http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18444.html

 

At this crucial juncture in the push to pass an economic recovery package, President Obama finds himself in the most unlikely of places: He is losing the message war.

 

Despite Obama’s sky high personal approval ratings, polls show support has declined for his stimulus bill since Republicans and their conservative talk-radio allies began railing against what they labeled as pork barrel spending within it.

 

The sheer size of it – hovering at about $900 billion — has prompted more protests that are now causing some moderate and conservative Democrats to flinch and, worse, hesitate.

 

The anxiety over lost momentum seemed almost palpable this week as the president in television interviews voiced frustration with his White House’s progress and the way his recovery program was being demonized as a Democratic spending frenzy.

 

In Obama’s own words in an NBC interview, it’s his job to “get this thing back on track.”

 

 

During the campaign, Obama had complete control over his message. Now, he doesn’t and that’s not an easy adjustment for any president.

 

Obama must suddenly yield turf to both Capitol Hill and outside interest groups who are trying to help. The results in both cases can be messy.

 

Obama’s decision to provide broad guidelines for the stimulus -- “targeted, timely and temporary” -- rather than issuing specific legislation, was done in deference to Hill lawmakers, especially the Democratic leaders that lord over the legislative branch.

 

But it’s hardly a secret that the president found unhelpful the House Democrats’ decision to slip funding for special groups into its version of his stimulus bill.

 

I agree that there is too much pork in this but where were all the conservative radio hosts when Bush was President and the bills included massive amounts of spending. We didn't hear it nearly as much.

I agree that there is too much pork in this but where were all the conservative radio hosts when Bush was President and the bills included massive amounts of spending. We didn't hear it nearly as much.

 

Not as much, but we heard it way more than you seem to think.

Not as much, but we heard it way more than you seem to think.

 

I don't know. I do remember a little bit about the pork in the bailout. I will admit that I do hardly listen to talk radio or the TV political stations. However, I figured the amount that it is talked about on those media outlets is proportional to how much it is posted on here- and I know that it is being posted here much, much more than during frmr. President Bush's term. So it is either that the TV & radio personalities weren't talking about it during Bush's terms, or that people on BGP weren't posting about it.

 

Either way, I find the spending to be unacceptable.

More pork, ... but in this bill, they have done a good job at disguising it as not being pork. Still find it appalling that ACORN is even being mentioned.

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/nationalnews/gop_leaders_oppose_stimulus_money_for_ac_152276.htm

I don't know. I do remember a little bit about the pork in the bailout. I will admit that I do hardly listen to talk radio or the TV political stations. However, I figured the amount that it is talked about on those media outlets is proportional to how much it is posted on here- and I know that it is being posted here much, much more than during frmr. President Bush's term. So it is either that the TV & radio personalities weren't talking about it during Bush's terms, or that people on BGP weren't posting about it.

 

Either way, I find the spending to be unacceptable.

The pork in the first bailout was a huge topic on Rush and Hannity.

More pork, ... but in this bill, they have done a good job at disguising it as not being pork. Still find it appalling that ACORN is even being mentioned.

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/nationalnews/gop_leaders_oppose_stimulus_money_for_ac_152276.htm

 

Mentioning ACORN is a sure way to get the right fired up - even though ACORN won't get any of this money. This has been misrepresented from the beginning and it has snowballed despite it being a falsehood.

 

Lou Dobbs, Rush, and Hannity are all either ignorant or banking on our ignorance. Since they have all day and a staff of people to do research I think its the latter.

Mentioning ACORN is a sure way to get the right fired up - even though ACORN won't get any of this money. This has been misrepresented from the beginning and it has snowballed despite it being a falsehood.

 

Lou Dobbs, Rush, and Hannity are all either ignorant or banking on our ignorance. Since they have all day and a staff of people to do research I think its the latter.

 

So there is no line item as such for 'neighborhood stablization activities' as reported in the NY Post? I don't listen to any conservative radio personalities.

 

A line item in the stimulus package - under the heading "neighborhood stabilization activities" - sets aside $4.19 billion for low-income advocacy groups such as ACORN.

So there is no line item as such for 'neighborhood stablization activities' as reported in the NY Post? I don't listen to any conservative radio personalities.

 

There is.

 

So?

There is.

 

So?

 

If it looks like a Duck, sounds like a Duck and walks like a Duck....

If it looks like a Duck, sounds like a Duck and walks like a Duck....

 

It only looks like a duck because someone told people it WAS a duck.

If it looks like a Duck, sounds like a Duck and walks like a Duck....

 

In a couple of minutes I was able to find that the provision mentioned is a HUD initiative designed to allow state and local govts to buy property that is either abandoned or might become abandoned. This would be done in order to fix the property and get it to the point where it can be sold so that the community thrives.

 

I'm no expert on ACORN but I don't think they're in that business.

 

In addition, ACORN has said that they are not eligible nor will be applying for any of these funds.

 

Anyone find anything different?

It only looks like a duck because someone told people it WAS a duck.

 

 

It still sounds and walks like a duck though. It is a DUCK.

This certainly can't help the president's message:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

 

So, which way do we go, short term pain or long term pain?

This came to me in an e:mail:

 

Bradley A. Smith, Professor, election law and campaign finance:

 

This President is very good at arguing against straw men and arguing by conclusion. His argument today is a great example, structured thusly: 1) We are in a crisis that calls for radical solutions; 2) I have a radical solution; 3) ergo propter hoc, anyone who cares about solving the crisis will support my solution. Whenever the President says we need to move beyond, "old ideological battles" or "stale political arguments," what he means is, "let's do it according to my ideology and political preferences, and stop asking questions."

 

The President buttresses this with a list of miraculous things that will occur if his plan is adopted, but very little if any explanation as to why they will occur. He may as well announce that the stimulus package will lead to a breakthrough on cold fusion, rid the world of disease, and attract benevolent space aliens who will bestow a billion dollars of wealth on every man, woman, and child in the U.S. How could anyone oppose a package that would do all that? The answer, of course, is that people of good faith may not believe that plan would do all that, and at a tremendous cost to boot. There are valid reasons to question and even oppose this spendulous bill. Principle opposition is no more "narrow partisanship" than is the president's advocacy of this plan.

 

A generation ago, when President Reagan appealed directly to the American people over the head of Congress, he explained why (he believed) his policies were correct and would be successful. That is the missing link in the Obamatorial. This President merely asserts that it is so.