How Obama and the Dems can save the economy, the country, and win 2012 in the process.

[MadHound]

What every sane person, from Krugman down to folks here, agree on is that we need a WPA style jobs program. Something large, on the order of 1 trillion or more. Employ people to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, teach our kids, save our environment, etc. etc.

I know, I know, OMG our government is controlled by Teabaggers, who are in budget cutting mode, etc. etc.

Bull, what we need is to fight, and we have two very good examples from our Democratic past, LBJ and Truman.

Both men excelled at taking the fight to the enemy, and they both did so in very similar ways. They would go into the district of a recalcitrant Representative or Senator, and give them hell from the bully pulpit, exhorting the audience to throw the bum out if he wouldn't vote the way Truman/LBJ wanted.

This would work. We have seen that Obama is a masterful speechmaker, such use of the bully pulpit is easily within his grasp, if only he would take it. Add to this, make this jobs program an integral part of next year's election campaign and have every single Democratic politician hammer it home themselves, week in, week out.

The Dems in the past decade have been playing defense, and playing it badly. It is time to take the fight to the 'Pugs, and to do so on an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of all Americans, jobs and the economy. This is the perfect time for such a strategy, it would capture the public mood, it would get Democrats out and aggressive on the campaign trail, and it would hearten the base, who've been saying for years that they want to see more fight from the party.

And best yet, it could very well succeed. Taking the high ground on such an issue would put the public in the Democratic corner. Taking the fight to the 'Pugs would put them in a very difficult position, one they many of them could not abide. And it would get the national narrative, the political ground shifted to the Democrats.

Or we can continue to do what we're doing now, playing defense, allowing the 'Pugs to shape the national narrative, keep compromising and continue in that defensive crouch. After all, 2010 was just an aberration right, and doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result every time is not insanity.

It is time to for each and every Democratic politician in DC to channel their inner LBJ, their inner Truman, and start fighting for this country. Otherwise we're all going down.

[dkf]

1. Except the public wants to cut spending and they dont want to touch entitlements

That leaves discretionary spending.

We really screwed up the last stimulus. It was too inefficient and didn't give us enough of a case that we can do better.

[Vincardog]

2. Wrong the pubic wants to cut the DEFICIT. The way to do that is Tax the Rich and Corporations and

grow JOBS.

[dkf]

16. No they want to cut federal spending...

Reining in government spending and reducing the deficit were central to the Republican Party's platform in last year's midterm elections, when the GOP reclaimed control of the House. Amid a sluggish economy and a ballooning deficit, polls have consistently found that overwhelming majorities of Americans agree with the idea of paring down federal spending; a CNN poll in January found 71% of Americans supported the idea trimming the federal budget.

Yet when it comes time to get specific, the cuts that Americans are by and large in agreement on don't add up to much. While they want Congress to drastically reduce spending overall, they overwhelmingly oppose doing so by scaling back some of the budget's biggest pieces.

Essentially, Americans want to have their budget cake and eat it too.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/polls-show-americans-largely-clueless-about-where-us-budget-goes.php

[MadHound]

3. Obama, along with several other Democratic politicians, are excellent speakers,

They can explain to the public, in simple, yet compelling terms, why exactly we need such a jobs creation program. They can seize the public imagination, and shape public opinion, if they are determined. And they can back this with valid economic reasoning coming from the likes of former government officials and Nobel prize winning economists. And frankly, if they feel the need to concede on the spending front, well, the vast majority of people want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday:shrug:

[dkf]

17. They would definitely need to do a huge PR offensive.

[sabrina 1]

11. The public does NOT want to cut

SS, Medicare and Medicaid. And oddly enough, when Politicians talk about cutting spending, that's all we hear. We never hear them talk about the biggest Government Program with the most waste, the Pentagon budget, never! Start showing the people those charts that are available and see how they react when they realize the trillions of wasted tax dollars that all but unaccounted for.

Democrats now need to start telling the truth to the public about 'spending' and how we got into this mess, and it ZERO to do with those programs, other than the fact that we do not have Medicare for all, which would be way cheaper than what we now have.

Wars, Bailouts for corrupt, criminals on Wall St, Tax Cuts for the wealthy who have the lowest tax rates since the '60s and have created NO JOBS. We can't afford to keep these people in their mansions anymore.

End the Bush tax cuts, why were they extended in the first place?

And if we really are in such debt, then end foreign aid to countries that do not need it.

This country has plenty of money and the Public overwhelmingly wants the Rich to pay their fair share, so why is it not happening?

When democrats get on the people's side in this fight, a fight where only one side is actually fighting, the teabaggers will be gone.

[Dad Infinitum]

24. Balogna

Every poll says 70% want to raise revenues

[Sirveri]

4. Obama has repeatedly shown that he doesn't want to do this.

Same with the majority of the Democratic party. We need more than Bernie Sanders and Kuchinich and a handful of others to accomplish something like this, but the majority are owned so it will never happen.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. It'll happen in one breath.

[MadHound]

6. Well, considering that their collective ass is on the line next year,

One would hope that their instinct for self preservation would kick in at some point or another. For if they keep following the path they're on, Obama is a one term president, and all of Congress will be in 'Pug hands.

[killbotfactory]

7. Truman campaigned against congress, calling them the "Do Nothing Congress"

The 80th congress stalled Trumans agenda. When any of Obama's supporters here complain about Congress being worthless, and how we should focus on throwing the bums out, rather than mercilessly bashing Obama, a common reply is to post a pic of Truman at the oval office with the sign reading "The Buck Stops Here" justifying their complaints against the president for being ineffective.

The irony, it burns.

I would bet good money when Obama campaigns against the stupid halfwit republicans in congress, as he did the last time, he will be met with derision by his critics for "passing the buck" in the progressive blogosphere.

Nevermind Labor was well-organized and had much more support at that time which gave them far more effective politically than we are today.

[sabrina 1]

12. You haven't been hearing enough of what Progressives are saying

clearly.

When progressives criticize this president it is based on HIS OWN actions, HIS OWN statements, few of which include correcting the lies of the Right about 'entitlement' programs eg, or the reasons why we have such debt.

He was criticized, rightly, for extending the Bush Tax Cuts when his party held the majority. The excuse was he HAD TO DO IT or THEY would not have extended the UI benefits. Excuse me but we HAD A MAJORITY. And why did he allow those two issues to be tied together in the first place?

Progressives want nothing more than a Democrat in the WH who is fighting for them. Why do you think they worked so hard to get that?

Obama has been 'compromising' and touting 'bi-partisanship' from his first day in office, something Progressives WARNED HIM AGAINST doing. But his administration viewed Progressive ideas as 'retarded' and continued to negotiate with terrorists.

The idea that Progressives are happy to have to state these facts is plain BS and nothing more. The country is in trouble, and what they want is for those they elected to start fighting the enemy, NOT reaching across the aisle to shake his hand.

[killbotfactory]

14. A majority in the Senate doesn't matter

If there are enough Senator's willing to filibuster damn near everything. It basically puts right leaning democrats and the one or two republicans willing to compromise on issues in the catbirds seat. That's why the public option was nixed. The tax compromise barely passed as it was, which would have put negotiating taxes, UI extentions, and stimulus money with the psychotic republicans we currently have in the House. That would have been far more disastrous to the poor or unemployed than extending rich people's tax cuts for a couple years. Tax cuts for the rich are a problem, but not an immediate concern. Helping the poor, middle class, and unemployed in the middle of the worst economic disaster in recent memory is the priority.

[jaysunb]

8. I'm glad you're calling on ALL Democrats

and not just the President. This is a large part of the problem, too many expect/demand too little of the actual policy makers.

[readmoreoften]

9. Except this doesn't interest them.

[handmade34]

10. just reading "Looking Forward"

by FDR... 1933

"...there are only two general directions...benefit of the few (or) government for the benefit of the many..."

"...at the end of another century we shall have all of American industry controlled by a dozen corporations and run by perhaps a hundred men... we are steering a steady course toward economic oligarchy..."

"As I see it, the task of government in its relation to business is to assist the development of an economic declaration of rights......cannot exist unless prosperity is uniform--- that is, unless purchasing power is well distributed throughout every group in the Nation..."

"...our government owes to every man an avenue to possess himself of sufficient for his needs through his own work......we must restrict the operations of the speculator, the manipulator, even the financier...not to hamper individualism, but to protect it"

and on and on... the people we are fighting now are the protégés of the ones who hated FDR then!!

[JDPriestly]

13. Precisely, MadHound

But then, you are describing what democracy looks like.

And Obama and the oligarchs are not really about democracy.

My Congressman, Xavier Becerra, is out here, talking to us at least once a month. Sometimes he makes himself available personally or through his coffees every week.

Now, that is representation.

If your congressmember is not holding open meetings with you and other constituents at least once a month, then you need to organize your neighbors. It doesn't matter whether they are Democrats or Republicans, you should be able to hear from you representative either on a telephone conference call or in a town hall type of meeting and ask a few questions at least once a month or once every two months.

If we could just change this one thing, we would have a different scene in D.C.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. The public LIKES feisty politicians

They feel unrepresented, and they LIKE politicians who at least appear to be fighting for ordinary people.

[spin]

18. Obama is a great campaigner. but doesn't appear at his point has having ...

great leadership abilities.

Before I voted for him, I considered his experience level. It was my opinion that anyone who could run such a great campaign could really change our nation.

I realize that one of the most important skills that a good leader can have is to surround himself with some really good advisers. Perhaps his staff has let him down and failed to provide shrewd advise.

Still, there is time for Obama to use his great oratory skill from the bully pulpit. He still could garner support for his policies from the people. Unfortunately, the media does appear to be turning against him and Fox News has a loud bullhorn.

The time is running short. If he hopes to win a second term, the ecomony needs to start improving.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

19. Heard the term "Infrastructure Bank" The President snd Ds in Congress are way ahead of you, though

media coverage of their efforts is another epic fail. (see http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58786.html for an exception).

IMO "Infrastructure Banks" are the MOST BRILLIANT POLITICAL IDEA I have heard since the "War on Poverty".

On the Sunday talk shows today, John Kerry. David Axelrod, and other Democrats all called for immediate passage of a bill crafted over 17 years by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) ( http://delauro.house.gov/release.cfm?id=3023 ) and co-sponsored by Kerry in the Senate.

IMO the fundamental problem with infrastructure in the US is that Federal, State, and local governments have no CAPITAL ACCOUNTS. Capital accounts allow projects that are going to last much longer than one political term to be financed, paid off, and maintained with low yearly government costs. Without capital accounts, governments must spend millions or billions in a single year to get big projects done.

Much of our crumbling infrastructure dates from the 1930s or 1950s because FDR and Dwight Eisenhower were the last Presidents to muster the political will to carry out multiple, huge projects on their watch.

Many municipalities issue bonds for school construction, and many states and coalitions of states form single-project "authorities" to build airports, seaports, turnpikes, water tunnels, etc. But such projects often fail because of politically-driven incompetence.and corruption.

An infrastructure bank consists of competent professionals whoroutinely issue bonds on behalf of federal, state, or locao governments. Government dollars leverage private dollars, the infrastructure bank carries long-term projects on its books, and governments can carry out projects that last much longer than any President's, Governor's or Mayor's term.

The DeLauro-Kerry bill proposes that up to $60 billion be spent this year to capitalize infrastructure banks. Fractional-reserve banking and mutiple bons issues could multiply those relatively few billions into TRILLIONS worth of airports, electric grids, bridges, etc, and MILLIONS of jobs.

But Republicans--even Republicans who like the idea--are holding up House and legislationm, just because they don't want to give the President a "WIN" this close to his reelection effort.

[Lorien]

20. What we need is a strong leader with a clear vision who truly wants to fight for

us, the working people. Unfortunately, we don't have that.

[BzaDem]

21. While I do not disagree with this as a campaign strategy, I think (and many political scientists

think) that the use of the bully pulpit is quite overrated. It is certainly overrated if it used to explain why FDR and LBJ got anything passed. The real reason they got anything passed was that they had high-double/low-triple-digit majorities in the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and a fraction of the Republican party that actually was somewhat liberal and not extremist. Those factors do not exist today, and if they didn't exist back then, FDR and LBJ would have passed precisely nothing.

So yes, I think Obama should campaign on the do-nothing Congress, with a variety of proposals. But I don't think it is actually going to result in any of his proposals passing, before or after the election.

[MadHound]

22. Well, first of all, it is worth trying

Because it is one of the few things we've got left.

Second, while you and a lot of political experts think that the bully pulpit is overrated, a lot think that it isn't, but rather underutilized.

[blindpig]

23. If they wanted things different they would be doing so, ...

but they are not.

The conclusion is obvious.