President Obama, on a video call with supporters last night, offered advice on how to approach voters in the upcoming election. But given recent realities, his words were – err – jarring.
According the The Hill's blog, Obama specifically advised supporters not to get into details about issues related to taxes and the wars.
Regarding taxes, he said:
"If somebody asks about taxes, nobody is really interested in hearing what precise marginal tax rate change would you like to see in the tax code," Obama said. "What they want to know is that our campaign stands for a fair, just approach to the tax code that says everybody has to chip in, and that it’s not right if a hedge fund manager is being taxed at a lower rate than his or her secretary."
Actually, President Obama...
...I find it somewhat problematic that you, at this precise moment, are suggesting that we – err, well, those here at DK who still support you – tell prospective voters that your campaign stands for "a fair, just approach." This at a time when you supported cutting social benefits as a deficit reduction measure and let Republicans off the hook vis-a-vis tax reforms? Seriously? Not particularly good timing, don't you think? (Okay, breathe, David. Breathe. There you go. That's better.)
Let's be honest here. We are barely 48 hours away from a time when you, Mr. President, allowed the Republicans to hold negotiations hostage such that a "fair, just approach" was the only thing which could not occur. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only proper way to describe the debt deal forged on Tuesday is that the only thing it lacked was fairness and balance. (Okay, I could come up with plenty more, but I promised myself this would be short. See? Damn principles. Fuck 'em.)
I might add that it appears slightly patronizing to suggest that voters are not interested in the details pertaining to potential tax reforms. Indeed, normative voters would like to hear about the tax rate changes being proposed in the tax code, particularly those that pertain to them.
As for the wars, it appears you said:
"If somebody asks about the war, whether it’s Iraq or Afghanistan — if it’s Iraq, you have a pretty simple answer, which is all our folks are going to be out of there by the end of the year. If it’s Afghanistan, you can talk about, look, we think it’s time for us to transition to Afghan lead and rebuild here at home. So, again, it’s a values issue: Where are we prioritizing our resources?"
All of our folks are going to be out of Afghanistan and Iraq by the end of the year? Really? Do you promise? Because that's not what I'm hearing from The Washington Post YESTERDAY:
U.S. officials on Wednesday welcomed Iraq’s decision to negotiate with Washington on keeping some U.S. troops in the country into next year, seeing it as a move toward ending the months-long political stalemate that has complicated U.S. plans for a December withdrawal.