This is Representative John Boehner (R-OH) — the man most likely to become Speaker of the House if Republicans can play the current liberalapalooza into electoral victory in November 2010. It seems as if this would make everything OK… doesn’t it? A prelude to showing Barack Obama the exit door in 2012? Not so fast… here, from The Weekly Standard, is this analysis of what a Speaker Boehner might mean for Obama in 2012.
Obama’s failure to produce a new bipartisan consensus is another variable driving down his numbers. As a presidential candidate he regularly promised a new era of hope defined by less polarization and bickering. In his victory speech on a chilly November night in Chicago the president-elect admonished Americans to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” Reducing partisan polarization has been the area where the gap between the president’s words and deeds is largest. Some might argue about reasons for his failure to achieve bipartisan aspirations. Yet whatever the cause, the president’s performance when it comes to ending polarization is dismal.
Finally, a “Speaker Boehner” would help muzzle–or at least redirect–the snarling angry left. Right now many liberals just carp about the White House. Obama has not ended the war, produced a public option in health care or enacted cap and trade legislation. “He’s failing,” they say. A Republican Speaker provides the left with a new target. Instead of sniping at the White House, they could point their venom-soaked spears at Republicans controlling the House.
A former Clinton administration official told me the emergence of the Republican majority in Congress in 1994 helped reelect President Clinton in 1996. “In many ways it saved his presidency,” he said. “We were forced to negotiate with the Republicans. We had no choice. That gave us an ability to push back on the most liberal elements of the Democratic caucus and say, ‘We have to work with the other side if we want to get anything done.’ While that wasn’t easy, and it took some trial and error, it was in some ways also liberating.”
Read the whole thing.
*** editor — no I’m not ignoring my family. Santa just left the house and I’m awaiting the pitter-patter of little feet.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
The analysis is probably right but the tradeoff is certainly worth it.
One quibble—no one really expected Obama to end partisan feuding. I think his biggest failure in living up to his campaign rhetoric has been his promise of unprecedented transparency in his administration.
Invoking executive privilege to prevent his social secretary from speaking to Congress is just the most ridiculous example of the lengths he will go to prevent the public from knowing anything about what’s going on in the White House.
A 218-217 majority for the Dems in the House, and another 50-50 split in the Senate would be ideal. The Dems would hold nominal control but nothing would get done.
And Mike’s right, it’s how the Community-Organizer-In-Chief doesn’t even try to live up to all the high-minded promises He made during His campaign. The same for the Dems, who ran in ’006 and ’008 against GOP corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, only to outdo what the GOP did in over a decade in just a year or two.
(Kinda funny actually, for years, the Michaels/Dole wing of the GOP ran as Dem-lite, and it never worked. So the Dems run as cleaner than the GOP, and that didn’t work either. Who’da thunk?)
And now off to start the pot of Christmas chili.
Bill’s recovery was as much the political acumen of the Clinton camp, as it was propitious circumstances. If one looks as the political history of Bill and Hillary, ones sees a consistent ability to put themselves in the right place, at the right time. They’re pragmatists, making the best of their circumstances (and surrounding themselves with similar political operators). They also happen to have the ability to make actual choices, good or bad.
Obama is an ideologue, surrounded mostly by ideologues (Axelrod and Rhamn–not insubstantial in their talents–are the notable exception). He’s also a narcissist in a way that Clinton never was, unhampered by an obsession to be liked and believing innately in his own sainthood. Clinton lead, if only by making deals. Obama preens and then assumes “the help” will get all the messy bits done. I’m not sure he has what it takes to take advantage of a change in conditions.
the public in America are wary of single party power, and so elected the Congress in 1994, but kept the (D) in POTUS the next cycle.
people are seeing again what happens with one party rule in Washington and are increasingly frightened by it….especially if the most radical elements in the ruling party are allowed to run roughshod and do anything they want, because ideology trumps common sense.
We NEED not only checks and balances, but checks within the legislative branch…which is arguably the most important branch since Congress is the body that produces all these bright shiny turds that we commoners have to deal with.
we’re also seeing why Senators generally make horrendous presidents. they think legislatively; can’t think outside the box and make the dumbest decisions. Well…I mean if they make any decisions beyond their ideological tunnel vision.
as an aside — I’m in the service industry and I have never heard more people more angry than right now about the President and congress. More people are speaking up in public about politics. They never really did about Bush…. and it’s getting quite ugly.
I agree with David – Clinton was a master politician, and knows how to manipulate the right people. Mr. Wonderful is a left wing prophet who strikes a pose while his thugs bang it out in the background. Like all leftists, he doesn’t understand how this country works, it’s history and government. If he gives any thought of it at all, its through the chomsky/zinn crap colored glasses.
JJ – great Gravatar!
…And let’s not forget “health care.” The Dems have given us (conservatives) the best Christmas present, ever. They’ve given us their “George Bush.” The Republicans will have a solid, stationary target, the size of a barn, to blast away at.
If they DO get a majority in the house – the bright thing to do, would be to have something like those fund raising “thermometers” to show their progress in chipping away at this abomination. In their regular reports, to the people, they could talk about their progress and let us know who, exactly, is holding them back. Could be good, sporting fun, what?