If Republicans take the House in 2010, a possible Obama pivot to center?
If Republicans manage to gain control of the House in the 2010 election, and Nancy Pelosi loses her post as Speaker, Fred Barnes speculates that Obama may breathe a sigh of relief and pivot to the center, much as Clinton did before him:
With Republicans in charge, he’d have to be bipartisan. He’d surely have to accede to serious cuts in spending””even as he complains they are harsh and mean-spirited. Mr. Obama could play a double game, appeasing Democrats by criticizing the cuts and getting credit with everyone else by acquiescing to them.
Mr. Clinton did this brilliantly in 1996. He fought with Republicans over the budget, winning some battles, losing others, as he lurched to the center. He twice vetoed Republican welfare reform bills, then signed a similar measure. He was hailed as the president who overhauled the unpopular welfare system…In 1994, Republicans freed the president from the clutches of liberal Democratic leaders in Congress. In 2010, they can do it again.
But Obama is not Clinton, who from the start was a pragmatist and political realist rather than a doctrinaire ideologue. Obama has shown almost no sign of being the former, and given every indication of being the latter. What’s more, Clinton had some knowledge of economics, and Obama appears to have little or none.
Of course, with Obama, anything is possible—including a head fake to the center in order to lure a majority of Americans into voting for him again in 2012. But if I had to go out on a limb and make a prediction, I would say that I doubt such an Obama move will happen, even if the Republicans were to win the House in 2010. Obama would not only be betraying his own deeply-held belief system, but would risk having his base stay home instead of going to the polls in 2012.
What’s more, even if I’m wrong and Barnes is right, I think that the American public would be suspicious of such a turn by Obama at so late a date. At the beginning, Obama’s talk of bipartisanship and moderation was believed by many voters. It would not ring true any more, because we’ve seen him demonstrate the exact opposite time and again. Obama is a blank screen no longer.
Funny how the Left decries tabula rasa and is denoted by their “blank” thinking in the instant.
He cannot triangulate since he is the perfect Leftist; no opinions, simple outcomes. He, like his ilk, wish to impose outcomes without thinking about the necessary mechanics of Change!
(Just as they are keeping their foot on the neck of BP.)
.
Here are some NObama definitions of reaching out to the center.
1) Dining with NYT correspondent Thomas Friedman at his humongous mansion.
2) Being interviewed by Helen Thomas
3) Vacationing at Martha’s Vineyard
4) Flying in a chef from St. Louis to make him pizza
5) Talking about “Caminsky Field,” the home of his beloved White Sox
6) Inviting Code Pink to the White House
7) Dining with friends at Nancy Pelosi’s cozy little apartment in San Francisco
8) Meeting with moveon.org honchos
9) Visiting George Soros
10) Having the SEIU chief come to the White House as often as possible
“Obama is a blank screen no longer.”
As noted by the mass exodus of Obama’s talented campaign staff members. But, as I see it – and this probably wasn’t the author’s intention – it also goes a long way in explaining why the highly successful Obama campaign staff have done such a lousy job of working at governing the country.
“Obama’s Youth Brigade Burns Out,” The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard pundits puzzle over why the same people who were so good at running a campaign have ended up faltering badly in running the government. This story shows that different skill sets are required for each. A little more maturity would help too.
My prediction: Hillary runs for president in 2012. She will unexpectedly resign as Secretary of State, with little or no real immediate reason. Allies in the media will speculate that she had a fundamental disagreement with Obama on policy issues. She’ll deny it for a while. The speculation will continue, citing how Obama tied her hands resulting in whatever increased hostility is in the spotlight at the time, e.g., Iran, North Korea, Israel, etc. Then the speculation will begin that she should run for 2012, citing that she will bridge the gaps of Obama’s failures and remain a better alternative to whomever the Republicans nominate. Quietly, the Clintons will tell Obama that he can resist, but it will be futile. Resistance will result in a spilt and guarantee a Republican victory. She’ll threaten to leak all his terrible secrets. He’ll do the same, but his position of weakness will make him look even more petty, and guarantee his demise. Plus, she’ll have nothing to lose at that point.
Any attempt to pivot to the center by Obama will add fuel to her candidacy. Obama is an ideologue. His ideals aren’t being well received. Bill Clinton could pivot. Obama can’t.
Given that there is a meta tag to this game, and i have explained it, and that it doesnt click…
if you control both sides of an issue you control the whole issue.
and to use my previous example… if you have feminists FOR pornography, and feminists AGAINST pornography, you have two opposing camps united under one umbrella which vocalizes what IT wants to do with the power as its constituency cancel themselves out and leave nothing but the leaders desires.
its like you guys never heard of good cop bad cop and are now relieved that the good cop is going to walk in…
same game… both are cops, and good cop bad cop is to get you to pay attention and ignore that they serve the same master.
feminisms variation is a way to skirt the problem that if they say what they want and what is their tenet, they can only get a small percentage. but if they instead make hundreds of variations on points that have no bearing, then many more people will join each of the variations and will argue ignorance that the commonality that they ALL serve doesn’t exist and they would know.
well, by not having a progressive party, or feminist party (as failed horribly in Germany for this very reason), you avoid having to have a denoted body of purpose and ends.
you can make your area turn on a facile point and pretend the canon of your Marxism doesn’t exist.
we are not even trying to be consistant in thought, wanting over simplefication.
that we WANT to think that all progressives are democrats or that all democrats are progressives, but any logician can tell you there are only four types with two binary inputs.
neither progressive OR democrat
progressive AND democrat
democrat and not progressive
progressive and not democrat
same with republicans…
neither progressive OR republican
progressive AND republican
republican and not progressive
progressive and not republican
when the election comes your going to suddenly find that both sides of the isle are going to cooperate.
why?
because the i am not republican, i am not democrat and i am not progressive, is a small group of people.
the democrats who are not progressive have been pushed out for 40 years, till we think the progressives who are not democrats are the same.
so demograts who are not progressive are a small group too. and what about their ‘opposite’ which is not opposite? they are also a small batch.
what is the largest power grouping?
democrats who are also progressives
progressives who pretend to be democrats but arent
republicans who are also progressives
progressives who pretend to be republicans but aren’t
even if you gave all these mixes equal representation, the ones that would work together, exceed the others..
this is how the power game is played.
given that we are focusing on classic party not communism, progressives, socialism, etc.
what will we get?
a classic party name that serves the prophet Marx
It is ghoulish, but possibly worth noting: one of the only things which might re-elect Barack would be another Oklahoma City bombing which would rally American citizens around the President. As in OKC, and as with Bill Clinton, Barack would need the culprits to be domestic, not foreign; Christian or athiest, not Muslim. Any dusky John Doe #2s must be discounted and pushed into the background. Tim McVeigh was the perfect villain for Bill Clinton’s re-election chances. That darn far right.
P-R-D
0-0-0 — not any of the three (independent)
0-0-1 — party democrat
0-1-0 – party republican
0-1-1 — centrist
1-0-0 – party progressive
1-0-1 — majority of democratic politicians
1-1-0 – majority of republican politicians
1-1-1 — believes they are all three (centrist)
There are 8 categories
Only republican and democrat would serve the people
Progressives serve the progressives
If you give 20 points to each category then say how they would vote
Election games become clearer
Say there is a party democrat running, who would side with them?
They would get a mix of 000 so say 10 for 10 against
They would get all 20% of party democrats
They would get 0% of party republicans
They would get half of the center centrists
XXX-D-R
000-10-10
001-20-00
010-00-20
011-10-10
But the rest would depend on whether their choices served progressive goals more.
SO YOU WOULD GET A MIXED RESULTS ELECTION
And the reverse would be true for party republicans
However lets say a democrat or republican PROGRESSIVE runs…
The first four break down the same…
XXX-D-R
000-10-10 — same kind of split
001-20-00 — same kind of split
010-00-20 — same kind of split
011-10-10 — same kind of split
But rather than a mix of the rest of the four
The progressives collude and blindly vote for their own
[and irrelevant of party affiliation]
100-10-10 — majority votes for the progressive
101-20-00 — majority votes for the progressive
110-00-20 — majority votes for the progressive
111-10-10 — majority votes for the progressive
In this way, the meta lable of progressive, or feminist, or socialist (labour) accomplishes control…
Mathematically speaking if a section of a group is always voting for something irregardless of input, while others are using inputs to decide, the eventual outcome will be the attainmen of the irregardless action.
Since they control schools, papers, media, and so on… the majority vote progressive goals, irregardless of whats underneath.
Which is how you can get a democrat railing falsely that republicans are racists, and get the people to vote for a democrat who was a member of the KKK.
jeff: I used to agree that Hillary would do more or less what you describe. But in the last few months I think it’s become less and less likely, as she digs her hole deeper and deeper into the Obama administration. She is now inextricably tied to it, IMHO. If she tries to distance herself later, I believe that her hypocrisy in carrying water for Obama (and thus endangering the world by promoting his foreign policy) will come back to bite her.
Just as Tim McVeigh was the perfect villain for Clinton, an unjustly accused Tea Party protest at the Capitol was the perfect villain to aid passage of Obamacare during the House voting. That darn far right didn’t actually do anything other than display proud and active citizenship, yet it didn’t matter.
I argued in my post “Don’t forget the money angle, Paul”, last December, that he is simply not capable of such a change. He is what he is.
I still believe that.
–
Honestly, I don’t think Obama is smart enough to “pivot” any direction that his ideology doesn’t already dictate.
“I believe that her hypocrisy in carrying water for Obama (and thus endangering the world by promoting his foreign policy) will come back to bite her.”
Belief’s got nuttin’ to do with it. Given her commodious back-side how could it miss?
I think there’s a much more obvious strategy in play. Obama now knows the economy is not going to recover on the schedule he promised. With Republicans in charge of the House, there will inevitably be some nominal spending cuts (about 1/100 of what should happen, IMHO). When campaign ’12 comes around, Obama can blame the Republicans and their “draconian” cuts for derailing his plan, which of course would have worked perfectly if the Republicans hadn’t interfered.
So this is all about his personal ambition: a second term.
A recognizable shift to the center would be a de facto admission of failure of his ideology. That will never happen. Never.
neo-neocon: I don’t entirely disagree with you and agree that such hypocrisy and tactics would turn a lot of voters off. If she couched it, however, in some “I can’t go along anymore” mea culpa, some sort of epiphany, she could look like she is taking the high road. That is why she would need time from her resignation to announcing her plans. She’ll say she went along because that was her job and she respects the presidency. She’ll claim while she disagreed, she thought the best way to implement her vision was not from the side lines, but from within the administration. She’ll claim it would have been far worse if the post was filled with someone who would never question Obama.
She’ll resign to distance herself. Stay silent out of respect for the presidency. She’ll make it look like running for 2012 had nothing to do with her resignation. Plus, what would make most of us feel shame doesn’t necessarily apply to the Clintons. If the 2010 elections go bad for the Dems, she’ll make her move. She’ll grab the center and tell the left that there has to be some measure of reason to their view of the world.
I just had to update that post. a link in there no longer works, so I provided an alternate one.
–
Neo-
You are correct. Obama has exhibited little, if any, ability to shift gears and actually take action that would prove to voters that he is capable of moving to the center. Also, he would have to throw his entire cadre of whitehouse cronies under the bus. He is not flexible enough to pull it off.
My concern is that the Republicans win both the House and the Senate and the American public decides it does not want one party to also control the White House.
Obama is relected, and although there would be balance regarding domestic policy, Obama would be free to pursue the foreign policy already begun by his administration, to wit, offending our long-time allies and coddling up to our enemies.
If Obama is re-elected in 2012, we might as well say “good-bye) to Israel as he takes the oath for the second time, that is if it’s not too late already.
He is not flexible enough to pull it off.
Marxism isn’t flexible enough to adapt and remain Marxism. even the catholic church is many times more flexible.
when one believes in a simplified rule base for living life, one has to live it to prove it, and living it, is not compromising it each time it is wanting…
their ideology has only one prediction if you follow it. making outcomes really easy. it also has one reason for failure, also making it really easy.
the problem is that in practice, it drives you off a cliff and your successful as long as you havent hit bottom yet.
once you do, then its someone elses fault your not still floating in the air like wile e coyote, suspended by his lack of believe and ignorance, which once he understands and realizes, forces reality to comply.
if only wile e coyote could just refuse to realize, to refuse to have the light go on, he could defy reality, define it, and remain safely floating.
we internalized the reality of Road Runner as normal.
It seems to me Obama is a true believer and couldn’t or wouldn’t pivot to the center.
He might try but the center that elected him wouldn’t be as gullible this time around. Or at least I hope they wouldn’t.
Actually, if the republicans take control over both houses of congress – they might be better off ramming through their own plans and drastically cutting government while the opportunity is ripe.
The argument could be that the Obama administration grew government employment to the point it was no longer sustainable (love turning THAT word around for a change!) and that such a drastic change was necessary medicine for the nation to recover.
Given the widespread unemployment the nation is currently experiencing – and could be experiencing during the November elections – the reaction of the general public may be more a matter of Schadenfreude against overpaid government drones than alienation against the republicans for cutting government.
Imagine that – a world wherein actually cutting government employment and government spending (and ever increasing government regulation!) was widely seen as a positive on a politician’s resume….
Hey, it could happen!!!!
Isn’t this a curious characteristic of Marxists though? They wage brilliant campaigns to seize power, then become totally bumbling nincompoops at actually exercising it. Cases in point: USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam. (North Korea and Eastern Europe they won largely through force of arms, and so don’t count). The diabolically clever political tacticians assume power and then do their impression of Laurel and Hardy trying to paint out the same bucket. It never fails.
I agree with the first part, but doubt that she’ll not cite a reason for her resignation. I suspect that she will manufacture a pretext for blowing it out with Obama and resigning on a matter of principle (we will agree to suppose that she has any). Doing this would vaccinate her against having Obama hung around her neck in the general election, should she win the nomination. Best guess for the putative pretext: Israel (to freeze Obama out from Jewish support, which is already wavering), or Iran (to try to pick up centrists). Israel is the better bet of the two, and it plays to the suspicion that Buraq was raised as a Muslim (which he almost undoubtedly was).
Imagine, for example, an emotionally charged resignation speech in which Hillary evinces anguish as she declares that her conscience will not let her stand by while Obama, despite her passionate resistance, throws our staunch little ally Israel to the wolves, that she will speak out, and that she WILL BE HEARD, “regardless of the consequences to her career.” Barry might as well call Bekins at that point — he’s done.
The key is Obama’s popularity continuing to crater. Then picking a fight with him becomes an asset, not a liability.
Neo, you really think so? To me she seems pretty much below the radar, and seen to have been pushed into the background (aka the briar patch).
Ah, but for Democrats what in others would be called hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug. It shows “flexibility” and “growth.” /MSM
Besides, if Obama looks like he’s going to be buried in 2012 a la Carter, the Dems and their fellow travelers will be desperate for someone, anyone, who might have a chance to stave off disaster.
The Dope was claimed to be a great conciliator. Another gross exaggeration. In fact, if he dealt with the Iranians as he does the Republicans he might be taken for having cojones. But he doesn’t and he is incapable of conducting a meeting or even considering the other side’s views. He is a proponent of the big lie and that is all that will be left him. He will try to use the office of the presidency as a bully pulpit but that requires some residue of good will with the public. He is a number one phony and it is becoming apparent to more and more of us by the day. The trick for the Republicans is to fight his statist agenda without attacking him personally and allowing him to become sympathetic.
I think he will have trouble shifting because he is not a typical ideologue. His narcissism trumps all. His ideology was taken in with his mother’s milk, and he follows that path because he is on it, therefore it is good. He will never risk himself to defend a belief in any way that leads to Clintonesque compromise. So what you will get is Obama’s version of pragmatism, which is whatever serves him best at the moment. You will get more of his jumping from one position to another, as with Israel or the oil spill. The incoherence will be obvious to everyone and Obama’s resentment will grow with increasing criticism. I can’t see him delivering any kind of compromise that wouldn’t enrage his lefty base or would be trusted by conservatives.
As to a Hillary challenge, wouldn’t blacks see her as a traitor? She would be risking a nice little chunk of Dem votes. I’m not sure the foreign policy reasons for rebellion would play to this crowd.
Scottie,
Just remember, even if the Repubs take both houses, they still can not have a veto-proof majority in the Senate for 2011. With Obama in the White House, he could veto small govt legislation and congress could do nothing about it.
Would he veto small govt legislation? You bet he would; he is an inflexible ideologue as mentioned in several comments above. Thus, it would turn on the Repubs putting up enough of a good face for two years that they could take additional seats in 2012 to create veto-proof majorities in both houses.
That still leaves our foreign policy in the hands of the enemy potentially for the next 6 years.
Former pundit and current candidate pondered similar combinations ahead of the 2000 election, in Don’t Rush Me, Part I
T,
Hey, stalemate is preferable to what we are enduring at the moment.
Besides, my suggestion *is* predicated on the idea that the republicans gain control over both houses of congress in the fall.
So what if Obama vetoes their legislation – since when did that stop the democrats from coming back again and again with their pet projects?
I’m not sure the country is in the mood to hear why employing even more government drones while raising taxes even more is a good thing.
Not saying it’s by any means a certainty that the republicans would gain control in the November elections – cause it’s nowhere near that at the moment. – just suggesting that if they do gain a majority in both houses they would be better off running against Obama for another 2 years as his 1st 2 years in office have been an unmitigated disaster.
Couple that general perception with a complete inability on Obama’s part to get anything else on his agenda done for another 2 years, and he has zero accomplishments to point back to as a reason for re-electing his sorry a$$.
A delicious side effect is being able to hang Obama around the neck of every democrat left in office in 2012.
The only catch is, how do we keep the republicans from putting up a feeble McCain-like candidate in 2012? Who’s *turn* will it be to run for president then that will totally screw up the prospects for getting rid of Obama?
I wish for another Reagan-like figure in 2012, but I see no one who even comes close…. 🙁
BTW, the German government announced its budget plans for coping with the economic crisis. The will cut 10,000 government jobs by 2013, reduce social spending, increase e spending for education and research, tax energy companies’ benefits from extended running time for nuclear power plants, and tax or require fees from the finance sector. The savings should be 11 billion next year, 80 billion till 2014.
Naturally, this is being attacked, but if they get some of those cuts through, it will send a signal that greater fiscal responsibility is possible. I especially like the job cuts.
reference Hillary: for the life of me I cannot understand why she gave up a seat in the Senate to follow an obvious sure to fail like Obama. During the campaign she and the other Democratic contenders remarked on the “naivete” of his opinions. Then she ties herself to a a ship that had only one way to go, down, and in the process finds herself supporting insupportable ludicrous policies. Conclusion: she is a lot dumber than anyone gives her credit for being.
She will probably be urged to run in 2012, by which time Obama’s base of support will be restricted to believers in pixies.
Consider also the psychological effect of a Republican shift in November. Obama is a very narcissistic person, and anything which smacks of personal rejection makes him very angry. He’ll go full Nixon, and probably melt down in public.
Scottie,
I don’t disagree that a stalemate is preferable to pushing Democrat big-govt. Again, that’s on the domestic front. Obama will still have the ability to wreak havoc in foreign policy and this is precisely what could lead to another war(s) (think Korea and Iran).
Further, if Obama can’t accomplish anything, in 2012 years it will be the fault of the Republican congress, not his. He’s already singing that song while the Dems control both houses, how much louder will the aria become under a Republican House and Senate?
The problem is that people like you, I, neoneocon and her readers can see through this blather, but many people–many voters– will in fact buy this song.
Trimegistus,
I believethat a public meltdown would be the best thing to happen to this country at this time. I only fear that this man has his finger on “The Button.”
As for Obama changing direction; wouldn’t he have to engage in some sort of self-criticism for that to happen? We all know the likelihood of that happening. Even to pretend to change direction would mean treating the untermenschen with some sort of respect. It could kill him.
The most probably “change in direction” is that he will do what he is already doing, loudly denounce a problem, like government debt, then go ahead and make it worse and hope no one notices.
Absolutely. But if Obama’s popularity continues going south, the Dems may figure he’ll lose lose even with the black vote, and may decide to roll the bones with Hillary. The worst that happens is that blacks stay home on election day. It’s not like they’re vote for Republicans; they’re a lock for the party of slavery and segregation. Go figure.
Again, that’s a feature, not a bug. As the Dems have done for years, Republicans can then claim that everyone would have had a pony if only the obstructionists in the other party hadn’t blocked it. Obama would then own each and every problem 100%, even the ones that no one could possibly have solved.
Christie!
Bob, I think that’s exactly why she joined the Administration: she/Bill figured it was going to do its Hindenburg impression, and paradoxically the best place to be (initially) was close by, then huff off. That emphasizes her disagreement with what by then they figured would be an unpopular President. As the old saying goes, “You can’t promote heresy in a church to which you don’t belong.”
By contrast, if she stayed in the Senate, she’d be one more talking head baying for the Messiah’s head on a pike (as in Ted Kennedy vs. Carter). Everyone puts a very small coefficient in front of carping by opponents. But by having joined the Administration, she a) picks up party unity points, b) buffs up her resume with at least nominal foreign policy experience, and c) is in a position to bide her time and then publicly kick Obama in the happy sacs when he’s struggling most.
It’s a sound strategy. The only risky part was guessing that Obama would blow it, but that was such a good bet, and besides, Hillary had nothing to lose. (She’ll probably be considered too old and shopworn by 2016.)
For these reasons I was greatly heartened when she took the job, for it showed that politically savvy people (Bill, at least) who’d seen Obama up close figured he was going to be a Carteresque train wreck, and were positioning themselves accordingly.
“I wish for another Reagan-like figure in 2012, but I see no one who even comes close…. :(”
I suppose this is irrelevant, but Lt. Colonel Allen West is eminently qualified, actually my favorite candidate out there; though not yet electable for POTUS without at least a stint in the House. I hope the Republican Party wakes up to his potential.
Occam,
I hadn’t thought about the blowback from an Ogama veto in a Republican controlled congress, but I think that is an excellent point. In fact, the only way Obama can remain “in the game” is to tack to the center Like many of the commenters above, I think that’s highly unlikely.
It seems that Obama and the Dems lose on principle no matter what happens in the elections.
That’s the most heartening thought I had in quite some time.
B.O. and the Dems will do anything to get elected, including pandering to the center; just like he donned a skullcap and went to the Western Wall before betraying Israel. There isn’t anything any Dem, especially Hillary and B.O., won’t do for votes…
Hillary is done for. The word “progressive” will be interchangable with malaise and recession by Nov 2012 and she is a professed proud one.
As for Barak tacking to the center. That’ll happen about the same time Jerimiah Wright decides to preach about a loving Jesus.
That’s pretty good, jeff. Maybe you have a future as a Hillary strategist and speechwriter 🙂
Bill Clinton was actually a governor, an executive, and for more than one term. He had a good idea what the center was and where it was located. Obama, on the other hand, has zero executive experience (as shown by his White House partying and all those golfing excursions while America suffers). Obama has no idea what the center is, and could care less where it’s located. Obama knows what’s best for us, and he’ll shove it down our throats to prove to us how
rightfar left he is.If Obama’s approval ratings are not at least 45% by about March 2011, I doubt George Soros will allow Obama to run for re-election.
I say that because I read a few months ago that no president has ever been re-elected if his approval ratings were less than 48% immediately prior to the election, and no president has lost if his approval ratings were greater than 51%.
1. I don’t think Obama tacks to the center, or no more than a smidgen. He’s a true believer.
2. I think he uses a Republican Congress (whether both houses or just one) as a cover with his base – why he didn’t get more done, especially of the statist variety. He will surely also try to convince the center of the country that his failures are the faults of the Republicans, but my sense is he cares more about explaining to the Left.
3. This is not to say he won’t blame Republicans at every chance and be thoroughly partisan – that’s part of his M.O. & Rahm’s too. And, yes, his narcissism & thin skin will fuel that.
4. However, I also think his narcissism is such that I think he will take any repudiation at the polls both in 2010 & 2012 as proof that we’re not worthy of him. He’ll float off to Olympus (Davos) and hang out with other elitists who know how to appreciate him. George Soros will help him cash in on the fall of the Euro (or whatever currency is struggling at the time) and he’ll make a bunch of money for his memoirs. All he has to do after that is make the occasional speech to the occasional fawning audience. Success! (in his eyes.)
5. In combination with his narcissism – it’s no accident that he hasn’t really held any jobs until now. It turns out he doesn’t like working hard. I think he’ll be just as glad not to have to show up every day if he loses in 2012. (not sure how Michelle will see this.)
6. I don’t think a crisis like the OKC bombing helps Obama with the country. As a matter of fact, my fearful guess is that this administration is so feckless that we’re going to have to endure an emergency – a terrorist attack of some kind – and it will be crystal clear to everyone (and it’s clear to plenty of us right now) that the guy’s not up to the job. The MSM will still cover up quite a bit, but the BP spill in the Gulf has started to be a bit much, even for them. The perception of lack of competence is out there. One more strike and he’s out.
7. Even if that terrible event doesn’t happen, unemployment stays high and gas goes up. No one’s happy with health care “reform.” The guy would have to have accomplished a lot more than he has to weather that.
8. Nevertheless, I don’t know what to make of Hillary, except that my money would be on her quitting and running in the primaries. If Obama is looking as bad as I think he will maybe a bunch of Democrats defect to Hillary in an anyone but a Republican move. OTOH, can the party revolt against their “historic” President? I guess he gets the nomination again, somehow. (unless he pulls an LBJ, which doesn’t strike me as out of the realm of possibility. Again, I just don’t think he’s that happy in the job.)
9. The only question, in my mind, that really matters: do the Republicans have the brains and the guts to capitalize on this and really bring government to heel? God, I wish I felt more confident about that answer. Because liberalism (except, apparently, for Mickey Kaus) has been hijacked by the Left. They want us in servitude. If Obama cracks, the guys waiting in the wings won’t be any better.
Obama has proved more valuable to the Republicans than he has to the Democrats. Perhaps he is an example of “Be careful of what you wish for. You just might get it.” Could the treasonous progressives really believe they can engineer a takeover via the Cloward-Piven strategy. I think they do. Their problem is that there is just so much to overwhelm. They found Uncle Sam a tough old man.
B.O. and the Dems will do anything to get elected…
Given historical precedent its scary what they will do that the other sides never did…
[and i am only referring to local American history not farther back than the 1870s]
I dont think anyone is actually doing the math
we are broke… some 30%+ require checks for housing, food, and utilities. we cant pay for their housing, food, and utilities.
there is quite a huge number of people who at some point will want their lights turned on, cable turned on, cell phone turned on, or else…
just section 8 in NY alone would go nuts
NYCHA is the largest public housing authority in North America. NYCHA’s Conventional Public Housing Program has 178,556 (as of February 2, 2010) apartments in 334 developments throughout the City in 2,604 residential buildings containing 3,322 elevators (as of February 5, 2010). NYCHA has 11,664 employees serving 175,475 families and 403,665 authorized residents (as of January 4, 2010). This includes 2,236 Section 8 Transition Households with 5,890 residents.
A total of 654,657 New Yorkers are served by NYCHA’s Public Housing and Section 8 Programs. If NYCHA was a city, it would rank 20th in population size in the United States, with New York City ranked first (as per July 2008 — Bureau of the Census). Based upon the 2008 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (HVS) and the most recent population estimate for New York City (July 2008) respectively, NYCHA Public Housing represents 8.4% of the City’s rental apartments and is home to 4.8% of the City’s population http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/factsheet.shtml
[atlantic has some interesting information that is sort of related in a demographic outcome kind of way http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/6872/ ]
at that point what do they do?
i see no other answer they will take other than command the economy
how elections are going to change that i dont know since they have been firing all engines to pass the event horizon
[and blame is irrelevant. if they change it all, then blame them for what? if they don’t succeed, who cares they are rich, and so what? where is it actually illegal to run a democracy into the ground, not get called for not following the constitution, and so on and so forth?]
when a large section of people cant pay for food, what does the state do with the problem?
and I dont think that other countries will be like us and sit by and not take advantage of such things…
Hillary is clearly a good deal brighter than Obama, and considerably shrewder into the bargain. She misjudged him (and his Red support) in the primaries, but that was easily done as he came out of nowhere and employed a new strategy.
She has fallen back and regrouped as SecState, nuzzling up close to him — but not too close – and thereby turned proximity into a future asset.
Obama pushed her to the background at State, which was stupid. By marginalizing her, rather than harming her chances, he’s protected them from getting hit with political fallout from his own bungling. Meanwhile, she bides her time in the briar patch.
If he had any brains, he’d have pushed her into the forefront of his foreign policy so that they’d be joined at the hip (and in the meantime kept Hillary supporters sweeter, too). That would have turned Hillary’s proximity from an asset into a liability, because then she’d have lots of foreign policy baggage if she tried to turn on him later. Any fallout later would look like the opportunism that it doubtless would be.
Obama’s been badly outgeneraled on this one. When Hillary comes out of Witness Protection, he’ll realize how badly.
Perhaps he is an example of “Be careful of what you wish for. You just might get it.”
i would say its more a case of be careful of what you let others manipulate you to want and wish for, you just might get it if your not careful…
Thank you Artfldgr for the cites.
Exactly. For just this reason, if I were a Republican strategist, on taking control of the Congress I’d make sure to put my most contentious programs at the top of the list. Force him either to bend the knee or double down and use the veto, and then get blamed for every little problem.
He’ll try, but that ain’t gonna fly by 2012. His base isn’t enough to get him re-elected (assuming he wants to be); the rest of the country won’t go for that lame excuse. His party controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House and still couldn’t get anything done? Tough to weasel off that hook.
It’s not everyday that one hears Soros linked with the concept of loyalty. I think Soros would have shot his mother in the back and placed bets on which we she fell (after rigging the outcome, of course).
Curtis,
Cloward-Piven strategy
May I be the first to be the one to point out that like so many elitist ideal designs, they are always strong on the opening game/front moves, etc… (breaking the economy), but are always weak on the end game. the closing of the deal, the ability to define an end in terms of actual outcomes. so forget the idea of breaking it and it falling into some form that they have planned.
I agree, Obama will not tack to the center, it’s just not in him to do so.
After the mid-terms, besides neutering Obama, what the Republicans can do will depend upon how big their victory, how many Tea Party approved candidates get in and the political acumen of the Republicans.
Too many RiNO’s and it’ll be just treading water against the progressive tide.
The problem for Hillary is that if Obama’s approval rating is so low that she has a chance against him in the 2012 primaries, NO Democrat will be able to win the election. Just as T. Kennedy and H. Humphrey couldn’t overcome the immediate legacy of Carter and LBJ.
Regardless of the Republican victory in the mid-terms, Obama will not win reelection in 2012.
He’s proving to be as ineffective when it comes to the economy as he is with the Gulf oil spill, in less than his first 18 months, his base is expressing strong displeasure with him and he plays far too much during grim times. When he has a Republican majority to deal with and can’t get any legislation passed, he’ll play golf and host parties even more.
Foreign policy events alone will sink him, too many trouble spots are building upon the time horizon and Judith’s right, one more example of incompetence and the perception that he’s trying to perform, way above his ‘pay grade’ will permanently solidify.
The Peter Principle personified; promoted far above his level of competence.
Our debt is going to surpass our GDP next year – there is a very good possibility that we may encounter depression-like circumstances when the drilling moratorium goes into effect, along with expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Also, capital gains taxes are going to go up as well, and if the congress tries to pass cap and tax legislation – then the collapse will be complete.
If Europe completely implodes – then we will go with it.
25% to 40% unemployment will be the new normal.
We will become Zimbabwe.
As far as Hillary is concerned – I don’t think she will be able to pull it off – she is part of the Obama administration, and it is a little late to start backpedaling her way out of the foreign policy disaster that is Obama.
Peter Ferrara, who I don’t know but who appears to be a serious person (i.e., formerly in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, also Harvard College and Harvard Law degrees), says Obama will resign before his first term has expired. While he lays out a plausible scenario, I think Obama is far too arrogant and narcissistic to resign UNLESS he believes there is a high probability of conviction at an impeachment proceeding.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/02/the-coming-resignation-of-bara
Too many RiNO’s and it’ll be just treading water against the progressive tide. (Geoffrey Britain)
Yes. It’s a two front battle and we do well not to forget why we are here in the first place.
Re. Hillary: People are tired of the Clintons. There’s a fatigue factor made even more pertinent due to the anti-incumbant virus. Of course, this doesn’t apply to the true believers, but mostly to the Independents.
I also have to disagree with Fred. Obama and his handlers are true ideologues and can’t move away from their heartfelt hatred of democracy and capitalism.
There is no guarantee that there will be any move to the center.
There are millions of voters unemployed up and down the economic ladder.
Home sales are bouyed by bottom feeders who smell blood in the water.
Oil may be spilling into the gulf all summer.
Odds that 2010 will be remembered among the glory days of free market capitalism are low to non-existent.
If you recall the roots of narcissism, it is clear that Obama is not/will not be a compromiser. It things don’t go exactly as he wants them, death and destruction is the “plan B”, even if it’s his own death and destruction!
I for one think these things happen slowly. The Tea Party ferment is a generational change of attitude that I think will take years to fully flower. Eventually it will probably lead to a Libertarian President but for now we have little idealogical explosions that seemingly generate more noise than substantive change.
As for O tracking center if we regain the House, he will try but it will be an upstream battle. Clinton received a BIG assist from Ross Perot and, sadly, Timothy McVeigh. The O has flailed about looking to find a similar villain. He’s tried to scapegoat Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Israel, and of George Bush without much success. Like Clinton, he inherited a recession but he’s gone farther by doubling down on govt spending and debt. I wonder what Clinton’s term would’ve looked like with a $13 trillion debt after only two years!
The legacy/dinosaur media will lay supine for their favorite leader but their game is exposed for too many to put the genie back in. Dan Rather, Keith Olbermann, the other clowns of MSNBC, Al-Jazeera… there are just so many examples of journalistic frauds and embarassing hacks in their industry.
If trends continue, I think the O-bot will win re-election largely because of the poor quality or low reach of any Republican opposition but he will be a bruised, beaten and maybe crippled Executive. It’ll probably be a dangerous time which, predictably, he’ll blame on someone else.
Occam’s Beard said-
“Isn’t this a curious characteristic of Marxists though? They wage brilliant campaigns to seize power, then become totally bumbling nincompoops at actually exercising it. Cases in point: USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam. (North Korea and Eastern Europe they won largely through force of arms, and so don’t count). The diabolically clever political tacticians assume power and then do their impression of Laurel and Hardy trying to paint out the same bucket. It never fails.”
This reminds me of a pundit’s remarking that the Dope’s campaign promise that “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” makes sense only to Marxists in his liberal base. That is, he is claiming that he, and he alone, is able to deal with the many problems that arise when one undertakes to centralize government power.
During the campaign one could surmise that the Dope didn’t know what he didn’t know. Now, with 18 months or so of his presidency under our belts we can reasonably conclude that he still doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. In a word, he has not learned anything. He is as arrogant and thin skinned as before. He pursues policies that make no sense, politically or otherwise, even if his goal is to socialize the country. He is becoming the third rail to Democrats, who are distancing themselves from him as fast and as far as they can (but YouTube remains and is unforgiving). But he continues on his path to national weakness and abasement, exposing us and our once proud allies to dangers that were unthinkable only a few years ago. In a world that grows smaller with the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles, is he really aiming to isolate and defang the USA?
The Dope long ago ceased to amaze. He can only leave us saddened by his incompetence in ALL that he does and hopeful that the world will still be there, in one piece, in 2013, when he leaves office.
O-bot win re-election? Odd prediction even for this natural pessimist. I see very few positive comments about him anywhere. Even given that the people who support O are not likely to be overly literate or well informed. Not for a second do I consider polls made by bias Manhattan TV news networks anything more than propaganda, and even those are showing drops in support. The most arduous true believer has to contend with a host of missteps he can only try to blame Bush for. From what I remember of the 1980 election, where a far more competent Jimmy Carter (compared to Obama) lost against someone considered a right wing extremist, R. Reagan, I really cannot imagine anyone short of Hitler losing to Obama.
Occam, that was an interesting and well put term you used, Carteresque trainwreck. The differences in style between Carter and Obama is worth examining. Of the two Obama is by far the slicker, his style reeks of confidence and sophistication. One has to observe his actions and be familiar with events to see the falsehood of his assumptions and acts. He deserves an Oscar along with impeachment. Call him the thinking man’s utter disaster.
Carter was more up front in his incompetence, he acted the part as well as proved it. There was no pretense, his ineptitude was apparent to all backgrounds. Call him the common man’s hopeless mess.
“O-bot win re-election? Odd prediction even for this natural pessimist. I see very few positive comments about him anywhere. ”
I am a self-actualized, self-medicating pessimist but I’m also trying to keep a balanced view of things Bob. Too much premature enthusiasm for the ‘Mosiah’s’ dethroning will leave us with too much egg on face. neh? I am cautiously positive and I don’t indulge in the seeming manic extremes some here are falling into here.
“I really cannot imagine anyone short of Hitler losing to Obama.”
You mean flipper Romney? Or Newt ‘Scozzafava’ Gingrich?. Palin? Please, she’s a great commenter but the Tina Fey impression was devastating as it was unfair. However much a fan I am of Christie, I just don’t see him going national yet and nobody else seems to have the visibility or the money to challenge the celebrity king.
What’s this ‘about him anywhere’ bit. Who’s been bad mouthing me yo? Where are the Purple shirts when you need them? heh
Somebody needs to catch Carter in a Helen Thomas moment. Hes of the ripe age and certainly has similar sentiments. All the liberal idiots need to be exposed for who and what they exactly are.
The most remarkable feature of our times is the lack of impressive, really big political leaders. It is fairly universal. Even villains are all of a small caliber. Where all the great men gone? Nobody is seen on the horizon. May be, it is for good.
Top of the Pops in Real Clear Politics’ Best of the Blogs this AM. Congrats.
Obama needs villains. He needs someone to blame for his failings. “Let’s blame Bush” is getting old. A Republican House would be the perfect foil for him. In the MSM he’ll get credit for fighting them and all the credit for whatever goes right. If they cut the budget, he’ll get credit for stopping deeper cuts and credit for trying to balance the budget. A Republican House is an Obama dream come true. His 2012 campaign running against a “Do-Nothing” Congress is already being written.
“The most remarkable feature of our times is the lack of impressive, really big political leaders. It is fairly universal. Even villains are all of a small caliber. Where all the great men gone? Nobody is seen on the horizon. May be, it is for good.”
But wait, haven’t you guys heard that BO wants to “kick some ass”. His new 2012 campaign mantra!
Guess he must have listened to that expert, hum what’s his name, oh yea, Spike Lee. You can’t make this shit up. Obama going ghetto.
I find all predictions for 2012 or even for November 2010 just as relevant now as the predictions of the best political analysts in July 1914. We are at singularity now, and future is absolutely unpredictable.
Thanks, neo-neocon. Maybe just like Hillary…implementing my vision from within the HRC campaign / administration.
I enjoy Fred Barnes immensely but just like the brilliant Charles Krauthammer he’s been at it so long he’s in the habit of using his old measuring stick-and it does not compute. Clinton could be compared to old school Democrats because he was / is a politician first and understands the power of compromise.
As noted by others, Obama has no pertinent experience and is not who he was painted to be. He will not voluntarily pivot to anything. The question is if he is forced to compromise by those that put him in power will he be able to handle it? I doubt it. Most left wing attempt at debate is really more of a tantrum. Obama is an empty suit spouting meaningless rhetoric. Now that he will be more and more viewed as a failure by right and left and openly criticized he will bristle and get defensive. That is not presidential. The Democrats that hitched their wagon to this image will now abandon him.
It will be fun to watch
Pingback:Key Policy Commentary « CenterDebate
Caution: some Chrisitans may find the following blasphemous* (but, surely, no more blasphemous than Pelosi’s own exegetic mumblings).
St. Nancy’s Gospel
1.1: In the beginning was “the word”, and “the word” was with the completely obfuscated, and the word was obfuscated.
1.2: The same was in the beginning with the legislative branch.
1.2: All things were made by that branch; and without them was made nothing that was made. …
3.16: For Nancy so loved the congress, and some of the citizenry, and many non-citizens, that she gave a misbegotten son, that whosoever believe in him shall not perish unexamined in an emergency room for want of insurance, or be burdened with onerous riches beyond what is fair, but have eternal joy on earth with wealth shared equally among all. …
* apologies to St. John
Re: Hillary and a run for the President in 2012.
Keep in mind that it is very crucial for Hillary’s base that she remain a victim. Wronged by her husband, wronged by the VRWC, wronged by Obama. Thus, she will out-maneuver him and actually managed to be fired prior to the November election debacle. She will be free of the taint of this administration and take with her the 10-15% hard-core Hillary fans with her, sinking Obama into the high 20’s for approval rating. She will re-brand herself as “St. Hillary” and will market herself as the only potential savior of the Democratic Party.
Watch for dropped newsleaks of discord between her and Obama over the next 3 months, culminating with her firing in September. You heard it here first.
Pablo, that’s an excellent point. I’d conceived of Hillary’s taking the initiative and blowing it out, but you’re right – getting fired would be better. Not only would it avoid buffing her image as a ruthless, opportunistic bitch (can’t imagine how she got that), but getting fired would hit the Lifetime channel demographic where they live – right in the victimhood.
Kudos for your insight.
Hi to every body, it’s my first go to see of this website;
this blog includes amazing and really good material designed for visitors.
What’s up, after reading this amazing article i am also glad
to share my familiarity here with friends.