Friday, November 12, 2010

Washington Post: Obama should not seek reelection in 2012


I have often said on this blog that after the midterm elections the big intra party fights would take place on the left.  This is because no matter what the losses progressives would want to step on the accelerator and centrists would want to stomp on the breaks. Consider this Washington Post column by Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell another battle in the war for who gets to drive the Donkey Jalopy.
Washington Post: In recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country’s problems. At one point, he spoke of the need for “mid-course corrections.” At another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. And before this month’s midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve “hand-to-hand combat” with Republicans, whom he also referred to as”enemies.”
It is clear that the president is still trying to reach a resolution in his own mind as to what he should do and how he should do it.
This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.
To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.
If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.
We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents…
Obama can restore the promise of the election by forging a government of national unity, bringing business leaders, Republicans and independents into the fold. But if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. And yes, the United States will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control, to name but one issue.
Forgoing another term would not render Obama a lame duck. Paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with Republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) – who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president – to be uncooperative.
Schoen and Caddell were one of the first Democrats to admit the Shellacking was coming.  Now they are openly advocating for Obama to voluntarily become an OTP. 

If Obama did take this advice, I really don’t see things happening the way Schoen and Caddell say they will.  The only thing I can see is an opportunity for the Democrats to remake their brand by nominating a more centrist candidate.  Right now many Americans are viewing the Democrats as an arrogant bunch of irresponsible spendthrifts.  A more moderate Democrat could run against the excesses of the Obama agenda and be more in line with the American people.

I am sure Obama has no intention of not running. However, unless this economy turns around and Obama starts projecting an image that he is actually steering the nation to calmer seas, the electorate may hand him his OTP status whether he wants it or not.

See other’s reactions at Weasel Zippers, Hot Air and Pajamas Media.

10 comments:

Gorges Smythe said...

Hey; maybe Nancy Pelosi can be our next president!

Clifton B said...

Gorges Smythe:
maybe Nancy Pelosi can be our next president!

Egads man! Wash your mouth out with soap!

Angie Lee said...

What was that about Obama being a mirror that others can reflect or some such thing?

That's what you get for electing a man with no sense of "self," wanting to reflect back to others what they wish to see: A Chameleon in Chief.

That's why he can't get his talking points lined up, enemies versus reaching across the aisle versus hand-to-hand combat versus reaching a consensus.

I hope he does run. That way, he can get the message full-on that he's neither needed not wanted at the helm of the nation.

Donald Douglas said...

Linked: "Obama 'Has Largely Lost the Consent of the Governed'".

Anonymous said...

First term Presidents usually have rough midterm and the hacks usually say this sort of crap right away.

But guess what - they NEVER step down, and most get re-elected.

This WaPo column was as predictable as it is stupid.

smitty1e said...

Oh no.
He's headed for the bottom, but he's riding you all the way:

Anonymous said...

'Scuse me sir, but do you not know the difference between an editorial (a work that can properly be attributed to the publication itself), and an op-ed (a work written by an outside contributor in a space wherein a wide diversity of views are sought)?

I find it difficult to believe that you do not understand this difference, which makes the title of this post, well, it makes it a lie.

Gorges Smythe said...

Somehow, I just KNEW that my last comment would draw a response! (I've always been told that I have a warped sense of humor.)

Defender said...

Nitpicking there much, Anonymous? I don't think the title implies at all that this is the opinion of the Post's editorial staff. Do you know the difference between a title and an article/blog post? The title is a very few words that give a very general sense of what the post will say, which this title did quite well. The main text clearly states who wrote the Post article, as well as linking the original. If you have trouble identifying "lies" in the future, please visit Daily Kos, where you will be presented with limitless examples.

Lorne said...

You are absolutely right. But putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones is something that not every president manages to do. To draw a comparison, I would say the situation in the Middle East and US status in this region could be much better today had US presidents put the national interest ahead of their desire to always win recognition.

Related Posts with Thumbnails