Move On's mantra that the Bush-Cheney ticket defined evil has been replaced by Rush Limbaugh's audacious assertion that President Obama would politicize disaster relief efforts in Haiti. Same mind set, with some of the same players. The Obama presidency hasn't brought us vitriolic partisanship; it just never got rid of it.
The vast majority of Americans do not partake in such ideological extremism, but they are increasingly growing weary of our politics, in part because of expectations emanating by the Democrats' not-so-subtle invocation to keep hope alive. That message was misinterpreted by liberals to mean that two Bush terms would be followed by at least four years of serenity, prosperity and all things joyous. After all, President Obama promised to change Washington! But he has not done so. Instead we got debates about cap and trade, Gitmo, and in which courts we should try terrorists. Oh yes, there was Fort Hood, and lots of talk about health care reform, none of which was condensed into a sexy sound bite, or even a poetic paragraph, for the tired, outside-of-the-Beltway masses. Sure the stock market has risen, but so too has the unemployment rate.
The premature demise of the Obama presidency, especially when repeated, serves to excite and energize the Republican opposition, who are beginning to believe that a Republican House majority is within reach, and that the 2012 presidency is there for the taking. The most viable candidates -- Romney, Thune, Gingrich, and Pawlenty -- have been laying low. Instead they wisely, silently nod as GOP loyalists like Rudy Giuliani trash the White House with a smile, politely and deferentially suggesting that the Obama administrators (e.g., Holder, Napolitano) and congressional Democrats (Reid, Pelosi) are not up to the task.
History tells us that cabinet members and congressional leaders come and go. But the pundits are wrong. The first year does not define one's presidency, and this one is not in an incoherent free fall. Sure the POTUS' youthful luster has been lost, but not necessarily permanently or for the worse.
If there is a lesson to be learned from Obama, Year One, it is that the presidential honeymoon may be an anachronistic relic. Absent legislative and executive leaders who genuinely want the other side to succeed, politics circa 2010 is one where majority and minority leaders spend inauguration weekend shaking hands, smiling, and promising civility, only to return to their respective bunkers to draft fundraising letters that demean and criticize the other party's top brass. Blame abounds for this mind set, and President Obama and his advisers deserve at least half of it. But the argument that the Obama administration is crassly more political than his predecessors is nothing more than 600 thread count jive -- luxurious spin to comfort the vocal naysayers who rant at trivial distractions that don't matter in the short or long run. (For example, "He NEVER should have accepted the Nobel Peace Prize!" "Why is he going on dates with his wife?")
Because it takes two to dance the bipartisanship tango, 2010 may be a tough year for the GOP, especially if (a) they believe that enlisting Democratic support is essential for domestic and international tranquility, and (b) Democrats decide to extend the olive branch and seek Republican support for immigration, tax or banking reform. Will the Republicans placate their vocal populist wing who appears to be satisfied by nothing but bromides? Will they really work with lame duck Chris Dodd, or the House Bogeymen Henry Waxman, Barney Frank or Charlie Rangel?
The issue is not whether, but if the Democrats are wise enough to reach across the aisle. House Democrats now hail from districts too safe for comfort. Their base supporters demonize Republicans in ways previously unimaginable. Their message is devoid of code. Rather, it is short and bitter: conservatives are monsters. The Bush administration is partly to blame for debasing the GOP brand. When I asked one New Jersey relative if he voted for Chris Christie, I received an incredulous, "After Bush, I wonder if I can ever vote for a Republican." GOP strategists take note: ten or twenty years ago, he would have been described as an independent, swing voter.
Will President Obama (or White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) encourage committee chairs to seek bipartisanship co-sponsorship of bills? If so, they should consider doing so before the April Southern Republican Leadership Conference, during which Obama-related complaints are likely to be their most vociferous. For now, the Democrats appear to be playing rope-a-dope, waiting for the unfiltered Michael Steele (or Rush) to divert attention away from his own party's triumphs.
Democrats' myopia has been matched by Republicans' overconfidence. After the Christie, McConnell and Brown victories, all three of whom proved to be stronger and more focused campaigners than their Democratic opponents, the GOP is already gloating -- even though they are up by just a field goal at the start of the second quarter. The president has ample room and time to move the ball. He has the power of the presidential bully pulpit, and a sanguine electorate rooting for the country to succeed, regardless of who is at the helm.
Robert M. Eisinger is the Dean of the School of Liberal Arts at Savannah College of Art and Design and the author of The Evolution of Presidential Polling (Cambridge University Press).
Major General Paul D. Eaton: Two-Party System at Risk
In her diatribe last night, Ms. Cheney accused the President of being an apologist for America, for abandoning our allies and for appeasing our enemies. She truly accepts the notion that if all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks to be a nail.
A smooth road for Democrats in 2010 is easily available if Obama wants it to be. The means is unorthodox (some might even say “unseemly”) but it clearly would knock the entire crackpot right wing out of the game for the forseeable future. And it’s a can’t lose concept.
Obama has the ability to call the bluffs of the worst right wing windbags by issuing them a public challenge. In essence he would agree to an interview/debate with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, but in a controlled format. Each would be allowed up to five minutes to create a question that he wants to pose to the President. There would be no limits on the use of media aids or subject matter, so there is no way that any of these hot shot entertainers could refuse to participate without doing massive harm to their reputation. And by Obama prserving the right for him to script and structure his fifteen minute for each submission response/presentation over a several week time period there is no way that any of the four could participate without doing massive harm to their reputation. “You know, that’s not a bad try Mr. _____ but it wouldn’t have been a complete waste of effort if you had just included one thing that was actually honest, accurate, and relevant. However, you don’t have a call screener to protect you this time, and the truth is….”
Quite the opposite, we wanted a strong and sustained partisan response back towards the republicans.
What we get instead, is Obama sucking up the republicans, Rahm insulting progressives, and the wars raging on, DADT and DOMA still in place, and no real health care reform. The bill that was created was just a mandate for everyone to be criminalized if they did not shovel out thousands to dishonest insurance companies for worthless policies.