State of dysfunction
The mood on the eve of the State of the Union address
State of dysfunction
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
So here we go again. The airwaves and dead trees and blogs are replete with partisan and punditized advice about What Obama Should Do. Forgive me for experiencing a deja vu.
This kind of advice spilled forth in abundance during the spring of '08, when Obama's presidential primary bid stalled in the Rustbelt, mostly because of the race issue and Jeremiah Wright; and again on the eve of the Democratic convention, when Democrats melted down in fear that Obama wasn't "connecting" with everyday folks. In both instances, however, Obama himself quelled the cacophony about What Obama Should Do by delivering highly effective, even visionary, speeches.
But those speeches occurred during a campaign, when words are the treasured coin of the realm. Governing is different. A big speech about governance has to get down to specifics. Honeyed rhetoric is less important than a blueprint for action. It's about navigating the treacherous crossroads where politics and policy collide.
Which brings us to tonight, when Obama will deliver his State of Dysfunction address.
What word better describes the current paralysis? There is no "Union," after all. Obama's liberal base is ticked off that he has proposed a partial spending freeze (which we'll hear more about tonight), and believes that such a freeze will chill progressivism and kill off comprehensive health care reform. If Obama hints tonight that he wants to shelve the latter, the base will go ballistic. Liberals are already steamed that Obama is proposing a freeze, whereas, during the '08 campaign debates with John McCain, he dismissed a freeze as tantamount to "using a hatchet where you need a scalpel."
Meanwhile, the centrist independents, who voted GOP in three recent elections (Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial, Massachusetts senatorial) have been ticked off about the growing federal deficit, so perhaps they'll be mollified by a partial spending freeze (or maybe they'll dismiss it as an empty gesture, since Obama is talking about relatively small trims). More importantly, unless Obama does hint tonight that he favors shelving comprehensive health care reform, he may risk losing even more of the angry middle.
And if he fails to give a clear signal either way on health reform (which is likely), he'll unnerve the liberals and the angry middle.
And then, of course, we have the Capitol Hill Republicans, whose entire agenda is to destroy Obama's presidency. At this point, it hardly matters what he proposes, because they're the party of Groucho Marx ("Your proposition may be good / But let's have one thing understood / Whatever it is, I'm against it / And even when you've changed it or condensed it/ I'm against it"). If Obama announced tonight that he was hoping to enact the entire Republican National Committee platform, the odds are high that the Senate GOP, with the help of co-President Scott Brown, would threaten another filibuster.
By the way, the latest bipartisan NBC-Wall Street Journal poll reports that the Republicans get the most blame for the current dysfunction; 48 percent of Americans fault the congressional GOP, while 41 percent fault the Democrats. On the other hand, only 39 percent say they are confident that Obama has the right goals for the country, which is one reason why tonight he's expected to curry favor with middle-class families (new tax credits for child care, more help on student loan payments - the kind of small-ball stuff that Bill Clinton used to do when he was in trouble, the stuff that liberals used to dismiss as insufficient).
The bottom line is that Obama somehow has to lay out a roadmap that will attract his base as well as the angry middle. Although I'm stumped as to how he would do that. For instance, the liberal wing of his party would love to see him announce a second ambitious economic stimulus plan, which they see as essential to curing the recession and creating jobs, in the Keynesian tradition; but if he announced such a proposal (which he won't), the angry middle would probably see that as further evidence of runaway deficit spending.
And clearly, What Obama Should Do is address the public's concern about the Washington sclerosis; in the NBC-WSJ poll, 93 percent of Americans believe there’s too much partisan strife. No doubt, he will call upon the lawmakers to behave like adults. Good luck with that. Everyone is calling on Obama to lead, but a politically polarized and institutionally paralyzed Congress isn't likely to follow. George W. Bush used to talk every January about the need to foster "a spirit of goodwill and respect" and "the wisdom of working together," in his periodic attempts to "change the tone of Washington."
Which is why this annual presidential speech usually teaches us anew that words are cheap, and that blueprints for action, all too often, are ephemeral. It would be a pleasant surprise if Obama's ritual exercise proves to be the rare exception.
The Republicans may get the blame in a poll, but Democrats get the blame at the voting booth.— jmc
Comment removed.
Obama , the black Tony Blair , all smiles , great speaches and nothing else .— PAEnglish- Comment removed.
You reap what you sow. Obama has caused is own demise.— CD75- Joe Wilson needs to bring his A game for tonight's speech, and he needs to inform Americans that Conse 'Pubs are NOT happy, like they were under Bush. It's THEIR country, and Fox NEWS screams that the vast majority see things their way.— Talvenada
- SPIN BORO MIKE: From the last thread, nobody said you said anything. I stated the Conse 'Pub POV that the few e-mails total disproved global warming. Do you feel differently? Let's hear it! Is Obama guilty as projected by Conse 'Pub pols, regarding Acorn? I haven't heard word one to say it's not all of Acorn. If you feel it's not Obama and/or all of Acorn, say so? Here's your chance! Let's hear it.— Talvenada
- “If without violence the tyrant is simply not obeyed, he becomes naked and undone and as nothing.” -Etienne de la Boetie— Fisher
- Keep drinking the kool aid. The latest WSJ poll shows that 48% of American blame Republicans for government not working well while 41% blame Dems and just 21% blame Obama. In fact, Obama's job approval rating went up 2 points to 50%. The real problem is that Republicans are trying to scuttle the ship in order to blame Dems so they can grab power back. They have no interest in doing anything that benefits the American people. I wonder how many vacation days Bush had taken at this point? Hmm, then these conservative nitwits want to blame a guy for actually working. Shows their ill-contrived priorities.— samtheshampharaoh
- Comment removed.
- Well put, Mr. Polman Great touch invoking the Marx Brothers; sadly, it appears to be true. If only our politicians would learn what the rest of us know from life: It isn't all one-way, and every day we are asked to reach some kind of compromise. Now if only they could apply that to legislating we would really have something. I've been thinking all morning what the (R) reaction is going to be. Funny, we reached the same conclusion that they'd still complain regardless of how much of their agenda Obama embraced.
- When dems last option is to blame republicans (zero power to do or even suggest anything) and fox news (a television station) it becomes clear that the liberal policies and ambitions have failed. Here's a good idea though http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027021768240904.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion— tjm333126
- PREDICTION: Obama will prove that Conse 'Pubs are 100% right in his speech tonight, and they will inform us of most of the flaws. There are so many; don't you know.— Talvenada
- Comment removed.
- TJM: Obama had 9 months to fix a few little things, and he failed.— Talvenada
- yep, Obama is at 50-44 in the NBC/WSJ poll, a year ago he was at 60-26; and in the CNN poll he is at 48-49. On the economy he is 47-49, while in April '09 (after signing the stimulus), he was at 55-37. As to the parties, 38% have a negative view of both the Dems and the Reps, so they are equal. More people blame R's rather than D's, but both have a majority saying they get no blame, so what does that mean? Not much. Let's turn to healthcare, good idea/bad idea is 31-46 (last April, it was 33-26) and 49% believe his healthcare plan to be a stop backward. All in all, it is not good news for Obama and Polman is right, he really needs to deliver a home run tonight followed up by action tomorrow. And they should shelve healthcare.— tom - wilmington, de
"Use Senate reconciliation and expand Medicare via the Senate’s buy-in provisions. The CBO has already signed off on this as a means of saving money. More importantly, if more Americans can do a buy-in with Medicare, it creates more cost control (because there’s a genuine “public option” competitor). It also helps to solve the problems of pre-existing conditions, because Medicare does not deny coverage on this basis. Allowing a Medicare buy-in to Americans under 65 would give people a genuine alternative to private insurance and thereby render the pre-existing question moot. It would also lower Medicare costs by expanding the risk pool of patients (the great bulk of medical expenses are accounted for by a small number of people, mostly the elderly, requiring very expensive treatment). And it would substantially enhance the global competitiveness of American corporations. After all, in what other country in the world is health care a marginal cost of production for business?" - Marshall Auerback- WAD: It figures you would like that, as you have never been happy with any pol of any party ever.— Talvenada
- Tal, Obama had a year, and total control of Washington. The only people who stopped him were his own party. In the NBC/WSJ poll, by 61-39 those responding said Democrats tried to push through legislation with no bi-partisanship, and by 61-38 they said Republicans tried to block legislation with no try at bi-partisanship. So there was equal blame to go around.— tom - wilmington, de
- Comment removed.
- Talvenada, you need to get some facts right. First, NO Conservative was happy with Bush, with the exception of terrorism. Conservatives revolted against Harriett Maiers, Dubai Ports, Medicare prescription drugs, and No Child Left Behind. What makes you believe Conservatives were totally in love with Bush? As for the climategate e-mails, what they proved was possible distortion/manipulation of the data (see Himalayan glacier mea culpa) and that the debate, regardless of Al Gore and the UN, is not settled science. As to ACORN, they do some good work. Not all of ACORN is corrupt, and some of their spin-off operations do help people. However, the tapes showed that there was corruption and malfeasance going on, and that any federal funding should be stopped until there can be a clear audit trail as to where it is going. Kind of like how they kept silent that one of their founders embezzled over $1 million from them.— tom - wilmington, de
- jwad, did you check out where Obama told Diane Sawyer he did not make any deals regarding healthcare, and that any deals happened in Congress without his knowledge? I wonder what color the sky is in Obamaland.— tom - wilmington, de
- On a brighter note, Pat Toomey (Minor regional party candidate) leads Arlen (the Waxer) Specter by 14.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- An "institutionally paralyzed Congress"? Only the U.S. Senate is institutionally paralyzed. And that's entirely because of its filibuster rule and the determination of the Republican minority not to compromise across party lines. Senate Democrats need to eliminate the filibuster rule to make it possible to pass Senate bills with a simple majority of 51 votes. If they're unwilling to do that, the Obama presidency and the country will suffer needlessly as a result of the Senate's continued paralysis.— RobertInPhilly
- TOM: Thank you. Finally, some fair and balanced comments from a Conse 'Pub.— Talvenada
- Robert, it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to change the rules, so the filibuster will be with us for quite a while. Alas, the Dems had 60 votes, enough to stop a filibuster. So why blame Republicans for the Dems failure to coalesce around legislation and pass it?— tom - wilmington, de
- Tal, I got them from Fox News.— tom - wilmington, de
- Or polls numbers only count when they lean right. Why hasn't Obama healed the sick, given the blind vision, fed the hungry, made the disabled walk? I'm sure if he were a white conservative all of our nation's problems would be fixed.— samtheshampharaoh
- "I have stopped listening to anything obama says because he is plain and simple a filthy lying politician" Right as opposed to the last guy that made up some imaginary tale about WMDs, yellow cake, and a mission being accomplished and then even spied on the very people that elected (or didn't elect) him.— samtheshampharaoh
- BOHICA, go back to the racist hellhole you came from. JMC, Virginia still likes Republicans, NJ hated Corzine, and Coakley was possibly the worst candidate for senate in the history of MA. We'll see who the voters punish when November turns up on the calender. Given the polling data, not looking good for the unreconstructed Re-Obstructicons.— CutterMcCool
- Comment removed.
- Robert, so NOW you oppose the filibuster rule? It reminds me how my mother-in-law used to loathe grandchildren in restaurants until they were her own.— A Friend
- Comment removed.
- tom: I've agreed with most of your posts today (yeah, I'm not happy about it either), but you need to be consistent. On other threads, you have made the case that NCLB and Medicare prescription drugs were passed in bi-partisan fashion. Now, "NO Conservative" was fo rthem. Is it your contention then that NONE of the Republicans voting for those measurres were Republican? ... And not to go back down this rabbit hole, but you NEVER supplied any examples of East Anglia emails that showed any manipulation of data. You've repeated it many times, but couldn't produce any. Some that showed unprofessional and even childish behavior, sure. But no data manipulation.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- tom: and while it does take a 2/3 majority to change Senate rules, executing the "nuclear option" does not. this is what was talked about in 2004/2005 and the "gang of 14" prevented. From wikipedia "... Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. ... The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent."— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- If I recall correctly, the filibuster rules depend on rules of parliamentary procedure which are voted on (majority vote) at the beginning of each annual session of Congress. The Republicans threatened to invoke this 'nuclear option' a few years ago when they had a slim majority in the Senate. I really think that if it's possible, the Democrats need to vote to outlaw the filibuster and then pass everything they can get 51 of their own people to agree on. The Republicans will never compromise anyway, as Polman notes, so there's no reason to include them in any negotiations - they are unprincipled liars who will say and do anything to make Obama, and American, fail, so just bring the hammer down on them and let the voters decide whether it was the right thing next November. In the meantime, we get health care reform, cap & trade, and pretty much anything else the moderate middle might want.— yoda
- TOM: I've never said everything on Fox is false, or that everything on MSNBC is true. I expect some biased opinions to slip in, but the % of opinion pollution is my gripe.— Talvenada
- Still Independent- from the last blog. "According to the White House Office of Management and Budget's historical tables, discretionary spending will go from roughly $1.13 trillion in the 2008 fiscal year (Bush's last full year budget) to $1.41 trillion in 2010. That's a roughly 24 percent increase"..... The spending is atrocius no matter how much you want to quibble over this number. Furthermore there is 500 billion in stimulus that is unspent and the banks are paying back the tarp money. I say suspend the stimulus and use the tarp money to lower the deficit if we are serious about spending freezes
- jwad (D): it was dumb to not keep some of the data that was thrown out 30 years ago. However, only about 5% of the data was not kept, and nearly all of that still exists at the point of origin. By that I mean that if the CRU got dtata from NOAA (who maintains a lot of the monitoring stations)and subsequently threw it out, NOAA still has the same data - as it was theirs to begin with. Much of the raw data has been published for for fifteen or twenty years. It doesn't excuse throwing it out, which should NEVER be done, but please keep it in perspective. And that's only one line of many data sets that exist that all support the same conclusions. .. As an aside, since I mentioned published, that's the problem with FOIA requests, and why the scientists fight them. they are a royal PIA. Say you got served with a FOIA request for "all postings under the name 'jwad(D)'". You can not reply that "they are all on Philly.com". the onus is on you to go out there, find them all, and provide them. And if Philly.com doesn't archive properly? doesn't matter, you must still somehow provide them. Many of the FOIA requests were done solely to harrass.— still_independent
- If the Dems get the blame at the voting booth how to you explain the dem prez, and dem control of the house and senate.— borncynic
- swedesboromike : I keep finding different numbers for 2010 discretionary spending (I guess they won't know until GFY2010 is over". Agreed it's too much in any case. ... As I was thinking about it, what's scary is that all the CBO predictions, which are gloomy enough for the next few years, assume that all the Bush tax cuts are actually going to expire. In reality, I'm sure some will be renewed, which will make the deficit even worse.— still_independent
- born, you're a little behind. Forget about VA, NJ and MASS?— pj katauskas
- I don't know how many other Conse 'Pubs (TM pending) share my sentiments but I'm simply not going to watch tonight.I'm not certain what it is,maybe Obama speech fatigue but I'll look for something else.— Yankee Air Pirate 12
- Comment removed.
- tom: remember you had the over at 40 for 5.— still_independent
- Yank, I'm a Mod Pub and I'm skipping it, too. I'm tired of his speeches, since most of them aren't accompanied by actions. Even with a pres I voted for I'd often skip it and read the text the next day. It's become too formulaic and has really become a media/press event, like an awards ceremony. The pres reads the litany of what he's accomplished and his cheerleader congress-persons stand and applaud. Then he does the litany of what he proposes to accomplish and his cheerleaders stand and applaud. Blah blah.— pj katauskas
- Comment removed.
- jwad, if you haven't seen it yet, the Huffington Post has a hilarious drinking game to play during the address based on how many times he says "let me be clear, " or uses the word "I" and other stuff. It's very funny. I'd play it but I can't afford to get that smashed on a school night. Check it out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/state-of-the-union-drinki_n_436932.html— pj katauskas
- unfortunately, for all of us, Obama did not turn out to be the liberal savior or centrist wunderkind he was sold (to various audiences) to be. Just another politician, except more marketed. I imagine Obama 2.0 (drops tonight!) will not garner the same excitement (or sell as many units) as the original version. btw- I thought there were 12 mos in a year Talv? thanks for clearing that up. of course, this revelation means I'm 25 percent older than I realized. this is bad news.— tjm333126
- TJM: You're right that Obama is not the saviour that was projected by Rush Limbaugh and the right, but not by him or most reasonable people. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy for Rush. ........... It's nice. Leave a hugh mess, project an expectation of perfection with an impossible time table, put ALL the blame on your opponent's head, regain power and do whatever you feel is best for you.— Talvenada
- I guess Barry Obama is not up for the job he campaigned for. lots of whining from the Tal man. Wah, Wah, Wah! Mocknevada is in the House! conse pub gibberish mod lib dem— Alvenada
- MOCKvenada: Let me get this straight. I point out that Rush started this Messiah thing, and it means Obama is a failure? I point out that hot BS, and it means I'm whining? You write a few sentences, and it makes anyone who disagrees with you wrong or illiterate? Wow! You're quite a guy, like Rush. Does it get any better than being you, Conse 'Pub?— Talvenada
- Wah!, conse mod lib dem, Rush limbaugh, Mark Malloy, Sharon Tate & Tiny Tim— Alvenada
- MOCKvenada: Don't overdue the creativity. I don't want you to get a migraine.— Talvenada
- still_independent, two things. First, I said conservatives, not Republicans. Not every Republican is a conservative, just as not every Democrat is a liberal. NCLB and Medicare Drugs did pass with bi-partisan support, I mean who in their right mind is going to vote against improving education for children and against senior citizens? Second, I believe I said "possible" data manipulation.— tom - wilmington, de
- No pivot, same policy issues as his campaign, nothing new, same old same old. He had that capital gains tax break for small business in his campaign, why was it not part of 2009? He again mentioned nuclear and offshore drilling (I thought Pelosi would croak when he said those things), yet his energy and interior departments are making it even more difficult to do those things. Obama is an empty suit with nothing but empty promises. Notably absent from his speech, any mention of GITMO and the terror trials in NYC.— tom - wilmington, de
- Totally inappropriate for the president to call out the Supreme Court during a joint session of Congress. Even more inappropriate for the Democrats to stand and applaud as he did it. Talk about arrogance.— tom - wilmington, de
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
