Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Anger Replaces Hope; ............Uh-Oh
Topic Started: Feb 15 2010, 08:54 PM (279 Views)
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown


.
Anger is replacing hope

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer – Mon Feb 15, 10:16 am ET

WASHINGTON – Thrust into office on the veracity of hope, President Barack Obama is trying to get himself on the right side of a remarkably different national sentiment these days: anger.

Obama's expansive domestic goals are largely the same, but his message is changing, now constructed around a concession that the public is disillusioned and wanting results. If he cannot show people that he understands their frustration and is working to fix it, the risks are real.

All that angst that Obama wants to harness as a force for change — as he did in his campaign — will turn against him. That means eroding public support for his agenda and potentially big losses for his party this year in congressional midterm elections.

So it was telling when Obama offered this take on Republican Scott Brown's Senate win in Massachusetts last month, one that weakened the president's hand: "The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated."

A new White House talking point was born, and it was hardly hope and change.

On that same day of postelection analysis, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs used some description of anger, frustration or both 12 times to describe what people were feeling, including this one: "That anger is now pointed at us, because we're in charge. Rightly so."

The Obama response has come in two parts. One is to try to get better about communicating to people that he is fighting to address exactly what angers them. The other is to put the onus on whomever he deems is getting in the way of progress, hoping to shift the heat onto them.

"If you, as a member of the public, do not perceive that leaders understand that you are angry and frustrated, you're not going to listen to what they say next," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of political communication at the University of Pennsylvania. "Their credibility is gone. And once you've lost that, it's hard to regain it."

And with people fed up about so many things at once — stubbornly high unemployment, partisanship, big government, banker bonuses — Obama's communications challenge is complex.

He must connect to people's bitterness without becoming exactly the person he warns about, politicians who exploit anger. And he has to personally relate to people's wrenching financial losses when his natural style is to speak in a professorial, explanatory way.

Even Obama has lamented a sense of public detachment from all his difficult first-year work, and has said he wants to do an improved job of communicating directly to people.

Examples of the retooled effort abound.

Obama gave a fiery pep talk during an Ohio town hall a few days after his party's big loss in Massachusetts. The next week he mocked news organizations for saying he had shifted to a more populist message."I've been fighting for working folks my entire adult life," he said.

In his State of the Union speech, Obama was speaking to Democratic and Republican lawmakers, but also, really, to families watching at home, when he offered this I-hear-you-America line: "We all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it."

And Obama has gotten more vocal in seeking Republican help — knowing the nation is angry about bickering — but he challenges the opposition party each time. "We'll call them out when they say they want to work with us, and we extend a hand and get a fist in return," he said.

"Fat cat" bankers, lobbyists, insurance companies, the media, even the Supreme Court. Obama has targeted all of them in trying to show people that he is on the regular guy's side.

"It's perhaps a winning strategy in the short term," said David Gergen, a political analyst and former adviser to four presidents. "It will help to align him with those who are frustrated. But it is not a winning strategy over the long haul. You can't run for re-election pointing to all the things that are wrong with the system."

As Obama seeks to capture and channel the nation's frustration, he has plenty of tools in his favor. He is viewed as likable by the public, he is still in just his 13th month in office, his party controls both chambers of Congress and he is seeing the economy start to recover.

Working against him: Expectations. People want improved lives faster. Hope gets harder to sustain for the jobless or for those ever exasperated by the Wall Street bailout.

Obama tried to caution people even in the celebration of his election night in 2008.

"Our climb will be steep," he said then. "We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."

The this-will-take-time part largely was lost among the throngs clamoring for change.

Obama also has the tough task of relating to anger without showing much of it. Presidents are supposed to keep their cool. Obama tends to operate that way anyway, which sometimes is cast as advantage, and other times gets him depicted as seeming detached even if he isn't.

"If my poll numbers are low, then I'm cool and cerebral and cold and detached," Obama said of the way people interpret his demeanor. "If my poll numbers are high, well, he's calm and reasoned. So that's the filter through which a lot of this stuff is interpreted."

Don't expect the president to pound the podium just to make a point, Gibbs said.

But do expect him to keep showing, in his own way, that he feels the public's pain.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that two-thirds of people are either dissatisfied by the way the federal government is working or outright angry about it.

And that's a problem Obama now owns.

"The public is not this highly rational, nuanced creature," Jamieson said.
"When the public is unhappy, it blames the status quo. And when you're the establishment, the 'change' election moves to the other party."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_anger

.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown

"You can't run for re-election pointing to all the things that are wrong with the system."


They just might try. Obama was one of only 100 U.S. Senators in the country and he ran like he dropped out the sky the month before the election.

.
Edited by Mason, Feb 15 2010, 08:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
Quote:
 
But do expect him to keep showing, in his own way, that he feels the public's pain.


Somebody is several sammiches short of a picnic...

What the heck is his way of showing this? Moweboma's $3K coats? Parties?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
Quote:
 
Obama was one of only 100 U.S. Senators in the country and he ran like he dropped out the sky the month before the election.


And left Illinois a smoking wreck...
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Has anybody heard the opinion that somebody expressed that after he leaves office, investigations into BHO's connections could land him incarcerated?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carolyn says
Member Avatar

dsl
Feb 15 2010, 10:21 PM
Has anybody heard the opinion that somebody expressed that after he leaves office, investigations into BHO's connections could land him incarcerated?

Sweetheart, I and so many others were yelling that at the top of our lungs BEFORE he was elected! Hello, Rezko, anyone? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's the graft of his money getting into Harvard, the graft Michelle took for kicking out uninsured black children (face ripped by a pit bull, no less) from UCMC, the graft about their house 'loan', the graft about the boards Michelle worked out for humongous fees, etc. And let's not even talk of the graft of the slum properties Obama funded for Rezko. Yes, Obama and the missus stank of corruption from day one.

But the media never said a thing because Obama was shielded by his race - and now he's shielded by his office.

But trust me, that's all going to end. Once Obama no longer has the shield of the presidency to hide behind, he's going to be in serious incarceration trouble. And judging by the damage he's done to the 'race card' defense, that especially will no longer help him. (You know - as far as that race card is concerned, you have to savor the irony of Obama ripping to pieces the very green curtain he's hid behind all these years). Yeah - come January 2013, this dude is in for some rough times. He's worked for it, he's earned and I'm going to see to it that no one deprives him of it.

Okay, rant off.


Edited by Carolyn says, Feb 15 2010, 10:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rant on, Carolyn. It brings energy to this board!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

Note to self: Stay off the wrong side of one Carolyn's rants. :Sam:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
comelately

Carolyn says
Feb 15 2010, 10:55 PM
dsl
Feb 15 2010, 10:21 PM
Has anybody heard the opinion that somebody expressed that after he leaves office, investigations into BHO's connections could land him incarcerated?

Sweetheart, I and so many others were yelling that at the top of our lungs BEFORE he was elected! Hello, Rezko, anyone? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's the graft of his money getting into Harvard, the graft Michelle took for kicking out uninsured black children (face ripped by a pit bull, no less) from UCMC, the graft about their house 'loan', the graft about the boards Michelle worked out for humongous fees, etc. And let's not even talk of the graft of the slum properties Obama funded for Rezko. Yes, Obama and the missus stank of corruption from day one.

But the media never said a thing because Obama was shielded by his race - and now he's shielded by his office.

But trust me, that's all going to end. Once Obama no longer has the shield of the presidency to hide behind, he's going to be in serious incarceration trouble. And judging by the damage he's done to the 'race card' defense, that especially will no longer help him. (You know - as far as that race card is concerned, you have to savor the irony of Obama ripping to pieces the very green curtain he's hid behind all these years). Yeah - come January 2013, this dude is in for some rough times. He's worked for it, he's earned and I'm going to see to it that no one deprives him of it.

Okay, rant off.


I hope you are right - and in any rational world order, you would be. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is not in prison - and in any rational world order, she would be there. So I dunno - but I hope you are right! :think:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

I can’t foresee Zero having much success with anything that will counter the public’s perception of what the solutions are before the mid-term elections, and the agenda he’s still pushing does not look like he’s trying.

The move by Reid on the jobs bill leaves Zero’s bipartisan efforts looking like they’re trying to fool the public into believing the Republicans are the source of spending problems, maybe set up to do just that, but the end result makes it look like Reid wants to spend less on jobs and ignore input by Republicans.

There has been written about former staffmembers of the Clinton years coming into help out, which looks more like Zero searching for help on himself being re-elected than pushing his agenda, though I’m sure they all have input on health care and taxing. The job / economy will not just instantly turn around for this coming election and I doubt it will get much better within the next few years (stays flat as I see it).

Zero has 3 years to convince the public Bush created all the problems and he’s working FOR THE PEOPLE to correct them, while the Republicans have a little less time to find a candidate that looks better. The issues tied in with the economy that I notice most are energy, deficit/debt, health care and unions (which I have no problem with the idea why they were originally established).

If Zero moves in the direction he has been pushing on green issues it will increase the cost of energy for not only all that consume it in their cars and homes, but also in businesses that have to compete in price with the rest of the world. Businesses can campaign all they want now, so we could anticipate the public being better informed on what those businesses say is the problem.

The deficit/debt Zero is only making worse. The taxes have to increase revenue, as it is clear spending cuts are not a goal for him. I can’t see how the deficit will hold down interest rates to promote growth, as the debt is rolled over and increased the demand for funding has the USA competing for more of it.

The health care solutions on the table have all been spend more, with no mention of how to cuts costs besides the the fed’s letting all they want to control the prices paid in Medicare/Medicaid, which has service providers dropping from the programs.

As for unions and all similar problems associated with them, the states are going broke and the cost of operations can only go up if that is the direcrtion we’re heading. I’ll touch on this topic more in a separate post, as Zero is PUSHING this matter hard.

Should Zero have taken office while the economy was growing, when the public had more food on the table to share, he might have been able to pass more of his agenda for us to pay for. The state of the economy and how slow it will recover should help prevent him from doing that in this term and hopefully it will keep him from being re-elected.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp


Quote:
 
Construction Industry Opposes Obama Pro-Union Order

Friday, February 12, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
A federal commission has yet to enact a year-old executive order that President Barack Obama thinks will avoid labor unrest but one that critics say discriminates against non-union companies and non-union workers in federal contracting.

The construction industry, one of the hardest hit industries from the economic downturn, is speaking out against enactment of the executive order. While unemployment is 9.7 percent nationwide, it is 18.7 percent in the construction industry.

Brett McMahon, vice president of the Miller & Long concrete construction firm in Bethesda, Md., said the company is anxious over what will happen if the executive order is enacted.

“This would make it virtually impossible for non-union contractors to work on a job, more precisely for non-union construction workers to even get a job,” McMahon told CNSNews.com. “Project Labor Agreements would require 25- to 30-page long collective bargaining agreements.”

Only 15.6 percent of American private contracting workers are unionized, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Project Labor Agreements (PLA) could require any construction firm with a federal contract to obtain workers through union “hiring halls” or a centralized dispatch service, as opposed to just using their own workforce.

The executive order defines a PLA as a “pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project.”


Obama signed Executive Order 13502 on Feb. 6, 2009. The order would apply the PLAs to federal construction projects that cost $25 million or more. The apparent reasoning behind the order is that because most large projects have several contractors and subcontractors involved, a single labor agreement covering all companies involved in the project will prevent inefficiencies and delays.

But construction industry groups, such as the Associated Builders and Contractors, say that the rule will inject inefficiencies into the projects.

The executive order states, “Construction employers typically do not have a permanent workforce, which makes it difficult for them to predict labor costs when bidding on contracts and to ensure a steady supply of labor on contracts being performed. Challenges also arise due to the fact that construction projects typically involve multiple employers at a single location. A labor dispute involving one employer can delay the entire project.”

However, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR), which is charged with final enactment of the rule, is still reviewing the matter. The FAR Council is made up of members from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration and NASA.

FAR Council Chairwoman Lesley Field, the acting administrator for federal procurement policy at the OMB, could not be reached for comment last week, nor could three other FAR Council members.

The executive order further states, “The use of a project labor agreement may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of federal construction contracts. Accordingly, it is the policy of the federal government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.”

McMahon said the premise of the executive order is false.

“They say contractors don’t have their own workforces and just hire by the job,” McMahon said. “That’s not true. Most contractors, particularly those working on projects that are $25 million, overwhelmingly currently employ their own workers.”

A PLA might put a construction firm in the position of having workers that are not part of its own workforce on a job to be eligible for a federal contract. With half of the cost of a project coming from labor, it is best for a firm to be familiar with its workers, McMahon said.

“As a businessman, it’s one thing to have the numbers on the page,” he said. “What you really need to know is how productive everybody is. You can’t get a brand new team and expect to win the playoff game.”

Even if the contractor brings some of his own people onto a job, they would still be part of the required collective bargaining agreement. As a result, the contractor may be required to pay union dues, said McMahon.

The PLAs will drive up the cost of construction projects and make projects less efficient, said Gus Perea, president of Adams-Bickel construction in Collegeville, Pa.

“We’ve been seeing the paying back of a long standing debt from Congress and now the executive branch,” Perea told CNSNews.com. “It’s got to be payback. What else can it be? The government should encourage competitive bidding and pricing.”

The executive order does not mandate that an executive agency use the PLAs. But it says, “the agency may, if appropriate, require that every contractor or subcontractor on the project agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more appropriate labor organizations.”

The order further states that PLAs would, “(a) bind all contractors and subcontractors on the construction project through the inclusion of appropriate specifications in all relevant solicitation provisions and contract documents; (b) allow all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements; (c) contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts, and similar job disruptions; (d) set forth effective, prompt, and mutually binding procedures for resolving labor disputes arising during the project labor agreement; (e) provide other mechanisms for labor-management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern, including productivity, quality of work, safety, and health; and (f) fully conform to all statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders.”

When Obama signed the order last year, Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa praised the step, saying, “This is yet another reason for working families to be grateful that we have a champion in the White House.”

M. Kirk Pickerel, president and CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors, criticized the order last year, saying, “Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union. All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government.”

Further, “construction contracts subject to union-only PLAs are designed to be awarded exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces,” said Pickerel. “Absent the economic benefits of competitive bidding, union-only PLAs are known to increase construction costs between 10 percent and 20 percent and discriminate against minorities, women and qualified construction workers who have traditionally been excluded from union membership.”



This is rediculous, the contractor must meet the terms and conditions of the contract irregardlass of the method used to supply the workforces needed. Completion of the contract is the same for all bidders. The liquidated damages, and any related bonus pay for early completion, are set in the bidding documents, so how the projects are completed has nothing to do with whether or not the workforce used is union.

The rate of pay, including any allowance for BENEFITS (health, pension, vacation…), is established in the contract documents used in preparing a bid and all contractors must pay the same. The Davis-Bacon Act sets the wage guidelines and ALL payroll for workers MUST be reported, so it’s monitored as the contracts are completed.

The only people I can see this effecting, if it were to help them, would be production and office employees supplying some 'widget' products made in factories, products that would increase in price as a result of the changes and become less competitive in the world market after the unions step in.

This is a BS move Zero has made evidently to please the unions and not a single reason given for the policy is true. It would ONLY increase union membership and put ALL funding for BENEFITS in accounts CONTROLLED by the UNIONS.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

The Republicans need to run on an honest platform of financial reform in 2010 then oppose Obama's wasteful spending at all opportunities. It must be an US vs expansion of Government.

The ace in the hole is the redevelopment of our natural resoucres. The price of energy is the key to financial strength. The Republicans must counter the Greens and get that message across by encouraging development which will lower the cost.

It's the economy, stupid.

Obama's campaign was based on redistribution of Wealth. How's that working out for the private sector?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply