In Debt Speech, Barack Obama Fires 2012 Warning Shots

President Obama is scheduled to travel to Chicago Thursday, where he will appear at a fundraiser not far from his brand new reelection campaign headquarters. But Obama supporters do not have to wait until Thursday night to get a taste of what Obama wants the 2012 campaign to look like.

The president’s speech Wednesday at George Washington University was billed as a serious policy address about his plans for kicking off his reelection. But it was more than that. It was a campaign speech, and a clear signal that Obama’s advisers expect the debt issue to carry over past 2011 into the 2012 campaign. After a brief homage to bipartisanship, he began by reprising a key campaign storyline from 2008: The fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress between 2000 and 2006.

After Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program, but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts; tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

This was not bridge-building language. And it would get more combative. The bulk of his speech focused on a critique of the Paul Ryan budget proposal, which Obama suggested was not just cynical, but almost un-American.

I believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them; if there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. . . . We are presented with a vision that says the American people, the United States of America, the greatest nation on Earth, can’t afford any of this.

Obama did not mention Ryan by name, but he did try to hang his plan around the necks of Obama’s 2012 rivals, saying it had been “embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates.”  In fact, as Jon Ward has reported at Huffington Post, most of the candidates have been careful to keep a safe distance from the Ryan proposal, praising it in only the broadest ways.

To be sure, there was policy in the speech, which Massimo, Jay and Kate deal with below, and there are sure to be serious negotiations between Obama and Republicans in the months ahead to address the deficit. It can also be said that Republican leaders, holding a rival press conference on Capitol Hill, hit just as combative political notes, loudly ruling out any tax increases to deal with the deficits, a position that effectively calls for indefinite extensions of tax cuts that are set to expire under current law.

But Obama’s speech was not the speech of the adult in the room, seeking to smooth the political waters, as White House aides have been hinting in recent days. This was the speech of a man in the arena, ready to rile up his base, fight for the center, and win the next election.

Related Topics: president, Barack Obama
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • nflfoghorn

    Since I haven’t seen the spin–er, speech–yet, I’ll take your word for it that he’s serious this time.
    .
    BTW, everyone’s drawing lines in the sand…God forbid we have a major event that turns the sand into mud.

  • 53_3

    Did he use one of those ‘red mist’ makers from an A10 warthog?
    .
    2012 shots is one hell hole of a lot of lead…

  • shepherdwong

    ut Obama’s speech was not the speech of the adult in the room…
    .
    Have any children, Michael? Because that sounded an awful lot like how you talk to them when they don’t understand something (and I’m pretty sure he was even talking to Republicans).

  • deconstructiva

    Sigh. Is THIS when Obama finally has enough and pushes back? Hope so but we could’ve used this sooner. Looks like the D base needs to show up in full force in ’12 …not for Obama’s sake but to push the R’s and TP’s out of Congress and the states and take back the legislating initiative.

  • Art Pepper

    But Obama’s speech was not the speech of the adult in the room.

    In the bit that I heard while driving to work, Obama was explaining basic facts about the history of the Federal budget deficit.

    I guess that’s “riling up the base.”

    The Ryan plan, of course, is Very Serious.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Michael Scherer was in a difficult spot. He knew that that if he did any analysis of the Ryan proposal, he’d be compelled to admit that it actually increases the deficit for the next ten years, then saves money by phasing out Medicare– which he knew would never happen. He knew that Pres. Obama’s plan, on the merits, made more political and fiscal sense, given current bond rates and the economy’s performance under 1990s income tax levels.
    -
    But he feared appearing partisan. (And, let’s be honest, he probably didn’t really know about bond rates after all, and he sure as heck didn’t want to have to learn). What to do?
    -
    He made the cliched decision to revert to horse-race journalism, speculating on the tone of the speech rather than policy.
    -
    Some would say that Scherer’s decision bodes ill for Time magazines circulation rates in 2012– after all, the reason that people care about the government is because it enacts policies that affect people’s lives.
    -
    But in the end, Scherer stayed safe, keeping his head down, refraining from drawing the ire of either side. His post is easy enough to read, and gives readers the impression of being well-informed without burdening their brains with cumbersome information about which policies the government is pursuing and why. His workmanlike effort merits a gentleman’s C.

  • perrywhite1

    Ryan’s plan isn’t “almost un-American.” It IS un-American.

  • apr2563

    Un-American and cruel.

  • bobell

    Coult it be that Scherer views Obama’s problem as a failure to describe the Ryan plan as “bold and serious”? Of course, the Ryan plan is the opposite of “bold and serious.” It’s cowardly and frivolous — and, while we’re at it, fraudulent. But let’s not allow that to distract us.

    Well, to be fair, Michael deferred to his colleagues on matters of policy. He’s just handicapping the horse race. Why anyone should be doing that at this stage of the campaign, and following one of the most important presidential economic addresses of the last quarter-century or so, is beyond me. But then, I ain’t no joornalist.

  • michaelfury

    “We increased spending dramatically for two wars”

    ————————————

    “Sounding presidential, Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.

    ‘The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting,’ he said, echoing Mr. Bush’s oft-repeated refrain.”

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-ones-who-attacked-us/

blog comments powered by Disqus