How Obama can win a second term

The crushing rebuke of the Democrats in the recent election by no means finishes Barack Obama.  He can easily win a second term by emulating the last Democratic President who likewise lost a midterm election but came back to win a second term.  Bill Clinton simply played along with the Republicans to the point of co-opting their positions.  Welfare reform was a Republican issue, but Clinton made it his own.  He also won the public’s sympathy.

President Obama could take upon himself the reduction of the deficit.  (Yes, he caused a big part of it, but that doesn’t have to matter politically.)  He could drastically cut corporate welfare, farm subsidies and the military, thus pleasing his left flank.  The Republicans would co-operate with his other cuts, such as eliminating  whole departments and highly-visible programs.  He could reform social security, perhaps by not letting rich people get it.  He could increase his popularity by just leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, while keeping up the drone assassinations.

I’m not saying he SHOULD do any of this.  I’m just describing what might be successful tactics.  What else could he do?

Election post-mortem

Well, the House will be under the control of the Republicans with the Senate still in the hands of the Democrats.  What is your analysis and what are your projections?

A hung government is a good thing according to conservatives who want government to be checked and balanced into inactivity.  But might this thwart things that the government does need to do?

Special Election Day Edition

Today Americans go to the polls to vote.  In our ongoing discussion of those forbidden topics of religion and politics, I want to underscore that the two are, literally, different realms; that is to say, different Kingdoms.  Christianity is not about politics.  It is possible for two Christians to agree in the faith and yet disagree politically, and the former is far more important than the latter.  And yet we do have vocations as citizens, so participating in the deliberations of civil government has great value.

Anyway, today we will attend to politics and what looks to be a very interesting and potentially significant election.  In this post, feel free to comment upon the election as it unfolds:  your predictions, your local issues, what you see happening where you live, the key races, the final results.

Don’t get so caught up in online discussions that you forget to vote!

Voting for change, yet again

Liberal columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr., quotes a Democratic operative who deserves the Martin Luther Catechism Award for putting the best construction upon everything:

Nathan Daschle, the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, argues that if the Republicans do as well as is expected, 2010 would be the third election in a row in which voters cast ballots for change, the very quest for a “new direction” that propelled Democrats such as Murphy into office four years ago.

via E.J. Dionne Jr. – Victories that are hardly mandates.

So, see, if the Republicans win in a landslide, that shows the public is really sympathetic to the Progressive cause!

Actually, though, he has a point.  People want change, but the nature of that change matters.

If Americans keep voting for change, why haven’t they gotten it? Or is it that they don’t like the change they have gotten and want to change it back?   What changes do you think might happen with this election?

The campaign strategy of staying out of sight

From a piece about Harry Reid’s difficult re-election campaign:

Reid has what some political strategists refer to as an “Al Gore problem.” It is widely believed that Gore would have won the 2000 campaign if he would have just stayed out of public view for the last two weeks of the campaign. But every time Gore would emerge into the spotlight, George W. Bush’s numbers would improve.

For an incumbent (or in Gore’s case, quasi-incumbent) who is not well-liked, visibility is the enemy.

via Today’s Power Play: Reid Withers in the Spotlight | Foxnews.com.

Would that more candidates would try that strategy of not making public appearances!  I suppose it would only work for incumbents, but still, not being visible would make many politicians more likable.  In the early days of our republic, presidential candidates would make a point of not campaigning, allowing their surrogates to do that for them.  It was considered undignified to appear in public asking people for their votes.  And it is undignified!

Can you think of other politicians, past or present, who might have “an Al Gore problem”?  I don’t want to bash them.  Let’s limit this to politicians who actually might be pretty good at their job, but simply don’t come across all that well.

Obama uses Clinton's 1994 speech

Pro-Obama pundit Dana Milbank notes a curious fact about the President’s campaign speeches:

As he barnstorms the country in these closing days before the midterms, he has borrowed Bill Clinton’s 1994 stump speech — in some cases, word for word.

“It’s up to you to remember that this election is a choice,” Obama said in a recent speech. “It’s a choice between the past and the future; a choice between hope and fear; a choice between falling backwards and moving forwards. And I don’t know about you, but I want to move forward. I don’t want to go backward.”

Compare that to this common Clinton passage from ’94: “Ladies and gentlemen, this election, all over America, represents a choice, a choice between hope and fear . . . between whether we’re going forward or we’re going to go back. I think I know the answer to that. You want to keep going forward.”

Obama has even extended Clinton’s automotive metaphor of ’94. Clinton’s model: “You know, if you drive your car and there’s a lot of stuff on the windshield, you could think it’s dark outside when the sun shining. . . . That’s what they’ve done. They’ve put a lot of dirt on America’s windshield. We got to clean it off between now and Tuesday. Will you help? Will you do your part? Will you go forward? . . . Think about it like this: Every one of you is in the driver’s seat.”

In Obama’s model, Republicans drove a car into a ditch and were “kicking dirt down into the ditch, kicking dirt in our faces, but we kept on pushing. Finally we got this car up on level ground. And, yes, it’s a little beat up. . . . But it’s pointing in the right direction. And now we’ve got the Republicans tapping us on the shoulder, saying, ‘we want the keys back.’ You can’t have the keys back. You don’t know how to drive. You can ride with us if you want, but you got to sit in the back seat. We’re going to put middle-class America in the front seat. . . . I’m going forwards, with all of you.”

via Dana Milbank – Obama isn’t ducking role in election reprise of ’94.

I don’t consider this plagiarism.  There are only so many cliches that one can use to describe both presidents’ dilemmas, and I’m sure they are in the public domain.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X