A previous post has the Obama speech transcript. Below are some quick summaries of what I heard in comments following the speech on CBS, PBS, and ABC.
Bob Shieffer of CBS said something like, "Obama tossed the high hard one. A different approach by Obama. A lot of Harry Truman in the speech."
PBS immediately after (I did not get the names of commentators). "Obama taking it to the country." "Obama dodged specific statements of tax and spend details." "Focus is correctly on jobs, jobs and we must dig ourselves out of this hole."
GOP spokesman noted, The President failed to display any change in philosophy. That was a mistake. ( Think this perspective is nonsense. If a change of philosophy is required, it is for Republicans to get out of the cult of economic mythology and specious social non-issues.)
CBS noted later that the President and speech seemed different from past. Obama is acting if he knows the people are behind him and his jobs position and not behind that of the GOP controlled part of Congress.
I saw only a few seconds of comments at ABC. Primarily, "He (Obama) came looking for a fight." A senior Obama advisor (David Pluff?) said Obama's speech was an impassioned plea to Congress that also asks, "How can Congress report back to constituents, "We did nothing." Pluff concluded, "We must do something".
The PBS Charlie Rose show devoted the full hour to the speech with a panel including (names may not be completely correct): Mark Halperin of TIME, Ken Rogoff of Harvard University, Carl Schramm of ewing,marion Kaufman Foundation?, Andy Sterm of GeorgeTown Public Affairs?, Nia Malika Hendersen of Wash. Post?, and John Heilemann of New Yorker Magazine?.
"Tenor, direct, feisty, consequential". Not sure who said that. It was "consequential" in that the speech laid out consequences of action and inaction. Andy Stern thought the speech "was great":. Ken Rogoff of Harvard also thought the speech "was great". Mark Halperin thought it was not the way to influence the House and Senate Republicans. Halperin appeared to have no ideas of what could possibly influence them however. He noted that Republicans were already saying the speech is just more of the same old same old.
Somehow Republicans saying that what Obama said was the same old same old seems like a most egregious case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have heard nothing from Republicans that comes remotely close to a solution of any economic or jobs problems. They keep repeating the same old failed economic mythology and outright lies about the impact of the so-called Obama stimulus.
Nia Malika Henderson said the speech really "wasn't bipartisan" and that it was a "poitical speech looking toward 2012" I won't disagree that the speech was political or more correctly "partisan". What I ask, is what has Obama gotten for supporting compromise as a virtue and trying to get Republicans involved with solving problems instead of creating more problems? Mostly the equivalent of a slap in the face and contempt from the GOP assuming that holding compromise as a virtue in a Democracy is instead a sign of weakness to be exploited for the narrowest kind of partisan advantage without regard to the damage to the economy and the country
Carl Schramm said the speech was not Obama's usual "round- about elliptical kind of oratory." Which he implied was better, and I agree. When asked by Rose what Obama should have said or had neglected to say, Schramm said there was not enough emphasis on new ventures as the driving force behind increasing the velocity of job increases. Schramm also thought universities should loosen control of intellectual property which might help new ventures and research development.
John Heilemann of New Yorker said it was a poltical speech that offered Keynsian solutions to a country not in favor of Keynsian solutions. I don't think he knows whether or not the country cares if a solution that works is Keynsian or not. What he neglects to mention is that anything offered by the Republicans would just pile more failure on top of more failure no matter what they call their economic mythology.
Echoing other ideas that Obama had to reframe his positions and program plans, Nia Malika Henderson said that Obama wrapped the issues in terms of problems familiar to all working families and grounded it in terms sensible to the working poor. Obama had to reset the narrative. Kenneth Rogoff said Obama made the case. And that Obama has noticed a statistically measurable drop in liberal support which if it continued on present curve would leave Obama very, very vulnerable in the next election.
Halperin was back again with his message that the speech was ineffective because it was not an appeal to the Republicans. Andy Stern said that it made no sense to return again to what had failed to work before with the Republicans. Somebody noted that the GOP strategy of no compromise had worked and no doubt they assume they can get by with that again. Malika Henderson noted that liberals had viewed Obama's compromise with Reublicans on debt and taxes as a "crap sandwich".
There seemed to be some agreement that the current economic condition and changes over the last 20 years or so fundamentally different that Washington is not coming to real terms with it and the muddle by Washington politicos is causing more harm than good. Heilemann said Obama had to make a significant contrast with Republicans and he did that. The contrast "starts today".
Obama also made the case for government as being necessary in our daily lives. Where would we be if Republicans had killed road systems, bridge building, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. etc.
In a stew of discussion mixing the speech and the GOP debates, someone said that no matter which was the GOP nominee, Romney or Perry, we would not get a serious discussion of real economic issues. There will not be a healthy debate.
The problem someone said was that Washington had no idea of the real significance of startups. Andy Stern said that big business isn't really even American anymore, but rather international and they will not be the source of new jobs. They are something like a steamship trying to turn around in a duck pond. The GOP market fundamentalism is not right for competing with countries and peoples which view themselves as one unified whole economic and social engine.
Stern seemed to finish off the discussion with the idea that Washington's inability to comprehend the problems of real people and the truly monumental nature of our economic transition has the politicians or (partisans?)."hurting rather than helping".
Well, that is a perhaps flawed summary of some talking heads soon after the Obama speech. No doubt more thoughtful analysis will follow, but don't expect it to come from Republicans and their apologists. They stand firmly on the sand of their economic mythology and cultlike adherance to nonsense that has failed in the past, would fail today, and would fail tomorrow.
*** Stay tuned even if you were smart enough to go to bed early last night -- Doug Wiken
Recent Comments