Patterico's Pontifications

2/14/2010

Obama Wants to Be President His Way (By Losing the House?)

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 10:37 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Last month, President Obama stunned many when he said he’d rather be a one-term President his way than get re-elected in 2012:

“President Obama, buffeted by criticism of his massive health care reform bill and election setbacks, said today he remained determined to tackle health care and other big problems despite the political dangers to his presidency.

“I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” he told ABC’s “World News” anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview today.”

There’s been a lot of debate whether Obama meant this — frankly, it’s often hard to parse what he means — but I think he meant it in a way. First, I’m sure he wants to get re-elected and will do everything he can to make that happen. However, second, even after a setback in the Massachusetts’ special election, it’s clear Obama plans to shape events to suit his goals rather than scale back to save the Democrats’ majority in the House or acquiesce to voter sentiment.

Here’s a reminder what the White House was saying just before the Massachusetts’ election, when Martha Coakley’s defeat seemed likely:

President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.

“This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,” a senior administration official said. “It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard.”
***
There won’t be any grand proclamation that “the era of Big Government is over” — the words President Bill Clinton uttered after Republicans won the Congress in the 1990s and he was forced to trim a once-ambitious agenda.

“The response will not be to do incremental things and try to salvage a few seats in the fall,” a presidential adviser said. “The best political route also happens to be the boldest rhetorical route, which is to go out and fight and let the chips fall where they may. We can say, ‘At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.’

It seems to me that’s exactly what Obama has done since Scott Brown’s election.

Maybe he really is willing to let House Democrats lose. Not only would a GOP-controlled House give Obama someone to rail against but, given what may be voters’ reluctance to give one Party control of both bodies, it may help safeguard Democratic control of the Senate. And Obama needs the Senate to approve his Supreme Court nominees.

— DRJ

32 Responses to “Obama Wants to Be President His Way (By Losing the House?)”

  1. there’s not a whole lot of difference between “stuborn” and “stupid”.

    its worse when you’re both, and that’s Ear Leader…

    (and his supporters. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  2. To dream the impossible dream
    To fight the unbeatable foe
    To bear with unbearable sorrow
    To run where the brave dare not go

    To right the unrightable wrong
    To love pure and chaste from afar
    To try when your arms are too weary
    To reach the unreachable star

    This is my quest
    To follow that star
    No matter how hopeless
    No matter how far

    To fight for the right
    Without question or pause
    To be willing to march into Hell
    For a heavenly cause

    And I know if I’ll only be true
    To this glorious quest
    That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
    When I’m laid to my rest

    And the world will be better for this
    That one man, scorned and covered with scars
    Still strove with his last ounce of courage
    To reach the unreachable star

    Except of course that Don Quixote was an admirable idealist, not the typical result of a thoroughly corrupt Chicago political machine.

    JVW (4c4fcb)

  3. ” given what may be voters’ reluctance to give one Party control of both bodies,”

    ???? Because it’s working so poorly?

    gary gulrud (75a696)

  4. Clinton shut the government down in ’96 and successfully blamed the GOP, excepted McClellan Air Base from the Brac, and was reelected.

    If the GOP takes the house majority and narrows the senate the best that will come of it is gridlock the next two years.
    But at the same time you can bet Obama will be blaming them all the way and promoting himself as the “balance” voters need.

    voiceofreason2 (d68de9)

  5. Hard to be considered “successful” in your first term if you don’t get elected for a second.

    Name a successful one term President?

    But anyway.

    HeavenSent (30a64e)

  6. The President and Congress still have around 60% of the stimulus money left to spend… Well over 400 Billion dollars. He, and the Democrats, need not worry about the upcoming elections. In September and October, the money funnel will be at full throttle – 400 billion can buy a lot of votes.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  7. Not if that money will be “funneled” to crony contractors and state payrolls, as we’ve seen so far. The public’s not amused at the way their taxpaying revenues are being spent, and the Tea Party’s not going away, no matter what the current congressional leaders fervently wish. I hope they all keep right on whistling past that graveyard.

    Dmac (799abd)

  8. This guy’s ego won’t let him back up. He’s out to ruin the Democrat party and the American economy come hell or high water.

    FatBaldnSassy (cc3778)

  9. And will Evan Bayh not running make his job easier or harder?
    I don’t remember a lot of senior Republican senators in leadership positions retiring in 2002.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  10. Look at the bright spot; a Republican controlled House would get that dingbat Pelosi out of the way.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  11. A Republican-controlled Senate is becoming more of a possibility. Evan Bayh is retiring.

    John Hitchcock (207f43)

  12. Missed your comment, Have Blue. Sorry to step on your toes.

    John Hitchcock (207f43)

  13. Don’t undersell the Senate. Already the GOP candidate is outright favored to flip Illinois, Arkansas, Nevada, North Dakota and Delaware, with Pennsylvania, Colorado and Indiana looking extremely promising (Bayh is retiring). There are some potentially vunerable GOP held seats (New Hampshire, North Carolina, Missouri) but in wave elections the weaker seats are usually held (just look what happened in 2006 in and Maryland).

    That’s eight seats right there. All that is needed is two more, like, say Wisconsin (where Feingold has never been particularly strong) and Washington (where potential candidate Dino Rossi is quite popular).

    Sean P (334463)

  14. Name a successful one term President?

    Only one that leaps to the front of my mind would be James Polk.

    I guess you could argue JFK, but I don’t think that really counts.

    Techie (217a89)

  15. Apparently he wants to lose the Senate too. Bayh announced he will not seek re-election.

    JD (5375e6)

  16. Voters live in the moment, the $$ will start pouring in; short-term jobs will start springing up; things will appear to be looking better. This is Obama’s goal in all the races that could be close. He/they can afford to lose a few seats – but they are banking on stupid voters focusing on a short-term spending blitz.

    The media will continue to marginalize the TEA party and any other news not fitting their agenda.

    You have to realize, most people still aren’t paying attention. And if they are, many are still getting their news from the MSM. Toss in half a trillion dollars and they’ll vote that way.

    I bet the unemployment rate will remain above 9.5% for several more months at least. Then the spending spree will come full force.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  17. Maybe the members of the Cult of Liberalism should tell Obama that he’s well on his way to becoming a mediocre one term President.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  18. Corwin, that is something that does concern me. I’m quite cynical of the electorate and their short attention spans.

    It is said a low voter turnout is good for Republicans while a high voter turnout is good for Democrats. I believe I understand why that would be the case. The vast majority of adults are “not into politics” so they don’t even attempt to keep up with the issues of the day. When it comes time to vote, the uninformed do a quick gut-feeling analysis without any research whatsoever. And with the lamestream media in bed with Democrats, the uninformed just go in and pull the Democrat lever.

    When the voter turnout is lower, the ratio of informed:uninformed becomes much higher. But it’s possible a lot more people are becoming informed this time around. One can hope.

    John Hitchcock (207f43)

  19. In the scheme of things Evan Bayh was a decent senator for a Dem. I no longer believe all these guys are retiring merely because they are afraid they’ll lose. I think some of them are retiring because they can just no longer in good conscience run and serve under the banner of the Democrat party as they watch its liberal wing and White House destroy America and the party as they knew it.

    elissa (e0942a)

  20. Elissa, in regards to Bayh, you may be right. From what I have heard, Bayh is a moderate Democrat, and this huge leftist-statist lurch can’t sit well with moderate Democrats.

    But as moderates leave the party, as they did after 1994, the far left (and in my opinion, all-out socialist) wing of the Democrat Party becomes the whole party. The big problem is the Republican Party has a long history of shifting leftward to fill the void.

    John Hitchcock (207f43)

  21. I think we may be missing a point here. This guy is a DINO(democrat in name only). His mission is that of a Progressive who has “hidden” himself in the Democratic Party because its liberal slant gives him cover. He only answers to Progressives and this is his core being. He grew up outside the mainland 48 states so he has no real connection here. Yes, he went to college here but how “real world” is Harvard? I absolutely believe he will invoke every form of executive order and reconciliation process he can muster to put the PROGRESSIVE agenda through Congress. If he loses both houses after that then so be it. He doesn’t care. His goal is not to be the best President ever, but to be the One to push through what his predessesors started and could not finish(Wilson, FDR,, Marx. That is how he will measure himself..He must be impeached if possible before his reckless deriliction of duty he is planning comes to a reality that we cannot turn back…

    Mick (431f4e)

  22. If the Dems, through the use of the TARP/Stimulus slush-fund, maintain their control on the Hill,
    we will see in 2011-12, what FDR saw in ’37-’38 which was labeled the Depression in a Depression.
    In his case, it only affected a mid-term as he had already been re-elected.
    BHO doesn’t have that luxury – a continued down-turn would severely affect his re-election prospects.
    As long as the Dems maintain the policies that they have laid out, capital will remain “on strike”, and the economy will remain in the doldrums.

    AD - RtR/OS! (89e14c)

  23. I’ve heard some mention of removing the R and D next to candidate’s names so one would truly vote for someone they really wanted (or choose randomly). At least they couldn’t vote via the lever. I will admit, in my youth, when in doubt, I choose the R. (this would be at the local level, not state or federal; but still a cop-out vote)

    Progressives have infiltrated both parties. They are somewhat of a throwback to the Federalist party of Hamilton and Adams. People who don’t take their right to vote seriously are too many, while those who research are too few. Choices are made based on the press or strong group affiliations. You might still get a federalist by choosing an R.

    Maybe this fall will be different. Maybe the voters will be better informed and better read. I think it will be too little and too late, if anything.

    As bad as I heard/read about the Great Depression, I think we are in for it again despite the warnings. People think it just can’t happen again; too many checks are in place. Time will tell, but I’m still stocking up on canned goods.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  24. “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president

    Hm. His line used to be that if this or that policy didn’t work, he wouldn’t be reelected. Remember that from the early days? It always bothered me because it was as if the fact that it put the nation in a bad position wasn’t the important consequence.
    Now he’s spinning it as if not being reelected would be some brave choice.

    MayBee (33e86f)

  25. Heaven Sent look at the one year term of President Polk.However, in President 44 case his “manifest destiny” is the ruination of a political party and the end of the mass medias’ importance in proping-up said political party.

    mike191 (d4febe)

  26. Stacking the SCOTUS? Exactly. If you’re a Marxist, its the ideology stupid, not democracy.

    bullwhacker (6412b6)

  27. Now he’s spinning it as if not being reelected would be some brave choice.

    I’m seeing martyrdom, May Bee. Either way, a pre-emptive strike seems to be in the forecast. He’s a clever CYA one alright.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  28. Not only would a GOP-controlled House give Obama someone to rail against

    I dunno, he’s been railing pretty good against them for the past year.

    Obama needs the Senate to approve his Supreme Court nominees.

    With all the RINO’s the GOP has in the Senate, I don’t think he’ll have any trouble getting whoever he wants confirmed either way. Clinton faced a Republican Senate. Who waved Bryer and Ginsberg right on through.

    Subotai (32b196)

  29. With all the RINO’s the GOP has in the Senate, I don’t think he’ll have any trouble getting whoever he wants confirmed either way. Clinton faced a Republican Senate. Who waved Bryer and Ginsberg right on through.

    Comment by Subotai

    Nominees between now and election day, I agree with you because Republican numbers are so low – get one Republican to vote for cloture and there’s no filibuster.

    If, however, Republicans do very well this fall and Obama continues to be a man of the left, then things change:

    #1, the larger the Republican caucus, the more leeway you have to sustain a filibuster.

    #2, a blowout this fall dramatically weakens Obama – people are losing patience with him already. If this track continues, those numbers will only increase, in which case there will be little or no political price to pay for defying him.

    I think back to before the election, when the so-called smart people were telling us Obama would govern as a moderate and those who said “he’s a died-in-the-wool leftist who will govern left” were mocked, derided & called every name in the book ….

    BD57 (3a23c9)

  30. We won’t even mention (well, I will anyway) what might happen if AQ mounts a successful attack against the U.S., or an American installation somewhere in the world (not counting Iraq or AfPak) between now and November.
    Just how long could Jones and Brennan survive such a situation?
    And, if it is a U.S. attack, Mueller at FBI, Panetta at CIA, and Incompetano at DHS would all have to go too.

    AD - RtR/OS! (89e14c)

  31. the larger the Republican caucus, the more leeway you have to sustain a filibuster

    I don’t think so. Republicans don’t do filibusters. (Of judicial nomimnees.) You could have 60 Republicans in the Senate and they’d still rubberstamp Cass Sunstein.

    Picking up Senate seats is important for other reasons, but it won’t affect SCOTUS nominations.

    Subotai (7ff7ea)

  32. ‘At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.’“

    And the Democrats said “buh-bayh.”

    Patricia (e1047e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0750 secs.