills for workers, jobs in fossil fuel extraction and clean energy innovation, all financed by a fairer tax code.

Sir Charles at Cogitamus boasts that he liked the speech for all the reasons I hated it:

I do agree with Sullivan that the speech is Clintonesque, i.e. a stem-winding laundry list — which were more effective than one might think — and rhetorically the weakest of Obama's SOTUs so far.  The language is pretty pedestrian and there are no real admirable rhetorical flights that I can recall.  But I think the substance of the speech is aimed in the right places for the election. 

I should say that I routinely hated Clinton's SOTUs, but they were all wildly popular. So I may be wrong on this one as well. John Cole, meanwhile, swooned:

[E]very time I hear him speak, I am still aware of all the things I disagree with him on, but think “That is a good man doing what he thinks is best.” That is really all you can ask for from someone, because as far as I can tell, I’m the only one who agrees with me 100% of the time. And as you all know, if you give me a week, I’ll disagree with myself. We really don’t deserve him. We really don’t.

E.D. Kain thought the speech was "pretty good":

The point of a speech like this one – an election year State of the Union Address – is not to lay out a grand vision. To be honest, the time for grand visions is over. What the president needs to do – and what he didn’t do enough tonight – is lay out in stark terms why his presidency is important and distinct from the hypothetical presidency of Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.

Mark Halperin agrees the that speech was about Obama's reelection more than anything:

The speech was clearly poll tested to within an inch of its life, filled with programs and themes of broad appeal running from the left to the center right. Rhetorically reached out to the opposition by invoking national security, the need to get Washington working and a few familiar areas of common ground (entitlement and education reform). But much of the speech focused on policies that divide the parties absolutely. And, judging by the press releases and tweets from the Republican leadership, this State of the Union address will serve to lay down markers for November's election rather than break the current gridlock.

Will Wilkinson's take:

Obama's speech, in its particulars, seemed fairly rote. I'm left with the idea that the economy's getting better, Obama's keen to do something about jobs, and that bin Laden is fish food. If he can get just that much to stick in the electorate's collective mind, it's probably enough to win reelection.

And Jim Fallows thought the speech was effective:

I think the speech advanced his aims in some ways that are obvious and others that plant little markers for the rest of the campaign year.

The emails keep pouring in, so allow me to say that I didn't trash the speech because of some dust-up today with a White House briefer. Give me a little more credit than that after all these years. I didn't trash it for attention – I don't withdraw a word of my Newsweek piece. I wrote my genuine reaction to the actual thing in real time. That's what I always do and owe you. But I think this reader helped me understand my own sense of disappointment:

Here's my take (which may explain part of the reason why so many of your readers are dissenting from yours?): Those of us who make up the conservative wing of Obama's base wanted him to throw us some red meat. Instead we got lots of tofu. It's not nothing. But if he wants us to go balls out for him again in 2012, we'll need something a bit more substantive.

This helps too:

You are correct, this was a highly gimmicky, populist speech, but this is an election year. If Obama had been bold and adopted a Simpson-Bowles agenda, his coattails would have been non-existent.  But, by delivering these talking points to Democratic candidates challenging for Congressional and the Senate seats, Obama is laying the groundwork for getting a legislature he can work with.  Imagine the Republican incumbents having to tell voters why they don't approve of Obama's populist proposals of tax credits and tax cuts for people hiring and paying Americans like their constituents. This was about getting a governing majority.

I guess I always believed that Obama would govern from the center. The GOP prevented that. But seeing the tax code littered with a thousand more populist meddles is not what this Obamacon hoped for. And if he gets a governing majority, we would get more of that? That's my fear.

This time with specifics:

I feel the biggest ideas came out of what the Executive Branch is doing, like reorganizing itself to consolidate agencies, or using public land and the US navy for clean energy generation. But most of all, there was at least one very big thing slipped in there that I don't think a lot of people noticed except those who are most paying attention:

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.

You want big ideas? How about resolving the cause of the financial crisis that got us here? The loom of a wholly inadequate bank settlement to release bankers and lenders from any criminal liability has caused deep anxiety and betrayal among those whose homes have wobbled around foreclosure for years. Eric Schneiderman, New York Attorney General, has been hugely critical of the proposed settlement and walked away from negotiations, demanding a larger and more in-depth investigation. So who did the President decide to head a larger investigation?

New York AG Eric Schneiderman, granting immediate credibility to the unit.

Some strong dissents to my live-blogging:

I have been reading your blog for many many years and have never felt so strongly that you've misread this one. Maybe I've just watched too many (all) of the GOP debates, but this struck me as exactly what was needed.

Another:

I fear you've missed the big picture. Odd given your "long game" Obama argument. These little proposals cost Obama nothing. Some may get passed, most will not. All the better to contrast against a "do nothing" congress.

The important part of the speech was Obama's defense of his actions and/or pointing out where congress didn't act in the last 3 years. It was forceful (negating the "weak" argument of Republican candidates) and gave Obama the opportunity to educate the public about the fact that the economy is growing and America is far better off than Romney or Gingrich assert. I also liked the "don't know what they are talking about" dig on the Republican presidential pretenders.

As for the final military analogy. I kind of agree with you, but here I think your British roots are showing.  That's 100% American heartland code. Pure and simple. Obama is using his credibility as Commander in Chief of the Bin Laden raid to assert his strength and further his argument that the Republican nihilists have slowed down economic recovery.

All in all, the speech did what is was supposed to: set the stage for the campaign, assert the argument that things are getting better, draw contrasts between Obama and the Republican candidates, and set congress up as the boogie man. Exciting, no, rhetorically soaring, nope. But workmanlike.

Team Obama is aware that he probably only gets two unfiltered chances to describe to voters his case: tonight and the convention speech.  The vision you are looking for will come over the next several months then be fully described at the convention.

Another:

What crawled up your ass and died tonight?

After consistently advocating the long view of Obama's politics, you can't recognize a tactical campaign speech when you see one? The laundry list of promises was vintage Clinton (a guy who did pert dang well amongst indies), it threw red meat to a dispirited base, and it consistently undercut the GOP case against him as an anti-American anti-jobs socialist. Sure he pandered, but that's what politicians do, and the audience that he was talking to – those who've tuned out for the last 3 years, will recognize none of the caricatures that Limbaugh and crew have been weaving out of thin air – they'll see a fighter for the average American. Nice framing for an election.

But one in agreement:

I'm sorry but being seen giving a really crappy speech you don't believe isn't what I look for in Obama. He's seems like he's playing scared again. He sounded like a politician. That's a great way to distinguish yourself from Romney and Newt.

More reader reaction here.