Reply #9: The question needs to separate the issues

[ProSense]

Most economists know that extending Bush's tax cuts was simply irresponsible. Even if you don't agree that it was irresponsible, what the heck is President Obama going to do when the election rolls around in less than 2 years?

If he campaigns to end Bush's tax cuts in 2012, he'll be raked over the coals by Republicans for flip-flopping, and it will jeopardize his chance of re-election.

If he campaigns to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, he'll make himself look like a hypocrite, alienating Independents, as well as many Democrats, and it could cost us the election.

So when the General Election rolls around, how does Obama take a position on the all important tax issue without getting labeled as a flip-flopper by one side or a hypocrite by the other? The campaign will start in little more than a year and a half. Any suggestions?

Point one: Most economists say extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich was irresponsible. President Obama didn't advocate extending the tax cuts for the rich.

Point two: What Republicans think is irrelevant, and they'll rake him over the coals regardless of what he does.

Point three: Why would he campaign to make Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent (assuming that's what you meant)? Campaigning to make the middle class tax cuts permanent would be separate. Still, while he has indicated that he'll fight expanding tax cuts for the rich, he's hasn't stated that he will definitely campaign to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent.

Point four: What exactly would he be flip-flopping on?



edited typo