What We Got Promised And What We Got (From The Obama Presidency)
"Lifelong Democrat" Ted Van Dyk, who served in Democratic national administrations and on Democratic campaigns over several decades, writes in the WSJ:
Mr. Obama was elected in 2008 on the basis of his persona and his pledge to end political and ideological polarization. His apparent everyone-in-it-together idealism was exactly what the country wanted and needed. On taking office, however, the president adopted a my-way-or-the-highway style of governance. He pursued his stimulus and health-care proposals on a congressional-Democrats-only basis. He rejected proposals of his own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which would have provided long-term deficit reduction and stabilized rapidly growing entitlement programs. He opted instead to demonize Republicans for their supposed hostility to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.No serious attempt--for instance, by offering tort reform or allowing the sale of health-insurance products across state lines--was made to enlist GOP congressional support for the health bill. It passed, but the constituents of moderate Democrats punished them: 63 lost their seats in 2010 and Republicans took control of the House.
Faced with a similar situation in 1995, following another GOP House takeover, President Bill Clinton shifted to bipartisan governance. Mr. Obama did not, then blamed Republicans for their "obstructionism" in not yielding to him.
Defying the odds, Mr. Obama did become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to be re-elected with an election-year unemployment rate above 7.8%. Yet his victory wasn't based on public affirmation of his agenda. Instead, it was based on a four-year mobilization--executed with unprecedented skill--of core Democratic constituencies, and on fear campaigns in which Mitt Romney and the Republicans were painted as waging a "war on women," being servants of the wealthy, and of being hostile toward Latinos, African Americans, gays and the middle class. I couldn't have imagined any one of the Democratic presidents or presidential candidates I served from 1960-92 using such down-on-all-fours tactics.
...former Democratic presidents would also know today that no Democratic or liberal agenda can go forward if debt service is eating available resources. Nor can successful governance take place if presidential and Democratic Party rhetoric consistently portrays loyal-opposition leaders as having devious or extremist motives. We really are, as Mr. Obama pointed out in 2008, in it together.
It's not too late for the president to take a cue from his predecessors and enter good-faith budget negotiations with congressional Republicans. A few posturing meetings with GOP congressional leaders will not suffice. President Obama's hype about the horrors of fiscal-cliff and sequestration cuts, and his placing of blame on Republicans, have been correctly viewed as low politics. His approval ratings have plunged since the end of the sequestration exercise.
Unfortunately, where both parties can agree to agree is on the idea that they really just want to keep spending us senseless while pretending not to.







Both parties have been taken over by elitist leadership groups that consistently put their own interests ahead of both their party and the country in general. And both groups firmly believe that they have a Midas touch that will allow them to carry on the current situation indefinitely. But, eventually, math always wins. What's going to happen? Are the elites really prepared to throw a "if we can't have it, nobody can" temper tantrum? (I firmly believe they are.) Can we, the nation's voters, shake our entitlement addiction and get our heads wrapped around the problem? And if so, can we build a majority around what to do next?
We live in intesting times. I see some signs that the inevitable confrontation is beginning to take place in the GOP. There are an awful lot of recriminations over the failure of the leadership's nominees in the last two elections, and the embarrrassing performances of some (not all) of the Tea Party's lower-office choices. Buckley's fusion conservatism coalition might break up. If that happens, what next?
On the other hand, I see little evidence that the Democrats are confronting their problems. That's probably inevitable; parties seldom face up to their problems while they are in power. But 2016 isn't that far away. Assuming that Hillary Clinton runs again, does she have an answer for the array of forces that defeated her in 2008? Or will her health still be holding up by then? And if not, then what?
Cousin Dave at March 18, 2013 8:49 AM
The 2012 popular vote:
As of this writing, Obama had a 58,720,700 (50.1%) to 56,145,950 (48.4%) lead on Mitt Romney for the popular vote.[1]
The 2008 popular vote:
Obama 66,882,230
McCain 58,343,671 [2]
So yes -- Romney lost by 2.X%. But if Obama was so great, why did he lose more than 10 million voters?
[1] -- www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/who-won-the-popular-vote-2012_n_2087038.html
[2] -- www.infoplease.com/us/government/presidential-election-vote-summary.html
Jim P. at March 18, 2013 8:18 PM
Another thing to throw at this:
The McCain/Graham bullshitters did their best to neutralize Rand Paul's filibuster. That means they are trying to say Rand was wrong.
Those from the left and left right cosat may believe them. Those in flyover country want security, but not at the expense of liberty.
Jim P. at March 19, 2013 8:56 PM
Leave a comment