HolyCoast: Obama's 2012 Election Hopes May Require a Pelosi Defeat
Follow RickMoore on Twitter

Monday, June 07, 2010

Obama's 2012 Election Hopes May Require a Pelosi Defeat

Fred Barnes thinks that Obama's only hope for reelection in 2012 may depend on the removal of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat control of the House in November:
In Washington these days, President Obama is rumored to be hoping Republicans capture the House of Representatives in the midterm election in November. There's no evidence for this speculation, so far as I know, but it's hardly far-fetched. If Mr. Obama wants to avert a fiscal crisis and win re-election in 2012, he needs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be removed from her powerful post. A GOP takeover may be the only way.

Given the deficit-and-debt mess that Mr. Obama has on his hands, a Republican House would be a godsend. A Republican Senate would help, too. A Republican majority, should it materialize, could be counted on to pass significant cuts in domestic spending next year—cuts that Mrs. Pelosi and her allies in the House Democratic hierarchy would never countenance.

Though Mr. Obama's preferred solution to his fiscal predicament would probably be a very large tax increase, it's a nonstarter. He needs spending cuts to assuage both markets and voters. It was the surge in spending—the stimulus, omnibus budget and the health-care legislation—that prompted the tea party protests, alienated independent voters, and caused the rapid decline in his popularity.

The test is whether Mr. Obama can restrain nondefense discretionary spending. That's the spending over which Washington exerts the greatest control. Even small cuts in entitlement spending are difficult to enact, but the president and Republicans might reach agreement there as well. That would be a political bonus for Mr. Obama, softening his image as a tax-and-spend liberal. Again, this would be impossible if Ms. Pelosi still runs the House.

Over the past 50 years, it should be no surprise which president has the best record for holding down discretionary spending. It was President Reagan. But who was second best? President Clinton, a Democrat. His record of frugality was better than Presidents Nixon, Ford and both Bushes. Mr. Clinton couldn't have done it if Republicans hadn't won the House and Senate in the 1994 election. They insisted on substantial cuts, he went along and then whistled his way to an easy re-election in 1996.
I don't think Obama has it in him to be as politically savvy as Bill Clinton was. Clinton, licking his wounds after the '94 loss of the House and Senate to the GOP, ran to the center and joined the GOP in many of their smaller government measures, including welfare reform. I just can't see Obama making such a move because the only thing he knows is far left socialism. My guess is he'll just go into a 2-year long snit, blaming everybody else for his problems, and will go down in flames in 2012.

2 comments:

Nightingale said...

"My guess is he'll just go into a 2-year long snit, blaming everybody else for his problems, and will go down in flames in 2012."

One can only hope.

Jay Palmquist said...

I think that's a good bet. He's about as intellectually and politically nimble and flexible as a concrete pipe. Carter was the same. Clinton, God bless, wasn't nearly the ideologue.