The Weekly Standard, Obama and Bill Clinton
I saw this article @ the Weekly Standard and I have to admit, the title has a nice ring to it: “Speaker Boehner.” I was interested and started reading.
I was quickly taken back by the premise of the article. The author is pushing the idea that the “best thing” for Obama is for the Republicans and Conservatives to take back the House of Representatives, thereby improving the odds that Obama get’s elected to a second term. To back up his theory, the WS author cites the similar circumstances that resulted in Bill Clinton re-election in 1996. Via The WS:
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.”
And the author trots out another anonymous ‘official.’
A senior Republican from George W. Bush’s White House made a similar argument: “Speaker Boehner, along with a 56-seat Democratic Senate would be a dream come true for the president in his last two years because Obama is in essence a politician and a dealmaker, not a policy guy with any conviction. Boehner and a Republican House will drive tough, but sensible, deals with the Senate,” he argued. “And that is the prescription for an Obama re-elect.”
Speaker Boehner might be a nightmare for Democrats in Congress, but he could be a dream come true for president Obama if the president wants to tackle tough problems facing the country, such as spending, taxes, deficits and even immigration.
The article closes with this:
The emergence of a “Speaker Boehner” would allow President Obama to share some of those political risks and regain his popularity. So Mr. President, there’s still time. Ask Santa to grant you that odd political wish.
On this Christmas Eve, I can’t think of a better gift to give to the American people.
For starters, the best gift for America is having Obama resoundingly lose his next election.
The problem with the Weekly Standard article is they start out with the false premise that Bill Clinton and Obama are similar people. Obama and Bill Clinton are two very different people.
Obama is a radical leftist, not a political deal maker. Obama is steeped in radical Marxist thinking and surrounds himself with lunatics. Obama has said repeatedly he wants to “fundamentally change America” and Americans have figured out what that means.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand was, and is, an opportunist with a strong liberal tendency. He was guided by poll numbers more than ideology and he learned this hard lesson when he lost his bid for re-election as Governor of Arkansas earlier in his career. If he had to make a choice between a policy decision or hurting his poll numbers, Clinton would side with the poll numbers every time.
Obama on the other hand, is a half term U.S. Senator who has never governed. He has only legislated (and as Rudy pointed out, he didn’t even do that).
I don’t know what the Weekly Standard author is trying to accomplish by looking through such a narrow political window.
Completely agree Clinton & Obama are completely different political animals. Though I would say that President Clinton is more center-left, and not as left-wing as Obama. I do think he wanted to govern more from the center than his first two years indicated. He was being pushed by the left-wing of his party.
Good post.
@Shane Vander Hart: Thanks for the comment!