--Dick Morris
Moving to the center is not a two-dimensional process. It has a third dimension-- the difference between strength and weakness. In the course of coming in from the cold of his extreme far-left positions, the president looks like a wimp, abandoning his long-held views in the face of electoral defeats, adverse court rulings, recalcitrant Democrats and strong, united Republican opposition.
And wimps don't win.
When Bill Clinton moved to the center, he arrived in triumph. After vanquishing the Republican Congress during the government shutdown of 1995-96, he agreed to a balanced-budget deal with Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. But it was his deal, along his lines, on his principles. When he signed a welfare reform bill, he did so after beating back and vetoing two Republican bills that coupled reform with harsh cuts to Medicaid. After he got a bill on his own terms, he signed it.
Barack Obama's "compromise" with the Republicans over the Bush tax cuts is no more of a compromise than was the deal Emperor Hirohito cut with Gen. Douglas MacArthur on the deck of the battleship Missouri after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a surrender, not a compromise. It was submission, not triangulation.
Obama is checkmated as long as Republicans hold firm, challenge him on solid grounds anchored in public opinion and remain united. He can either lose the election of 2012 because he is an obstinate ideologue who won't compromise and won't abandon his socialist principles or he can lose it because he does surrender and is too weak to be president.
He does not have a third option -- winning the budget fights and winning reelection-- as long as the Republicans properly mount their challenge, because public opinion, the essential element for victory, is not with him.
• Americans want spending cuts, not tax increases
• Americans believe that cutting spending is more important even than cutting the deficit (see Rasmussen)
• Americans oppose ObamaCare
• Americans are against letting the Environmental Protection Agency impose carbon dioxide restrictions without consulting Congress.
• Americans are against unilateral National Labor Relations Board action to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections.
• Americans oppose earmarks
• Americans do not want the Federal Communications Commission to limit or censor talk radio.
These are the grounds for our battles in 2011-2012. It is on this turf that the Republican House majority must fight. The fearful "moderate" Democratic senators will cave in. And then Obama will be forced to surrender because the Force-- public opinion --is not with him. You can govern by ignoring what Americans think if you have a majority. But not if you don't.
And with each surrender-- over his desire to raise the debt limit without mandated spending cuts, over his support for bailing out states in trouble, and over his demand to raise taxes in the 2012 budget --Obama will get weaker and weaker.
His inability to fight and win the war on terror and his choice to become mired in Afghanistan with no real plan for winning will contribute to the image of weakness.
In 2012, he will face America denuded of all the programs he passed in 2009-2010, with an economy only slightly improved but with at least 7-8 percent unemployment, and with a manifest inability to measure up to the job of president.
Most presidents face a challenge of weakness. With Eisenhower, it was his refusal to stand up to Joe McCarthy. With Kennedy, it was his inability to pass legislation. With Nixon, it was his inability to get ahead of the Watergate scandal. With Ford, it was his helplessness in the face of inflation. With Carter, it was the hostage crisis. With Reagan, it was his failure to control the Iran-Contra affair. With Bush-41, it was his passivity on the economy. With Clinton, it was the flip-flopping early in his presidency. With Obama, it will be his retreat in the face of the Republican counterattack of 2011.
----------
Curiously, in that last paragraph Mr. Morris left out George W in his list of presidential blunders/signs of weakness. No doubt liberals could dredge up any number of subjective 'weaknesses,' but the only one that would really fit here is George Junior's steadfast refusal to defend himself against the press who, beat him incessantly over the head with, primarily, lunatic objections to the man they zealously despised-- which had nothing to do with the man's policies, but rather the 36 days following the 2000 elections which ultimately decided the presidential race against their guy, vice-president Gore.
Bush allowed the liberal press and democrats to carry the ball-- he was not in control of the message. On many occasions Bush allowed the press to accuse him personally, and his administration, of out right lies and fantasies, without any rebuttal from the White House. That, undoubtedly, was a major contributing factor to his dismal poll numbers toward the end. But however dismal his poll numbers congress' numbers were abysmal.
----------
As to the man of the hour, president Barack Obama, moving to the center has never been his strong suit, and I have to agree with Morris: Obama's moving to the center is done not out of strength, but weakness. The liberal press and democrats will undoubtedly say otherwise-- they have no real choice if they have any hope of retaining the White House in 2012 --but the electorate that trounced his party last month won't be buying it. Furthermore, any democrat Senators with a modicum of desire to be reelected next round will, in all likelihood, abandon their democratic positions to vote with Republicans against anything that smacks of drawing too much Tea Party ire... they'll be job scared.
So Reid may have retained his majority leader status, but his party will not control the senate, in any larger sense. Republicans will be the de facto leaders in the senate.
There are 21 democrats up for reelection in the senate in 2012 :
- Dianne Feinstein, California
- Tom Carper, Delaware
- Bill Nelson, Florida
- Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
- Ben Cardin, Maryland
- Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
- Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
- Claire McCaskill, Missouri
- Jon Tester, Montana
- Ben Nelson, Nebraska
- Bob Menendez, New Jersey
- Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
- Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
- Kent Conrad, North Dakota
- Sherrod Brown, Ohio
- Bob Casey, Jr., Pennsylvania
- Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
- Jim Webb, Virginia
- Maria Cantwell, Washington
- Joe Manchin, West Virginia
- Herb Kohl, Wisconsin...
All Democrats, plus Independents Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
There are, obviously, some pretty safe seats on this list. The question is: how many democrats will lose in 2012 because of Obama's weakness? Republicans will only have to pick up, what? 4 seats? Anyone?
9 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When every head of the armed services and the past eight secretaries of state including those under Republican presidents say ratifying New Start increases our national security. That should be a bipartisan issue. It isn't the democrats beholden to their fringe on this.
When every reputable economist says that the ACA reduced the deficit while increasing the medical coverage for 40-50 million Americans. That should be a bipartisan issue. Especially when the law was made up of ideas from centrist republicans.
It's not democrats beholden to the fringes of their party.
So far Republicans have secured a tax break for the very richest 1% of Americans. Everyone else suffering from the economy and unemployment it was Pres. Obama and the democrats who cared about the payroll cut and extended unemployment benefits. If the government is shut down next year over a budget fight it will be because of Republicans. And it will be the GOP that keeps pushing votes in the house on divisive social issues instead of addressing today's pressing problems.
I predict after two years of seeing Republicans in control of Congress the American people will overwhelmingly reelect President Obama and give the majority back to the Dems.
It's not the Republicans refusing to accept the new reality... that elections have consequences, and included in it is the "new" concept of actually listening to the voters.
Congress had ALL YEAR to deal with the issues they've been crying about this lame duck session. And yet they did nothing.
Point your finger at Republicans if you wish. Your side's not any better... it's worse in fact. Obamacare will bankrupt this country. A two-year reprieve of Obama's tax INCREASE will not.
When republican senators request earmarks and then vote against the budget because it contains the earmarks THEY REQUESTED the problem is obviously with democrats.
When Republican senators say they will vote for a budget and then turn right around to support the filibuster of that budget the problem is obviously with democrats.
when the republican party employs unprecedented tactics of delay and obstruction the problem is obviously with the democrats.
If elections have consequence why after the election of Pres. Obama, and the largest democratic majority in the modern era did Republican leaders not talk about compromise or heeding the will of the American people, but instead said their primary goal above anything else was defeating the President's agenda.
The American people voted for a president who promised health care reform, they voted for a president that would end DADT, they voted for a president that campaigned on letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
I'm pretty sure the tea party candidates of this fall didn't run on protecting the tax cuts of millionaires and corporations.
A November 22nd poll by McClatchy-Marist showed that 51% of registered voters wanted to keep the law or expand it. and by a 2-to-1 margin people like the actual provisions of the law.
So yeah. when republicans spend two years demagouging on a law (death panels) people who are less informed can be swayed to want repeal. That's not something I'd be proud of.
"When democratic senators negotiate for 8 months with republicans to craft a federal budget that can pass...."
Democrats didn't care about Republican votes on the Stimulus or Health Care. They had control of both houses and could pass anything they wanted WITHOUT a single republican vote. Oh, but NOW they want republican votes? As for this 'heeding the will of the people' nonsense... the 'people' did NOT want Obama's health care bill. But democrats ignored the people. So... your objections fall on deaf ears.
Obama had "the largest democratic majority in the modern era" ??? Okay, I give you that. But because of his and Pelosi's and Reid's arrogance, they lost the most seats in a midterm election in 70-plus years. Or, in other words, 'in the modern era.'
"...[republicans] primary goal above anything else was defeating the President's agenda."
you mean the very same position democrats held when Bush was in office? Only difference being, democrats had the mainstream media in their pockets.
And if some republicans decide it's better to forget about their own 'earmarks' in favor of doing the will of the people? Well, it's more than democrats seem willing to do. It is never hypocrisy to do the right thing.
LOL
It's hard being on the receiving end after being the demagoguers for so long.
Oh. And I too can point to polls which support my position, but I just don't have time. I've got a promo to build (just dropped in my lap)... we're giving away two free tickets to the Chick-Fil-A bowl at the Georgia Dome this New Year's Eve.
Never dull moment around here. But then, you already know that!
No. Not really. They voted for a black dude. More to the point, few supporters had any idea about who Obama really was and where his head was at. They were too enamored with his skin color and ability to read a teleprompter.
But they certainly didn't expect reform to look as it does under Obamacare. And I doubt that even amongst his supporters there's overwhelming support for the fantasy known as homosexual "rights". And only idiots who know nothing would vote for repeal of the tax cuts that generated more revenues for the federal gov't than before the cuts, particularly from the hated upper 2%, who now account for a greater percentage of all revenues than before the cuts. AND, if I'm not mistaken, the Bush policy added more people to the other end, increasing the amount of thse who no longer have to pay income taxes.
Just thought I'd throw that helpful reminder out there.
All in all, Obama was elected by the "somethin' for nothin'" crowd, most of whom didn't lift a finger to find out a thing about the guy. "Leaders" elected by such people should be obstructed on principle alone. The fact that his policy proposals suck too make it all the more necessary that he be obstructed. Though there are plenty, alternatives aren't required to block bad policy proposals.