The 99% vs. The 1% And Obama vs. the GOP

First this:

What I found interesting is what Obama did not say. He made the case for higher taxes on the very wealthy not as an abstract redistributionist principle, but as an element of restoring the common good. Extreme inequality is deeply dangerous for a democracy. When that inequality also leads to buying influence in the Congress, then we are already in very deep.
I've heard many Suskind-style critiques of this president, primarily about his not seizing the moment in early 2009 to break up, nationalize or overhaul the temporarily weakened banking sector. All I can say is that I prefer a president who tackles the most pressing matter at hand first: the potential implosion of our entire financial system. If that meant holding the banks' hands for a while until things stabilized - and do these people remember what those days were like? - so what? Now is the time, having stabilized the situation, to tackle the deeper problems behind it.
I've been watching a lot of Fox lately to better understand the dynamics of the GOP race. Last night, propagandist Hannity - by far the most shameless of all of them - introduced a tape of Obama with a description of the speech as "class warfare". And then you heard the clips: about being one nation, built around middle class values, requiring everyone to sacrifice a little, but especially those who have gained so much in the last thirty years. The way Obama has framed this is especially helpful in deflecting the class warfare charge. And, in my view, campaigns that focus on the future rather than the past have an edge.

Then this (h/t Ritholtz):

Luntz is a conservative pollster so he’s making it all about politics. But he’s missing the point, and misleading his clients. Luntz is author of some great books like “Words That Matter” and “What Americans Really Want…Really.” And in my opinion, he’s one of the America’s best behavioral economists.
But his pitch at last week’s Republican Governors Association meeting in Florida suggests he not only doesn’t understand the 99%, he’s misleading 29 state governors with Words That Will Backfire when the occupiers in the encampments see through Luntz’s attempted manipulations.
Fortunately, Yahoo News columnist Chris Moody attended this week’s governors meeting and kept some fabulous notes: During Luntz’s talk last week, one question kept coming up: “How can Republicans do a better job of talking about OWS movement?” Luntz solution: 10 new slogans that may do more harm than help for his clients.
What’s the big problem? Luntz is blunt: “I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death.” Why the fear? Because Luntz is convinced the OWS movement is “having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”
Folks, the real problem from the occupiers’ perspective is the inequality gap between the Super Rich and the 99%. It’s economics. It’s behavior. It’s the unfairness of our democracy when the incomes of the 1% increased 265% in the past generation while the incomes of the 99% stagnated.
So inventing 10 new “Words That Matter” is dangerous for these governors, because the occupiers are smart enough to pick up not only the insincerity of the rhetoric, but a growing awareness of the widening inequality gap.
It’s time to tell Luntz to forget politicians, redeliver his message to their Super Rich donors. They should be “very scared,” not the politicians. Why? Because they have a lot to lose. And not just new taxes.
As I predicted a few months ago in “Tax the “Super Rich or Riots Will Rage in 2012” just before OWS launched, the Super Rich better expect a renewed Arab Spring-style revolution here in America in 2012, if they simply ignore the demands of the movement. Read “Tax the Super Rich or riots will rage in 2012.”

It is necessary to go read the 10 "words that matter."  Not surprisingly, one phrase is "job creators."  I hate to mention it to Luntz, but there just aren't very many of those out there.  Hard to talk them up when they are no-shows.  Considering the state of the economy, Republicans should be able, with a minimally competent message, to roll to victory in 2012.  Personally, I think they are saying all the wrong things.  Sure, talk radio listeners think everything is Obama's fault, but when the elctorate hears actual Republicans, they don't like what they have to say.  It's basic math here.  The vast majority of people haven't gotten much of a raise in a long time.  Meanwhile, the wealthiest folks have gotten tons more in income.  Have them pay more in taxes to help balance the budget.  Going against that will not be good for Republicans.  Obama has positioned himself as well as he can, and Republicans keep helping him out.

Update: Yves Smith says only suckers believe Obama this time around.  I won't challenge her point, but when the the options are somebody who says they want to raise taxes on the wealthy to cut spending less and somebody who wants to cut taxes on the wealthy and cut spending even more, who are you going to vote for?