Denver Debacle: Can't we all get along?

My initial plan for this post was to write some sample dialog that would elaborate on each of my “Top 10 points he should have made” list. However, the more time that goes by, the more pointless that seems. Even in the immediate aftermath of the first debate bloodbath, though my passions were high there wasn’t much to be accomplished other than to vent my spleen, as it were.

I do want to expand a bit on a couple points, especially #5, since that was commented on most frequently by readers. First, though, I will discuss what I see as the reason Mr. Obama’s approach is so far off from the way I would like him to campaign and govern.

Fundamentally, Barak Obama is a mediator. He strives for the middle ground between opposing parties, not as a means to an end but as an end in itself. He seems to truly believe that the solution is better if it melds together ideas from all sides and gets everyone’s buy-in. Given the choice between passing legislation that is purely progressive/Democratic, or a bill that has a mix of conservative and progressive ideas, he will opt for the latter even if the former was possible.

His motivation for being a community organizer was, I expect, to bring people together to live more harmoniously through this process of finding consensus. There are many possible reasons for this trait, including a desire to be liked, a heart-felt belief that everyone should be included in decisions, and of course the big one, that Obama is not a liberal. 

Mr. Obama has talked and written about bi-partisanship at length, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise when he takes that approach as President. But it does cause enormous frustration to those of us who want him to lead as a liberal, pushing Democratic solutions and arguing on behalf of them. Instead, he appears to have chosen as his top priority healing the partisan divide in our politics, and in doing so he has engaged in a losing battle.

In spite of the Republicans' unmistakable language and consistent behavior which make it obvious that compromise and cooperation are not in the cards, Mr. Obama continues to act as though accommodation and reconciliation are achievable goals. The war against partisanship is only being waged by a single party.

My belief is that if President Obama were to argue forcibly for Democratic agenda items – which polling shows have the support of the American people – he would win big and even swing the house into Democratic control again. In his argument, though, he would have to be willing to call out Republicans, as a group and individually, for their words and actions. This is what my Top 10 list is about. 

It is not enough to sell Democratic ideas. The Republican policies and positions need to be “sold” as wrong and detrimental. The goal is to further a negative perception and put the Republicans on the defensive. Mr. Romney was allowed to play offense throughout the first debate without needing to defend his litany of dumb statements and contradictory positions. 

I am not optimistic that Obama will change his tune, and the first debate is history now. Nonetheless, here is the tack that I wish Obama would have taken to make gains with my “Top 10 things.” Let me know if you think this strategy would work. If not, or if you see risks, why and what?

1) 47%

Not mentioning the 47% comment of Romney’s – a comment that nearly killed his election chances – was just plain dumb. Mr. Obama should have hammered that one home, and he had plenty of opportunities to do so. For example, after Romney claimed his cuts would not benefit the rich:

“Governor, as you pointed out, 47% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. If federal tax cuts are the centerpiece of your plan, which they are, you will be cutting taxes for wealthiest Americans. Federal income tax cuts do not benefit those whose income is too low to qualify for income taxes, so your 20% cut will go mostly to the top income levels. It's arithmetic.

“But who are those 47% who don’t pay income taxes that you say are victims with no sense of personal responsibility?

“They are older Americans. American’s who paid taxes all their lives and are now enjoying their retirement – a retirement, I might add, made possible in part by Social Security that was created by Democrats and which Republicans have been trying to dismantle for 60 years. These seniors don’t need you or anyone else to teach them to take responsibility for themselves. They are proud Americans who paid into the system and are now enjoying their golden years without worrying about how to pay the rent or how to afford health care. 

“Those 47% are Military personnel whose income is not taxed because that's how we honor their service to this country. They do not see themselves as victims. They see themselves as warriors protecting this country all around the globe. They are not dependent on Government. Government, and all citizens, are dependent on them.

“Those 47% are the working poor, for whom an additional tax burden would make them choose between food for their children or the rent that keeps their family off the street. They are not freeloaders. They work as hard as any American, often having two or three jobs. They provide the goods and services that you and I rely on every day. And they pay plenty of taxes, including FICA, sales taxes and state taxes. 

“Those 47% also include the neediest Americans on direct federal assistance. Now, their numbers have unfortunately grown as a result of the Republican Recession of 2008. This is a real problem and one that I am focused on every day. But they are not an expense problem – direct assistance accounts for less 10% of our budget. The problem is, why do we have poverty in the first place. My administration is attacking poverty by ensuring a quality education for every child, and through Head Start that gives needy children a boost at the start of their lives. We’re battling poverty by supporting job training for displaced workers, and accessible health care through “Obamacare”. 

“Governor, you said you are not concerned about the very poor, but eliminating poverty in American is among my highest priorities. 

“The Governor and the Republican party believe 47% of Americans are not for them to worry about. I consider myself to be the President for 100% of Americans, and I am working to create a country that works for all of us.”

By not pursuing the 47% comment, Obama has allowed Romney to apologize for the remark and say he was wrong, thereby disarming the point without conceding it to Obama. Huge mistake.

5) Healthcare is the biggest obstacle to entrepreneurs

For thirty years the Republican supply-siders have pushed the mythology of the Entrepreneur. When they propose a tax cut, deregulation, or the elimination of the inheritance tax, Entrepreneurs are the go-to demographic that needs the help. And if they don’t get help, our economy will collapse! Obama should turn this rhetoric back on them to promote Obamacare.

In theory at least, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides many changes that make it easier for individuals to change their employment without losing access to health insurance. Studies and opinions vary as to how the bill will change costs and access, but opposing studies and opinions are fair game in a debate. 

I would like to have seen Obama attack with something like the following after Romney talked about the decline in small business startups:

“Small business startups have been declining for forty years, but they hit their steepest decline in 2007 and 2008 due to the Republican Great Recession. In the past 18 months we've started to reverse that trend. But look, the greatest hurdle American entrepreneurs face is not over-regulation. It's not the federal income tax rate, or even the capital gains rate. The biggest hurdle that keeps entrepreneurs from starting a business is health insurance. 

“The number one priority for families is making sure they have access to affordable health care. When a potential entrepreneur weighs the decision of staying in a job that does not fulfill their dream, or having to purchase health insurance at individual rates, most can't afford to take that risk. 

“My health care plan is starting to give them that opportunity, and when it is fully in effect in 2014 you will start to see more and more businesses startups. Affordable insurance available on public exchange markets, no pre-existing condition denials, credits to small businesses that help offset the cost of providing insurance to their employees, children able to stay on their parent’s plans until they are 26. All these changes will unleash the creativity of American entrepreneurs and revitalize our economy.”

7) Democrats are not the party of big government

There is no reason to roll-over when the “Democrats want big government” tripe is thrown in your face. Obama should have hit back with facts:

“Mr Romney and the Republican Party are fond of calling Democrats the party of big government. That is absolutely not true. Fortunately, we don't have to take his word for it, or my word, because we have the data. 

“For thirty years, government payroll and spending as a share of GDP has increased under Republican administrations and decreased under Democratic administrations. President Clinton reduced federal spending eight years in a row, and the government was in surplus for each of his last four years. No Republican president has come close. 

“At the end of  President’s Clinton's term the economy was booming. Under President Bush and the policies Mr. Romney is advocating, government spending as a share of GDP rose every year – by a total of nearly 40%. He ended his term with a record deficit and the worst recession since the 1930s. 

“According to Forbes Magazine, under my administration we've had the smallest increase in federal spending since Dwight D. Eisenhower. 

“Don't believe the rhetoric. If you want to control government spending and if you want prosperity, you need to vote for Democrats.”

9) Romney is super rich

Romney is rich. People may respect that, yet they don’t feel he can understand their lives. Romney's wealth – and the way he earned it – is a net negative in the public perception. This should have been reinforced, and a good place to do so would have been after Romney said, “High-income people are doing just fine in this economy.... The people who are having the hard time right now are middle-income Americans.”

“Mitt, I'm glad you acknowledge that high-income people are doing fine. For four years there's been a lot of rhetoric about my administration. Things like socialism and class warfare, and that is completely false. 

“My plan is to let the Bush tax cut for the wealthy expire, returning the top rate to where it was under President Clinton when the economy was strong, the government was in surplus and the wealthy were doing extremely well. That’s not class warfare. People like Mr. Romney will still be able to afford 5 or 6 houses, and if they want an elevator for their cars they can have that too. They are just going to give a little more back to the great country that made their wealth possible.

“Now Governor, you point out that middle-income Americans have seen their income decline. In truth, income for the middle class has been stagnant since the 1980s, with two exceptions. Middle class income rose sharply under President Clinton, and it declined sharply under president Bush, due to the Republican policies you would have us return to. In that same time period, when middle class income has declined, income for the top 5% has increased by 50%. You can't restore the middle class by cutting taxes for the wealthy. You just can't.”

So there is a sampling of how I believe Mr. Obama should frame the debate. Strongly reinforce Romney's negatives. Make him defend his absurd comments. Refute rhetoric with historical data. And above all, run against Republican policies, link them back to the Bush administration when appropriate, and hang the Republican Party around Romney's neck.