United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: WP to Obama: Just get the fuck out, please
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html
Published: Nov 12, 2010
Author: Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell
Post Date: 2010-11-12 16:30:22 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 14127
Comments: 30
President Obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election. 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. The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment - or of the 2012 campaign. Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible. Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president's political prospects. Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer: "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." He now has the chance to deliver on that idea. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama spoke repeatedly of his desire to end the red-state-blue-state divisions in America and to change the way Washington works. This was a central reason he was elected; such aspirations struck a deep chord with the polarized electorate. 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. And for Democrats such as current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) - who has said that entitlement reform is dead on arrival - the president's new posture would make it much harder to be inflexible. Given the influence of special interests on the Democratic Party, Obama would be much more effective as a figure who could remain above the political fray. Challenges such as boosting economic growth and reducing the deficit are easier to tackle if you're not constantly worrying about the reactions of senior citizens, lobbyists and public employee unions. Moreover, if the president were to demonstrate a clear degree of bipartisanship, it would force the Republicans to meet him halfway. If they didn't, they would look intransigent, as the GOP did in 1995 and 1996, when Bill Clinton first advocated a balanced budget. Obama could then go to the Democrats for tough cuts to entitlements and look to the Republicans for difficult cuts on defense. On foreign policy, Obama could better make hard decisions about Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan based on what is reasonable and responsible for the United States, without the political constraints - real or imagined - of a looming election. He would be able to deal with a Democratic constituency that wants to get out of Afghanistan immediately and a Republican constituency that is committed to winning the war, forging a middle way that responds not to the electoral calendar but to the facts on the ground. If the president adopts our suggestion, both sides will be forced to compromise. The alternative, we fear, will put the nation at greater risk. While we believe that Obama can be reelected, to do so he will have to embark on a scorched-earth campaign of the type that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election, which divided Americans in ways that still plague us. ad_icon Obama owes his election in large measure to the fact that he rejected this approach during his historic campaign. Indeed, we were among those millions of Democrats, Republicans and independents who were genuinely moved by his rhetoric and purpose. Now, the only way he can make real progress is to return to those values and to say that for the good of the country, he will not be a candidate in 2012. Should the president do that, he - and the country - would face virtually no bad outcomes. The worst-case scenario for Obama? In January 2013, he walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the unifying figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly - and so will the public. It is no secret that we have been openly critical of the president in recent days, but we make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country. We have both advised presidents facing great national crises and have seen challenges from inside the Oval Office. We are convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
When all you do is talk incessantly for three years...and then don't do as you say...people begin to realize you are 'all hat, no cattle'. Add to it the narcissism, petulence, arrogance...well, here we are two years into his Presidency, and EVERYBODY compares him to Jimmy Carter. Remember a year ago, when the Leftwingnuts here claimed there 'was no comparision'? Told ya.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
This was an op-ed, not written by the Post editorial team. What is it about you guys that makes being honest so freaking difficult?
Add to it the narcissism, petulence, arrogance...well, here we are two years into his Presidency, and EVERYBODY compares him to Jimmy Carter. Remember a year ago, when the Leftwingnuts here claimed there 'was no comparision'? Of course folks said the same things about Clinton in 1994. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010111101/ how did that work out?
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010111101/ how did that work out? He gained 49% of the total votes cast in a three way race, with the economy not being a major factor. And he moved to the CENTER. There is no viable comparision, in short. Just like the 'Owe-bama is just like Reagan' bullshit - that came crashing down last week - wasn't viable. Its the economy, stupid. Always has been. Always will be.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
rotflmao. Oh, the irony.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Written by 2 DEMOCRATS bwahahahahaha
You mean like posting the real titles? Padlock thinks everybody is as stupid as he is and won't "get it" without help. The same applies to the other site retard, Happy Quanzaa.
Pat Caddell is a Hillary dem, and Siamese twin separated at birth from Dick Morris. Both libtard neo-con Faux sNews contributors, and political hoes.
Not to mention a recovering (or not) drunk...
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
He was advisor to the Perot campaign in 92.
The true title is: One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------
How does that compare to a coke snorting, doobie smoking, extreme leftwing POTUS?
Oh. At first I thought you were referring to your war criminal hero Jorge Booshhh until I saw the 'leftwing' clause...
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Appears you suffer from the same delusions as the present dumbass occupying the White House.
He seems to have soured on coke head, doobie smoking, pinkos after 8 years of Bush, and 2 of hObama.
You do know that's a myth. Prior to taking office Clinton was head of the DLC, a group who pushed the Democrats toward more conservative positions. After taking office he came out in favor of NAFTA which made him few friends among unions. His first big action in office was a fiscal austerity bill that cut spending, raised taxes, and reduced the deficit. He abandoned the energy tax and pulled the plug on health care reform after it came under fire, all before the 1994 mid-terms.
Ah, nobody else in the world of politics buys this. He governed way to the left his first two years. Don't ask, Don't tell, Hillarycare, ring a bell? And then there were his judicial appointments, and his catering to leftwingnut enviromental BS. His first 'big action' was Hillarycare, along with raising taxes - LEFTWING MOVES. He moved back AFTER the 94 elections in the minds of most that follow politics. But you can pretend if you like, its irrelevant now...except EVERY TALKING HEAD on either side says 'Owe-bama needs to move to the center LIKE CLINTON DID IN 1994).
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Most people think Obama raised taxes to, that doesn't make it true. NAFTA ring a bell? He also cut spending and reduced the deficit - is balancing a budget not "Conservative"? Was it "Liberal" when Reagan raised taxes time and time again?
No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget October 8, 1998 Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution. Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, "Clinton balances the budget." Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of "the real heroes" for his willingness to raise taxes -- and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George's last year in office. And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook? Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years. We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four. Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities." And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that would have sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run. The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton's budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending -- proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It's funny, but back in January the White House didn't seem too concerned about saving the surplus for "shoring up Social Security." Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion. We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever? So the budget is balanced, but now comes the harder part: cutting the budget. Bill Clinton has laid down a marker in the political debate with his "save Social Security first," gambit. That theme should be turned against him and his government expansionist agenda. Congress should respond: No new government programs until we have fixed Social Security. This means no IMF bailouts. No new day care subsidies. No extending Medicare coverage to 55-year-olds. (Honestly, if Clinton has his way, it won't be long till teenagers are eligible for Medicare.) The budget surpluses over the next five years could easily exceed $500 billion. Leaving all of that extra money lying around within the grasp of vote-buying politicians is an invitation to financial mischief. If Congress and the president use the surpluses to fund a new spending spree, we may find that surpluses are more a curse than a blessing.
you really are the last person to criticize the budget deficits of other Presidents.
Why? Nobody has been worse than your Kenyan butt buddy and his now fired Dim colleagues.
Obama's first fiscal year saw the deficit drop by $100 billion from what he inherited. Facts aren't your friend.
2009 was the Dim Congress' deficit. Bush never signed off on it. That's why those bums are now fired.
and it's great to know that you'll hold the GOP fully responsible for the deficit starting January 3rd 2010 when they take over the power of the purse.
BTW, Bush's fiscal year 2009 spending request was $3.1 trillion (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html), actual FY2009 spending was $3.5 trillion (including supplementary requests for the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. Keep trying.......
And the proposed budget deficit was around 400 billion. Keep trying.
Right, based on tax revenue receipts that didn't materialize. But blaming a non-existent massive increase in spending makes for better television. Now then, can we agree that as of January 3rd, any deficit spending will be on the backs of Republicans?
Ah, nobody else in the world of politics buys this. Most people think Obama raised taxes to, that doesn't make it true. Actually he did. You don't run your own shop, so maybe thats why reality hasn't set in. As for the rest...you remain the only person on this planet that thinks 1) Clinton didn't move to the center as a result of the 94 election cycle...and 2) Owe-bama doesn't have to move to the center to have any hope of winning a 2nd disasterous term as POTUS. Works for me, though.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Right we are. SS taxes go up every year and I noticed on the internet that an article somewhere said that he did. You can deny this all that you want to GO but that's just you being childish it seems.
I love the reaffirming of just how far into your brain I've gotten over the years....(laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#3. To: Badeye (#1)
When all you do is talk incessantly for three years...and then don't do as you say...people begin to realize you are 'all hat, no cattle'.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#4. To: go65 (#3)
Of course folks said the same things about Clinton in 1994.
#5. To: go65 (#2)
What is it about you guys that makes being honest so freaking difficult?
#6. To: go65 (#2)
#7. To: go65 (#2)
(Edited)
What is it about you guys that makes being honest so freaking difficult?
#8. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
#9. To: hondo68 (#8)
Pat Caddell is a Hillary dem, and Siamese twin separated at birth from Dick Morris. Both libtard neo-con Faux sNews contributors, and political hoes.
#10. To: hondo68 (#8)
Pat Caddell is a Hillary dem, and Siamese twin separated at birth from Dick Morris
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
#11. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Barrack Hussein Obama
President of the United States of America said that some Americans ; "They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
#12. To: Brian S (#9)
Not to mention a recovering (or not) drunk...
#13. To: Ibluafartsky (#12)
(Edited)
How does that compare to a coke snorting, doobie smoking, extreme leftwing POTUS?
#14. To: Brian S (#13)
I first I thought
#15. To: Ibluafartsky (#12)
How does that compare to a coke snorting, doobie smoking, extreme leftwing POTUS?
#16. To: Badeye (#4)
And he moved to the CENTER.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#17. To: go65 (#16)
And he moved to the CENTER. You do know that's a myth.
#18. To: Badeye (#17)
Ah, nobody else in the world of politics buys this.
He governed way to the left his first two years. Don't ask, Don't tell, Hillarycare, ring a bell? And then there were his judicial appointments, and his catering to leftwingnut enviromental BS.
His first 'big action' was Hillarycare, along with raising taxes - LEFTWING MOVES.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#19. To: go65 (#18)
#20. To: no gnu taxes (#19)
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#21. To: go65 (#20)
you really are the last person to criticize the budget deficits of other Presidents.
#22. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
(Edited)
Why? Nobody has been worse than your Kenyan butt buddy and his now fired Dim colleagues.
WASHINGTON—The federal government recorded a budget deficit of just slightly less than $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010, the second-worst mark since 1945, the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday.
The congressional scorekeeper said the total deficit recorded in the just completed fiscal year was only $125 billion less than the record high of $1.4 trillion set in fiscal 2009.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704696304575538553221675436.html
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#23. To: go65 (#22)
(Edited)
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#23)
2009 was the Dim Congress' deficit. Bush never signed off on it.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#25. To: no gnu taxes (#23)
(Edited)
2009 was the Dim Congress' deficit. Bush never signed off on it.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#26. To: go65 (#25)
#27. To: no gnu taxes (#26)
And the proposed budget deficit was around 400 billion.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#28. To: go65 (#18)
#29. To: Badeye, go65 (#28)
#30. To: Boofer T And The Humvees (#29)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]