Will Obama Follow The Clinton Model?

Anne Kornblut has a piece in the Sunday WaPost in which she draws the historical analogy between the Republican tidal wave of 1994 and the one coming Tuesday--and their impacts upon the seated Democratic President.

We all remember Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich--there was quite a bit of cooperation between the two (right up until the Republicans shut the government down--which really only hurt them, and helped re-elect Clinton) and some good policy came out of their alignment.

In this article, Kornblut postulates that Mr. Obama may follow the same model.  I've made this same argument to at least one of my Dem friends--that a Republican House--especially one with Paul Ryan Chairing the Budget Committee (one of the few Republicans of substance Mr. Obama seems to respect)--might hold out the same prospects for good policy moves.  This Dem friend thought I was smoking crack, attributing the unlikelihood of such an atmosphere to the toxicity of the town, etc.

I'm beginning to think he may have been right--except for the wrong reason.  If the new alignment doesn't work in terms of good policy, it increasingly looks like it would be attributable to the differing political instincts of the President's involved.  Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat who led the DLCC to prominence in the 80's by putting forward policy options that challenged the traditional liberal establishment in the Party.  What many called his "triangulation" policies seem to me to have been simply policy making in his comfort zone. 

Does anyone think Barack Obama is possessed of centrist tendencies?  I simply don't see it.  From a simple numbers game, the Democratic caucuses of both the House and Senate will be MORE liberal as a result of this election, and they'll be in no mood to compromise.  It would take extraordinary leadership on the part of the President to buck his own Party, a level of leadership on policy I simply haven't seen from this White House--you remember, the one that tells the Democratic leadership to gin up bills.

The one wild card here?  Self-preservation.  Barack Obama will want to get re-elected, whether his party is in power in Congress or not.  If he sees his re-election prospects increased by cooperating with the Republicans, the stage could be set for some serious policy-making.  We'll  see.

Ponnuru and Lowry Analyze The Fall of the Democrats

National Review heavies Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry provide an outstanding review of the precipitous fall of the Democratic Party in the past two years.  It has been a series of mis-steps, over-reaches, mis-reading of mandates.  No incoming President in recent memory has been so favored--a pliant Congress, a fawning media--yet they blew it anyway. 

There is a lesson here for Republicans.  Many lessons, actually.

On Mr. Fenty's Loss

Here are a couple of good reads on the subject.

First, Reason's blog has a pretty good screed on the teachers union's big victory in the city. 

Next, the weekend WaPost had a very interesting article on Mr. Fenty's loss.  Lots of  discussion of Mr. Fenty's being out of touch with the black "community", but also a pretty solid case for the view that the "community" sees the city education system NOT as a venue for educating its youth, but as a jobs program for its adults.  You get what you pay for.

Democratic Angst

Here's another story that lays out Democrat angst as the November elections loom, another of the "darn it, we passed the most ambitious domestic agenda since LBJ and we're not getting any credit for it."  Perhaps because the voters didn't ask for it.  They wanted jobs and an economic turnaround.  You gave them a stimulus that didn't stimulate, cap and trade that did neither, health care that did not contain costs, and now you threaten to raise their taxes.  You just didn't listen.

Oh, and here's a little pet peeve of mine.  Paul Ryan wants to privatize portions of Social Security, and of course, he's savaged by Democrats for it.  Every time one of them talks about how it will impact "seniors", I want to puke--because they know damn well the proposal (as George Bush's proposal before it) would not touch a single "senior".  Anyone above 55 would stay just as they are.

The President and the Mosque

President Obama waded into the 9-11 Mosque issue on Friday night, without bidding and after his spokesman had indicated the White House view that it was a local issue.  So before a group of 100 largely Muslim guests at the White Houset, the President decided to remind all of us what a fine Constitutional law scholar his is by lecturing Americans--to the delight no doubt of his audience and Islamic audiences around the world--that the builders of the mosque and community center were within their rights to do so--and basically that not supporting their right was un-American on its face.  Thanks Mr. President--I'm sure you were a big hit in the faculty lounge at the University of Chicago, but the fact is, you're politically tone deaf.

So as I was readying for my vacation trip yesterday morning (Sat.), I heard the reporting of the previous night's speech.  I couldn't help but think that the President had given Republicans a great gift.  Once again--Barack Obama has decided to come out on the side of a small minority of people because by doing so,  he looks smart and internationalist and new-agey. 

By the time I reached my destination and fired up the old Dell laptop, I'd come to see that the President had begun to back down a bit from his statements of the night before--that he wasn't commenting on the "wisdom" of the project, only its constitutionality.  How predictable was this?  Do you think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi screamed at the Rahmn-o-nator a bit yesterday?   Do you think the White House got an earful from angry Democrats who are already in very dubious electoral positions?  No doubt. 

So once again--in an effort to be the smartest guy in the room and the hip internationalist he thinks he is--Barack Obama sold 70% of America up the river--first by telling a group antithetical to their views that opposing the mosque was unconstitutional, and then by inferring that believing so was un-American.   Democrats have a right to be angry at the President, and so do the rest of us.  November can't get here fast enough. 

EJ Dionne and Chris Dodd Have a Chat

EJ Dionne writes this morning of a chat he had with retiring Senator Chris Dodd.  At some point after the obligatory "I love your work, EJ",  followed by the "no, no, no Senator--I love YOUR work" conversation, they got down to brass tacks.  And while I would rather poke knitting needles into my eardrums than be a fly on the wall during this conversation, Dodd did say something with which I agree:

"There's nothing wrong with partisanship," Dodd thunders. "A little more civility would be a good thing, but it was partisanship that created this place." In the early decades of the republic, Congress "was a brawl." Partisanship simply reflects the reality of disagreement in a free society."

The distinction between partisanship and incivility is an important one.  Bi-partisanship sometimes means appropriate, compromise positions--and it sometimes means milquetoast solution-seeking for the sake of seeking solutions.

Three cheers for partisanship, I say.

Goldberg Skewers the Byrd Narrative

Jonah Goldberg masterfully reminds us that Robert Byrd represented much of what Americans disdain about their legislature.

Robert Byrd Dies

West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd is dead.  In the spirit of the Teddy Kennedy rule, I will try not to speak ill of the dead.  I will only state that while the stories of his death will invariably mention his time as a KKK member and a leader of the anti-Civil Rights movement on the Hill, his place in the Democratic Party virtually assures that these aspects of his political life will get the whitewash--something Jesse Helms never got.

The Weakness of the White House

Jonah Goldberg had a short post on NRO the other day talking about the weakness of the Obama White House. I think this is a big issue, one that Conservatives and Republicans need to think through strategically.

Obama supported a candidates in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia. All lost. He supported a candidate in Pennsylvania who switched to his party--and that candidate lost. His administration has offered jobs to at least two candidates to drop their runs in in favor of White House choices--both have refused. What's happening here? To fracture Machiavelli--Obama is loved, but he is not feared.

There will be no more "big" wins for Mr. Obama. His party will get waxed in November's mid terms, and moving anything big along in the second half of the first term will be even more difficult than it was in the first half. There is simply no penalty to crossing the White House (I could go on about how this applies internationally too, but I will restrict this to domestic politics), and Democrats in Congress will walk fine lines between public affirmation of the President and votes that are ultimately in their own electoral interest. We are watching the beginning of this generation's Carter Presidency unfold before us.

Sestak Pulls Ahead Of Specter

Last August, just after Joe Sestak decided to get in the Senate race in PA against "Snarlin" Arlen Spector (Dem, Repub, Dem), I posted this little ditty confidently stating that Joe Sestak would wear him down. Looks like I was right.

I really, really want Specter to lose this race.

Hilary Clinton To SCOTUS?

Not hearing much noise about this, so it's probably just a conversation I'm having in my head. But why wouldn't Barack Obama put Hillary in the Supreme Court.

1. She'd be a reliable lefty vote
2. She'd bring the "politician" voice back to the Court some have longed for since Sandra Day O'Connor retired.
3. She'd be taken out--completely--as a political force to be dealt with (can you say Teddy Kennedy, 1980 Democratic Primary Challenge?)
4. As bruising as the fight would be in the Senate--it would be a whole lot LESS bruising than if they nominated some of the people they are currently thinking about.

I'm just sayin'.

UPDATE: I spoke (wrote) too soon.

Carly Fiorina's Latest Barbara Boxer Ad...

....is another classic.

A Great Piece on Obama and the Democrats

Peter Beinart--one of my favorite lefties--has a smart post here about Obama crossing the Rubicon. Alea iacta est.

H/T Jonah in the Corner

Obama Plays Dirty On Healthcare--Gives GOP What They Want

Crafty devil, that Barack Obama. You think healthcare is dead? You think the President is going to go down in flames on his signature issue? You think that the GOP is gonna ride this one to Congressional majorities? Think again.

The President sent a note to Congressional leaders, and in it, he speaks to considering four Republican ideas for inclusion in the healthcare bill--they are: reform of the way states handle medical malpractice suits, reduce waste and abuse in the health care system, increase Medicaid reimbursements to doctors and expands health savings accounts.

Are Republicans going to vote for this? Maybe a few, but not many. I fear though, that this is enough to sway sufficient Blue Dogs to the President's side. Additionally, if Republicans just walk away from the President seemingly being so REASONABLE as to incorporate their ideas, they may pay a price in the court of public opinion.

It's going to be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Pedophile Case In Delaware: Why Beau Biden's Not Running?

When Delaware Attorney General--and son of the Vice President--Beau Biden announced that he would not seek the "Biden" seat in the US Senate, there was a lot of speculation--much of it here in this blog--as to why he was not running. My gut feeling was that he suffered from "Sanford-Woods Syndrome" and didn't want to expose his family to it. I had ZERO evidence to support the charge, so I said nothing (though in our present day world, it clearly would have shocked no one). Biden cited wishing to continue his AG work in protecting children from sexual predators as his reason for not running.

Boy, was he right. Katie Couric and Jan Crawford of CBS News have been covering the story of a pedophile in Lewes, Delaware who used the cover of his childhood pediatrics practice to indulge his horrific crimes, likely over the course of nearly 20 years. Complaints to State Authorities during that time by concerned parents resulted in little action including one from THE DOCTOR'S SISTER. Even after he came under intense scrutiny from state law enforcement, he continued his depredations, including reports of one assault the day before his arrest.

Beau Biden made protecting children his signature issue in campaigning for Attorney General, and he cited the work as part of the reason he wasn't going to run for the Senate. I'll go him one step further. Biden knew that once this story got big, that once it broke on the national scene (which last week's 471 count indictment has done), the glare of media attention would eventually turn itself on him, his office, and Delaware Law Enforcement--handing an opponent a superb campaign issue highlighting Biden's incompetence as AG. I've yet to see such a report in the BAPF (Bought and Paid For) media, but I will give it some time.

Schadenfreude, Wall Street Style

Schadenfreude, the German word which loosely translated means "joy in another's misfortune" applies this morning to my thoughts as I read this NYT front page story, "Irked, Wall St. Hedges Its Bet on Democrats". Readers know I am the last person to advocate a populist line, and I've never been much for the "grab your pitchforks, we're going to Wall Street" meme. That said, I think it is WONDERFUL to see the Wall Street crowd begin to experience true buyer's remorse with the Obama Administration.

We've talked here before about the super-rich, and their insulation from everyday pocketbook issues like inflation and taxes. When you're pulling in tens of millions of dollars a year, and income tax raise of two or three percent isn't that big a deal, nor is a rise of inflation of a couple of percentage points. Additionally, because one makes that kind of money, without the cares of the everyday, one has the luxury to become quite concerned for the lot of "everyone else". It is at this point that the super-rich become ardent environmentalists, humanitarians, and great social welfare advocates, both giving away portions of their own money AND advocating for greater confiscation of everyone else's (to pay for this largess. We refer to this as "taxation".).

But apparently, even Wall Street has a breaking point. The demonization of bankers by the administration has taken its toll, and there appears to be movement of Wall Streeters away from their adopted home in the Democratic Party toward a more capitalism friendly, business friendly embrace by the Republican Party.

Had I known that JP Morgan's CEO was such a big Dem--I'd probably have bought Goldman instead (I should have bought Goldman anyway). But as I do a little research into Lloyd Blankfein's contributions, I see he's a big D supporter anyway. Screw them. You get what you pay for, boys.

Why Is Beau Biden Not Running?

News is beginning to surface that Vice President Joe Biden's son Beau--odds on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for the "Biden Seat" in the Senate--has decided not to run for the office. This is a shock--a huge shock--and a good one for Republicans, as Representative Mike Castle--a man who has won 12 statewide elections in Delaware--appears to be the odds on favorite in a Republican pickup.

So, why is Beau Biden not running? He's citing his responsibilities to "children" especially victims of child predators. Not that this isn't a good thing to do, that is, stopping child predators. But really now--"I have a job to finish. And that's what I must do." What will his measure of success be? No more depredations carried out on the youth of Delaware?

President or Prime Minister?

I've got no love of Fareed Zakaria--he's a smart guy, but sorta leans in that "world citizen" direction so prevalent in Eurpoe--but he really nails it on the head in his criticism here of Barack Obama's Presidency. A key graph:

If he represents all the people, Obama should remember that for 85 percent of Americans, the great health-care crisis is about cost. For about 15 percent, it is about extending coverage. Yet his plan does little about the first and focuses mostly on the second. It promotes too little of the real discipline that would force costs down and instead throws in a few ideas, experiments, and pilot programs that could, over time and if rigorously expanded, do so.

I think Zakaria overplays Obama's "centrist" approach to the stimulus and the banking crises. But the criticism that Obama's become more of a party hack than a President is spot on.

Dems Running Scared

NYT reports (courtesy NRO) that the White House and Congressional Democrats are going to ask House Leaders to vote on the bill that passed the Senate, removing the requirement for a conference committee (and therein sending the bill straight to the President). This is going to get real, real interesting....

Serious Criticism of President Obama by a Democrat

Robert Kuttner's a pretty reliable lefty and I think he reaches some poor conclusions on "tactics"...but his strategic criticisms of the Obama Presidency are spot on.

How wonderful would it be if Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts, causing Rahm Emanuel to resign and Nancy Pelosi to be thrown overboard by House Dems. Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

H/T: NRO Web Briefing