No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work.
Mother Teresa
Why Obama's Presidency is a Failure
In one sense, one can argue that Obama did show some restraint after an election that left him with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress. He left Bob Gates as Defense Secretary, largely worked within George W. Bush's framework for Iraq withdrawal and approved a moderate surge in Afghanistan. Obama did not go for broke on the health care bill and push for nationalization; in fact, he was even willing to settle for a bill that fell short of the much-beloved public option. He didn't push for immediate tax hikes on the rich or a government expansion like FDR did during the first two terms of his Presidency; he named mainstream (versus more ideological) progressives to the Supreme Court. In fact, the left wing of the Democratic Party (well, there really isn't a right wing anymore) is decidedly unhappy that the most progressive President has not done more given his strong hand in Congress.
I think in part it's a part of his internal political calculus, principally focused on risk. (No doubt Rahm Emanuel also has an intuitive sense of what can be done, given the precarious nature of Democrats coming from red or purple districts and states.) My opinion is that Obama carefully noted how George W. Bush lost considerable momentum by misjudging the vested status quo in his transformational attempt to restructure the status quo social security. He also realized, in the Clintons' failure to pass their version of health care reform, that there was considerable resistance to change for America's other sacred cow: their private-sector health insurance. Moreover, the Congressional leadership, largely comprised of legislators from safe blue districts or states, was less politically vulnerable to a voter backlash. In essence, Obama basically defined the general goal and was flexible on implementation details. He didn't need necessarily to achieve a government takeover from the get-go: all he really needed was a beachhead. He would then count on inevitable government stealth growth and the people's growing acceptance or tolerance of this particular government intervention. He cheers on the sidelines, waits for some intra-party compromise to settle that Blue Dogs and others from more vulnerable districts can live with, and then pushes forward on the compromise. (In the process, Pelosi lets enough Democrats off the hook on the final bill to allow them political cover in their districts.) Obama then closes the sale by blasting nefarious Republicans as nonconstructive critics.
In my judgment, this is, at best, weak leadership. The real power is in the legislative pits. He can't or won't take on the Democratic Congressional leadership in order to achieve true bipartisan compromises; in fact, I think he uses opposition bashing as a sop to his disappointed progressive allies.
I should state that I have made a similar critique of Bush: he was also aloof from the legislative wrangling; he failed to exercise the veto on a single spending bill before the House Democrats took charge in 2007; instead of Homeland Security being viewed as an historic opportunity to streamline government operations, he expanded the government (particularly the TSA); he pushed through a new Medicare drug prescription plan without first resolving the Medicare solvency issue.
From a politically strategic standpoint, Obama has blundered by failing to attract more than token GOP support. (Consider, for example, the fact that TARP legislation during the 2008 economic tsunami could not pass without Democratic support.) It's difficult for Obama to argue, with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, that he couldn't pass the economic stimulus and programs he needed because of the weak GOP minority; it would have been politically risky and foolhardy for Republicans to oppose efficacious economic and other initiatives, since the Democrats would then have an electoral opportunity to build on their already considerable majorities. This puts the Republicans in the position of being able to say to the American people that Obama and the Congressional Democrats refused to compromise and own the ineffectual results. For example, there were ways that Obama could have negotiated a stimulus bill with the Republicans with a sharply lower cost and more relief for the third of the economy that is not consumer-driven.
Obama also blundered by marginalizing the Congressional GOP from the get-go; this was penny-wise, pound-foolish. It's never a good idea to start off playing hardball or setting an adversarial, disrespectful relationship with the opposition; you never know when you just might need their cooperation, e.g., after the mid-term election. Right now the Republicans have no fear of a President whom has sunk below a 50% approval rating and has lost his popularity with independents and moderates; whatever the results of the mid-terms, the GOP will be in a far stronger position, the Dems will have gotten the message, like Clinton after the 1994 election, that the era of big government and fiscal irresponsibility is over. The GOP will also be in no mood to do any favors for a weakened Obama headed for a tough reelection battle.
All this being said, is Obama's defeat in the 2012 campaign a lock? No. Both Reagan and Clinton recovered from lower approval ratings, particularly with a robust economy. We have a very unusual situation where the GOP in Congress has very low approval ratings but at the same time has surged to two-digit advantages on the generic ballot. I think there is a general perception that the Democrats have failed for the primary reason they were elected in 2008--not climate change, health care, or financial reform, but to deal with economy. To a certain extent the Democrats have, in fact, addressed certain issues of economic security, including a very generous 2 years of unemployment compensation, but they have spent a lot of money the US government doesn't have on middling results. In addition, Obama's personal appeal exceeds, by a considerable degree, his policies. What this means, for instance, is that if the GOP misplays their likely electoral success this fall (like Gingrich's game of political chicken with Clinton over the budget), Obama would likely react with a populist campaign using the Congressional GOP as a whipping boy (this has been Obama's politics from the start: he only knows to run against caricatures of the opposition, some incarnation of evil...) The key to the election cycle in 2012 will be the GOP adapting a pragmatic, respectful relationship with Obama and the Democratic members of Congress, while working to instill fiscal discipline.
Murkowski Back in the Alaska Senate Race? Thumbs UP!
I'm fed up with the Tea Party Express, media conservatives (e.g., Limbaugh and Hannity) and other insurgent political activist groups which sweep into targeted GOP races with unconventional, ideological candidates (e.g., Rand Paul, Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, Sharron Angle, etc.) and leave mainstream party voters, moderates and independents with no real choice--voting between an unqualified ideologue and yet another Kool-Aid drinking progressive Democrat. [Where was the Tea Party Express when it came to a really problematic incumbent, i.e., Charlie Rangel?] I think this represents a major challenge, not only to the Republican Party, but also to the Democratic Party which saw the same type thing happen to Joe Lieberman.
I have written multiple critical posts on Christine O'Donnell this week. I have to say that Mike Castle's campaign had been remarkably inept for failing to put away Christine O'Donnell. Take, for instance, the fact that Democratic wolfpack has gotten widespread attention for O'Donnell's controversial statements about masturbation and the latest video clip from about 10 years back about O'Donnell having flirted with witchcraft. Now I don't think quirkiness in a political figure is necessarily a handicap in the state of Delaware... After all, Joe Biden is a world-class gaffe machine; identifying a visiting diplomat's surviving parent as deceased, telling a handicapped politician to stand up and take a bow and/or miscounting the number of letters in 'jobs' are arguably more boneheaded than Dan Quayle's 'potatoe'.
To a certain extent it is part of the American story to believe in redemption from youthful indiscretions, whether we are talking about George W. Bush's alcohol abuse or Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's dalliances with illicit drugs. And I certainly agree that rules are rules: Mike Castle or any other veteran politician is not entitled to nominations without validation by the party faithful.
The Christine O'Donnell nomination paradoxically brings up the fact that many Tea Party supporters want to repeal the seventeenth amendment (the direct election of senators), primarily on the grounds that it works against the balance between the states and the federal government. I want to be very careful in how I say this because I really don't intend to come across as elitist. First, I don't think you can put the genie back into the bottle; the popular election of senators is here to stay. This is very clear from what happened with the ill-fated Scozzafava nomination in NY-23 and the notorious Blagojevich kerfuffle involving Obama's former Senate seat (not to mention the successful write-in campaign for Strom Thurmond in the 1954 Senate race in South Carolina). Second, I do have reservations about a system that allows barely (if any) vetting of candidates for statewide or a national race. The Democrats explicitly recognized this during the 2008 Presidential campaign by explicitly including superdelegates over and beyond primaries and caucuses.
I think both parties need to find a mechanism for explicit consideration of factors beyond manipulated primary elections. It is simply unfair for an external group like the Tea Party Express to interfere in the selection of any political party nominations. Do we really believe, for instance, that the electability of Mike Castle, a well-regarded moderate, should not outweigh a narrow primary election loss to an unvetted, unelectable political rival?
Lisa Murkowski's announcement of a write-in campaign to gain reelection for her Alaska US Senate seat is unlikely to be successful (although it could allow the Democratic candidate Scott McAdams to gain the seat by default as in last year's NY-23 election); however, Alaska is an unusual state and there is little doubt about the powerful Murkowski political legacy.
Let me make myself clear: I think America would be better served if Harry Reid is defeated this fall and the GOP selects the next majority leader in the US Senate. But both parties have nominated poorly qualified candidates (including the quixotic South Carolina Democratic US Senate nominee Alvin Greene). Perhaps if the GOP loses what should have been safe US Senate seats in Alaska and Delaware, it will finally enact some necessary, long overdue reforms to vet and nominate its candidates.
Political Humor
A man in New York was robbed at an off-track betting parlor after cashing in a 29 thousand dollar winning ticket. The man said it sucks to win and get absolutely nothing for it. To which horses were like, "Yeah, that must really be terrible." - Jimmy Fallon
[Just think how moderates and independents must feel... In 2008 they placed their bets on the winning ticket of Obama/Biden. Not only did their win fail to pay off, with a lousy economy and divisive, ineffectual political leadership, but they find themselves another $3T in the national debt hole... Maybe they need to join Democratic Voters Anonymous. I mean, how could they possibly know, after a Democratic-controlled House never having balanced a budget once the past few decades running?]
An original:
- "Mexico, you've just celebrated your bicentennial. Where are you going to go next?" "Disney World. And Los Angeles. And Arizona. And..."
Annie Ross, "Fly Me To The Moon"
