Posted on 07/17/2010 8:39:00 PM PDT by no dems
Lately, the media has been eating up the doom and gloom projections for Democrats in the November 2010 election, so much so that you kind of have to wonder to what degree it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ironically, however, conservative Charles Krauthammer predicts a not-so-gloomy future for Obama and the Democratic Party, regardless (and maybe even because of) what will likely happen in November.
The most interesting part of Krauthammer’s column in the Washington Post is the extent to which he portrays Pres. Barack Obama as a force to be reckoned with. Krauthammer clearly doesn’t agree with what Obama has spent his first year and a half in office doing, but he acknowledges the historic nature of Obama’s presidency and warns Republicans, in no uncertain terms, “Don’t underestimate Barack Obama.”
Krauthammer compares Obama’s presidency to Reagan’s, noting that “both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side.” And while Obama has come under fire from critics on both sides of political spectrum, Krauthammer argues that these critics are actually missing the big picture.
Obama’s transformational agenda is a play in two acts.
Act One is over. The stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform have exhausted his first-term mandate. It will bear no more heavy lifting. And the Democrats will pay the price for ideological overreaching by losing one or both houses, whether de facto or de jure. The rest of the first term will be spent consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two.
For Obama to fulfill the remainder of his agenda, he’ll need to win a second term. And here’s the kicker. As Krauthammer sees it, letting the Republicans win control of either or both houses this November might actually benefit Obama (and Democrats) in the following 2012 election.
If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.
Over the past few months, news and political analysis has been remarkably focused on the short term, concerned mostly with how this or that event will play out in the November elections. There has been comparatively less attention given to what could happen if the supposed inevitable Republican resurgence comes to pass, let alone what that could mean for future elections. Krauthammer’s foresight, then, is what makes this column particularly interesting.
It also, incidentally, makes Sarah Palin’s Twitter endorsement of Krauthammer’s column ever so slightly amusing. The shared Tea Party and Republican rallying cry that November is a “referendum on Obama” is, after all, a rather short sighted game plan.
Not sure if I agree with his reasons but I think he’s right. BO and Soros will break out all the dead voters and union thugs money can buy.
I have an old-lady crush on that man. He’s brilliant! I, too, however, hope he’s wrong with this!
Never underestimate the American yearning for the quick fix.
If Republicans are elected to majority in November and don’t give them a quick fix, many independents and even Republicans will be out looking for another one, or a man on a white horse...
Tyranny is often the result of such a mind set.
Agree. But that may be the most they can do, and it may still not be enough. Obama just doesn’t have the political savvy and instincts of a Bill Clinton, for example, who could keep people behind him even when he was at his lowest point. About all Obama can do is give speeches, and I think even those who were adamant supporters have heard enough of that. If all he can do is run his mouth and burn Soros’ cash to buy ads showing him running his mouth, it won’t be enough.
shankapotomus President Barack Obama Golfer Golfing Golf Swing Hawaii e-trade baby ShankaPOTUS
I see Republicans easily winning the House. OCICBW -- my crystal ball is fogged up and I can't afford a new one in this economy.
So what is the plan when, at the end of election day, it’s obvious there has been wide spread voter fraud and corrupt elections?
Obama and whoever will do anything. They do not respect anything even themselves.
WRONG, Chuckie! Reagan loved America and respected the Founders and the Constitution. Obama hates traditional American values and beliefs and takes every opportunity to show it.
He’s right...
He will be only right if we lose our zeal. I have a herd time believing that but it is a good cautionary tale. Love Krauthammer.
Obama isn’t stupid - he’s dangerous and intentional. He’s also successful, if one understands his agenda.
Assorted thoughts:
-Two years is an eternity in politics, and I don’t think we can take anything for granted in 2010, much less 2012. A lot depends on the state of the economy. If we double-dip and we roll into 2012 with feeble growth and/or continued high unemployment, he’s probably toast. If, however, the economy recovers strongly by then, much will be forgiven by voters.
-As for being able to use a GOP majority against the Republicans in the 2012 elections, I’m not so sure Krauthammer is on spot there. Yes, Bill Clinton used the GOP controlled Congress to get himself re-elected. But Clinton has always been a superb counterpuncher (i.e. “The Comeback Kid”) and a pragmatist. Obama isn’t and neither are most of his inner circle. I don’t see more than modest political cover for Obama in that situation, unless the Stupid Party blows it again (which is always possible, sadly).
I never underestimate Obama because I know people who still like him. These are people who refuse to watch the Fox News Channel.
You simply cannot talk to these people. I almost got into it with an old friend over the health care bill. It was useless.
These people think they’re smart, but they are not really informed.
Your Post #15: Very insightful. Thanks.
The major point CK is missing on Obama is that he has super majorities to do whatever he likes. It is not due to some sort of persuasive powers. Those days are over. Reagan ran on a platform, won in a major landslide and forced a Congress run by the opposition to enact his ideas. Secondly the point CK is missing is that those policies were wildly successful. It is unlikely that we see similar economic progress with these current plans because the they are preciey opposite of what Reagan did. I have no illusions that we will not have a tough fight in 2012, but this article is pretty poor. CK is a Beltway ivy league elistist and that clouds his views sometimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.