Savannah Guthrie substituted for David Gregory this morning on Meet the Press, and she started out interviewing Robert Gibbs and Mitch Daniels. Guthrie did a fairly good job interviewing Gibbs, but the question is why have on a low-value guest like Gibbs, especially during a time when viewers are looking for objective, smart political analysis. Gibbs is a political hack and Obama flunky, and his opinions and spin are useless to the national political debate. Gibbs answered every criticism of Obama by denying what was brought up is a problem and saying that Obama outlines ideas every day of his presidency, Obama concentrates on jobs everyday of his presidency and Obama has offered a plan, it's just those damn obstructionist Republicans and headwinds that put a crink in the recovery Obama started from an economic point which was the worst in our history. I say Gibbs is a low-value guest because he offers nothing but regurgitated Obama-excuses and propaganda. The producers of Meet the Press have to know that Gibbs is going to cheerlead for Obama and that Guthrie is not going to respond in the only way appropriate -- Bullshit!
The Mitch Daniels interview was better in that Daniels is somewhat more objective than Gibbs, but we learned nothing new -- Daniels did analyze the current economic situation in smart fashion by alluding to the systemic changes needed in government -- tax and regulatory reform.
The roundtable was pretty predictable, also, with Peggy Noonan, Harold Ford, E.J. Dionne and Maria Bartiroma discussing the Republican field and Obama's performance so far. But to take a President-centric approach to our problems is poor analysis. Presidents can only do so much in this statist system which is set on automatic spending on an out of control welfare state, plus, no one talked about our mideast entanglements. Dionne, of course, wants the President to stimulate, stimulate and then stimulate some more -- he, like most liberals and progressives, believe that demand is our problem, and if you just give people enough money to spend, things will get better. As Bartiroma and Noonan, and even Harold Ford, pointed out, businesses are uncertain of the tax and regulatory future.
Businesses are not going to expand on short term tweaks to the economy, and new businesses will not arise on short-term stimulus and temporary demand. Someone considering a business start-up is not going to pull the trigger because Obama has stimulated demand through 2012 -- existing businesses are not going to expand and hire on temporary demand that fades when the stimulus stops.
Businesses will take a risk if they know their costs and are reasonably confident that government will not tax and regulate them out of business in a few years.
Of course, there was the obligatory denigration of current Republican candidates, but it's way too early for the 2012 elections to take up a full program when America faces a debt problem, a global economic crisis, entanglements in the mideast, high unemployment, a failing public education system and growing dissatisfaction with government in general, not just the present and temporary president.