Here’s the situation. Its Thursday night. You have the ball on your own one yard line, after taking a knee on a kickoff return.
You’re the quarterback – and the President.
What are you going to call?
Now the situation is tough. It’s the start of the fourth quarter and you’re down by 30 (after 11 fumbles earlier in the game). Its a pretty important call.
Geithner wants to go with three consecutive traps, arguing that – surely - one of them will work.
Others at Treasury kind of disagree, but they’re still arguing about whether the team should have called a reverse much earlier in the game – and they’re all on the sidelines anyway.
The political guys are divided. Some of them have been pushing for counter plays since the first quarter (the runner begins by taking a step or two away from his intended path, and then doubles back heading in the opposite direction).
Others are desperately looking for a Hook.
But the big dogs are thinking Obama should just take a safety. That way they’ll be set up for a nice, safe free-kick to give the ball back, like responsible adults.
Biden wants to run a statue-of-liberty play, but no one else in the huddle seems to know what this is.
Now some staffers on the NEC have been arguing for a long pass – the team is down by 30 in the fourth quarter, after all.
But Obama is skittish about throwing after a series of consecutive interceptions on passes over the middle in the first quarter. (He seems to have difficulty discerning his own receivers from the other team’s secondary).
So, even though a couple long passes would plausibly change the coverage (i.e., change the debate) – diverting more attention to the middle of the field, and getting people to think about changing the score, instead of the details of getting pinned deep in their own territory – Obama’s a little too skittish for that.
And you realize, of course, that the deficit reduction "super committee" process and any "pivot" toward job creation are really the same discussion, don't you? Its not clear if people get this - Obama seems to have fallen (once again) into the preferred GOP / village idiot framing of either A) making deficit hysteria and job creation separate conversations, or B) insinuating that slashing spending in 1/3 of the economy will actually lead to such an explosion of job creation in the other 2/3 of the economy that you'll forget all about the immediate damage - a proposition that empirical experience and the bond markets have both thoroughly trounced.
My partners and I have agreed: our small business will not be investing in any expansion as long as it looks like Obama and his rivals are hell-bent on sending the US and global economy back into recession as part of some political dance set to the tune of phony deficit-mania. Who would?
Looking forward, the Republicans will be aiming to really open up their passing game when their next quarterback gets on the field. They’ll call for a huge stimulus (they witnessed how the 2009 one was way too small), well designed to dump boatloads of pork on red state and Republican constituencies.
And they'll probably have a Senate majority and House majority to do it - through reconciliation. (Sure there will be an electoral backlash against Republicans in the House, but expert gerrymandering will likely protect a slim majority for them.)
What? You can’t believe this guaranteed Keynesian "pivot" given current GOP rhetoric?
Just look at what Republicans did last decade – vast expansion of the national debt, all justified by the need to stimulate the economy. (Remember how W "hit the trifecta?" - good times...).
The village idiots screaming about debt now, were all part of the parade then - and will be part of the new parade (you see, things will be "different" in 2013, they'll explain, as the global economy starts to reprise 1937).
Here's a little secret: Republicans get Keynesianism (they refer to it as pork), even though they pretend not to on TV. You can tell by watching them. (If the noises they make while practicing Keynesianism are too distracting, maybe try those sound-cancellation earphones).
In fact, Obama should point out that Republicans, if they were in his shoes (or when they officially take his shoes) will call for huge new stimulus.
Sure, if Obama pointed this out, Republicans would scream “of course we will not!”
Which would set Obama up to remind everyone of what Republicans actually do (what they did in the oughts –again, vast expansion of the deficit justified by the need to stimulate the economy), as opposed to what they say they are going to do. He could remind people that Republicans are appalling hypocrites, willing to sacrifice American citizens now to pay off their big-money backers later.
At the very least, Obama would set up a clear contrast between the path he will propose in the next election, and the one the Republicans will pretend to back.
But back to calling the play.
Republicans are praying for a naked bootleg – an earnest, solo appeal to their better natures. (Some of them are drooling on themselves just thinking about this.)
Meanwhile, many Obama advisors in the West Wing are thinking that maybe an out play would be a good call about now.
And then there are the voters beyond the beltway. As the economy tanks after the “super committee” locks us on an austerity glide-path through November 2012, they will be thinking, "maybe a sweep?"...
What would you do?