More Action, More Jobs

Dearest Mr. Obama,

Barry, your economic message sucks. I think you've done a fine job, considering the "headwinds" and all, but you don't seem to be making that case very effectively to anyone but people who already support you. Everything you've offered so far is easily countered by your opposition and thus drowns in the din of the media. You need to simplify.

Do you remember Herman Cain, B.O.? I'm sure do. If you think hard enough you'll even recall he was once the frontrunner to the GOP nomination. Was it because he had good ideas? No, he was batshit crazy. Was it because he ran an effective campaign? Holy Christ no. It was because no matter what you had to say about him, he had an economic message everyone could understand and articulate. 

Even when the logical flaws inherent in his plan were pointed out, his numbers held and his message stayed just as effective as it had been. The Cain Train was unstoppable. I regret only that he was unable to quell the vicious, scurrilous rumors of personal mistakes...

In short, Bizzay B., I suggest you adopt and repeat the following phrase, as Latinos say, ad nauseam:

"More Action, More Jobs."

Just try it out. Read the following out loud: "Help me get Congress to stop fighting progress - we need More Action. Help me pass the American Jobs Bill - we need More Jobs. Stop the partisan gridlock; We need More Action. Stop the European austerity; We need More Jobs. Barack Obama: More Action, More Jobs. Re-elect me, muthafuckas!"

How good did that feel? You got to artfully suggest Congress is responsible for this mess while trumpeting your key economic initiative. You even got to tie Republicans to the shambles that is the European Union and maybe remind voters of how bad things could have been for us. 

And, if I were asked what your core economic message was, as a supporter, I would no longer have to ramble on about headwinds and cars in ditches and skipped tabs; I could simply say, "Barack Obama stands for more action and more jobs."

(It could also explain away some of your executive overreach, Mr. Constitutional Scholar. Congress wants less action - and therefore fewer jobs, as per our new message - so you, the man of action, have had to circumvent them for the good of your country and the jobs therein. More Action, More Jobs.)

You don't have to take my genius slogan word-for-word. Play with it, make it your own. But you do need   a simple argument that can cut through the clutter. And as of now you don't have one.

With Love,
-JD

Preparing for Panic Mode

Alright. I admit I'm a little worried. I'm not panicked - there are bright spots yet, the math is still in my candidate's favor - but I'm getting more concerned.

The media coverage of Obama has been decidedly negative. I don't say that in a whiny woe-is-me sort of way (I'm no conservative); the media is just seeking controversy. Presidential elections are their Black Friday - they'll coast on the investments and payouts of this cycle's coverage for the next four years. They need a close race. You can't blame a guy for feeding his kids.

In his effort to flip the evolving script, the President gave a big speech that was more picked apart and fretted over than discussed seriously on merit. So Obama pulled out the big guns and gave them lazy Mexicans all of our jobs.

This new immigration policy (or anti-policy) is foremost the prudent move for our country. It saves resources, saves money, and encourages good citizenship. And nobody cares. Screw that wishy-washy Hopey Changey crap, the fun part is in sussing out the politics.

In light of this announcement, for example, one has to wonder what the advantage would be of a Rubio Vice Presidency. And what issue do Republicans have to court Latino voters with now? It gives those of Latin persuasion magis causum (as their people say) to show up at the polls, an inevitable issue for the Democrat's Western strategy. And it forces Mitt Romney to either commit the cardinal sin of agreeing with the President, or essentially reverse course on yet another major issue and further alienate a crucial voting bloc...

What's Romney's response, you ask? So far he's punting, using Rubio as human shield, and no doubt there is some serious focus-grouping being conducted by his campaign. He's wisely fighting to stay on his only truly effective election message: The Economy Sucks and It's Obama's Fault.

The question remains, though. Romney's been hammering this singular point, excepting times when he swiped at the President for straying from that message, and Obama has been unable to articulate an effective counter-point. Is he capable of unveiling an economic policy or message that can cut through the clutter and reassure skittish undecideds he can steer the economy back on track?

That, uh... that's the part where I'm worried.

Prognostication

There are a few things I've been sort of mentioning in conversation with my friends, little predictions about what I foresaw the 2012 battle coming down to. They haven't all been right, but there are some big ones, some that were scoffed at, that I think look more and more plausible as things unfold.

Right now, Herman Cain still seems to be clinging to his role as the current GOP frontrunner, even now eliciting far more excitement than his chief rival, Mitt "I'm Running For President for Gosh Sakes" Romney. But sexual harrassment claims put a politician in a tough spot, and Herman the Hammer sees all problems as nails. 


Prediction: Herman Cain resorts to boosting plausible deniability, with he and his right-wing-talk supporters (ie, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) vilifying his accuser. Either she'll be an economic opportunist taking advantage of a powerful man, or she'll be a tawdry slut looking for attention.

Now, let's assume the Republican electorate at some point comes to its senses and decides Herman Cain being both an unelectable idiot and a philanderer is just a little too much for them. They still hate Romney, the only plausible candidate. And these Tea Party types have shown they care more for ideology and personality than substance or logic. I don't think I've ever seen an election begging so hard for third-party candidates.

Prediction: A viable Tea Party candidate, and possibly (though likely to negligible effect on the election) a far-left challenger to Obama.

On that note - WTF, Sarah Palin? I was completely convinced she was running for office, and I'm still not entirely sure she wasn't. The bus tour, the media frenzy, and the knowledge of reality without Palin injecting herself into the news cycle, makes me wonder if she just didn't declare her candidacy. It would make sense to view her actions as the beginnings of a campaign that ran out of oxygen after both Bachmann and Perry were officially in the running.

Prediction: She's too unpredictable, too assured in her nonexistent skills, for me to even guess what she does next, but you can rest assured it will only benefit her. And you can bet she won't fade quietly from the national stage - I'm sure, at the very least, she has kingmaker ambitions.

Finally, another thing that's been on my mind: Healthcare. I predicted nigh two years ago, when my fellow Democrats were convinced the victory was total and we needed to move on, that this would remain a major issue all the way until the election, and very probably beyond. Now the Supreme Court is readying to take the case. My bet is that the law will remain largely unchanged, but either way the impending decision will probably work in President Obama's favor. If they rule against, he can use that to boost his base, framing the election, and its impact on the Judiciary and the Court, as a needed turning-point. If it's decided that the provision in in fact constitutional, then Obama has a clear and solid victory going into the election.

Prediction: Nothing will change except Obama's poll numbers, which should see a bump. Nowhere to go but up, at least, right?

It'll be fun looking back at this after the election. Unless these are all wrong, in which event I'll be rewriting this entirely and still claiming victory. Mutable media!

Cain Pain II: First Blood

Seems Herman Cain's continued frontrunner status has earned him the ire of Rick Perry, and garnered the first sex scandal of the campaign! Normally sex scandals are bad, but this one's far worse than it should be, thanks to Cain's inept handling of the controversy. Things are so bad, some are actively predicting the fall of the Cain campaign entirely -- though those people tend to be the selfsame ones who called him the flavor of the week a couple weeks ago. 

(Full disclosure: I'm one of those people.)

That isn't a hope, by the way. I don't hope Cain fails to get his party's nomination -- quite the opposite. From his complete lack of foreign policy gravitas, his government inexperience, his claim to fame being as Boss of a pizza family (that's mobster talk), and now this values-voter-shunning sex scandal, I could foresee another '08 happening if he were the Republican opponent. But I can't believe Obama could possibly be that lucky.

I mean, at the same time, his "leading from behind" strategy wins the war in Libya (I'd rather lead from behind and win than shock-and-awe and lose), he can claim victory in Iraq, and we've seen a few positive indicators for the economy; his numbers seem to be flirting with the idea of creeping upward. Could we possibly see the return of the political wunderkind who defeated both the Clinton and Republican political machines those many long years ago?

Chris Matthews feels differently about my hesitance to chalk this up to luck, and has even said so on his show a few times. Is Obama one of the luckiest politicians in recent history? It's certainly thought-provoking.

Not to be all about MSNBC or anything, but their token Republican has been spreading rumors of right-wing voters who say they'd rather run an imperfect but ideologically pure candidate (ie Cain or Paul) and lose than run Romney, who's already being cast as the consumate flip-flopper. I have no idea how the average GOP primary voter thinks, but I do know Kerry was beaten in 2004 on the flip-flop charge and some swiftboating. Could the same work against Romney? Could healthcare be his swiftboat?

And the scandal says something very interesting about Perry, the candidate suspected of leaking the story to Politico in the first place. I've hoped from the start that Michelle Bachmann would be the attack dog of the campaign -- and in some ways she has been -- but Perry seems to be landing the only resounding blows against the current frontrunners. Could his ambitions sufficiently soften his opponents before the general election?

So many questions! But that's why we love politics, right?