John Kerry, one of the first to endorse Barack Obama, also was instrumental in the making of Obama's Presidency - image Washington Post
An editorial written by Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen suggests that President Barack Obama should not seek reelection in 2012, instead using the time to focus on cutting the deficit and eliminating entitlements “without constantly worrying about the reactions of senior citizens, lobbyists and unions.” The criticism has been coming from the two aforementioned for some time, with piece in the Wall Street Journal this past July entitled “Our Divisive President”. Both men, long-time Democrat pollsters, are understandably frustrated after the historic gains made by Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms, and begin the op-ed piece by citing Obamaisms over the past month; from his calling Republicans “enemies” during an interview with an Hispanic radio personality, to his remark about making “mid-term corrections” to the possibility of “working with Republicans”, the two pundits bring home the nature of the President who would prefer to campaign than govern. In addition, while calling on Obama to Step aside, they do so insinuating that he would have a chance to become, historically, a well-respected, President. With all due respect to these august pundits, that ploy is as transparent as dangling a carrot on a stick in front of a rabbit.
Is it fair, to ask the President to step aside for the good of his party? The fact that Barack Obama was propelled to the Office of the Presidency with little experience outside of campaigning should have been worrisome to these pollsters and pundits who now are heavily criticizing the man. The fact that overwhelmingly a group of top Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi during the Democrat Convention in 2008 propped up Obama over Clinton with the use of Super Delegate votes should have been an issue. Although to be sure, the media has played its part in propping up the community organizer, turned three term Illinois State Senator (after the loss of a Congressional Race), turned part-term Senator, turned President with lighting speed, who else is to blame but those who put him in the limelight in the first place?
John Kerry, (D-MA) brought the young Illinois State Senator, to the 2004 Democrat convention the year Kerry ran against George W. Bush, Obama took the convention by storm. It could have been the comparison between the candidate for President, Kerry, and the young, energetic, Barack Obama, that got those in a position and desperate to take back the White House at any cost, begin to think that Obama would fit the mold. The problem with American politics and the notion of a President being more popular than capable has been the bane of the Democrats, with a few glaring exceptions, since the 1930’s, with Republican candidates that win or lose, being the exact opposite of the “almost “rock star” status that those who run on the Democrat ticket (or are brought to the ticket)
exude.
It takes a national crisis, or the economy in tatters, for a Republican to gain the White House and that is regardless of how well-spoken or photogenic the individual may be. Veteran Democrat pollsters and politicos’ surely see 2012 as being yet another nightmare for the Democrats, with more Senate Seats to Defend in 2012, as well as the potential for further losses in the Congress - there appears to be only one solution – take out the figurehead, the President who is also the Head of the Democrat Party (in title only). That still leaves the woman American’s love to dismiss, Nancy Pelosi (a boon to Republicans if she maintains her power, and it appears she will), while, making room for another, more experience, less divisive individual to run on the Democrat Presidential Ticket. Should Obama step down, the floor opens to a cast of hopefuls, like to run, and that would, in all likelihood be one Hillary Clinton (the one who actually won the popular vote in 2008, but was cast aside by Super Delights). Certainly there would be the usual cast of characters to fill in the debates, however, it makes the transition to the candidacy and the Whet House a lot easier, than it would to challenge a sitting President. It can, however be done.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama, not unlike Jimmy Carter, came up through the ranks with little experience and a great deal of public relations smoke and mirrors, which made them appear to be the most attractive candidate to a public that seeks “star power” from its leaders. Is it no wonder Obama is all over the map, and that the certain pollsters and others on the left are now trying to figure out how to get out of this gracefully (or not, see rumors coming from the left about the Presidents meltdown and possible removal under the 25th amendment.) in order to maintain control of the Executive Branch?
Should the powers that be, those donors and others who pull the strings for the DNC, decide that Obama is Carter redux, then it opens the door for safe, less telegenic, less controversial moderates to take the field, and then possibly the White House. What this tells us, is that political parties, and those whose allegiance to a party, are rather mercenary when it comes to maintaining power at all cost, using individual’s that may or may not have the capacity to run a Grinder Shop, on the one hand to gain the White House, only to push them aside for a less divisive figure, one who is capable, perhaps. It remains to be seen who will be the candidates that these pollsters decide would be the one to a) stop the hemorrhaging of remaining House and Senate seats currently in the Democrat column, while having the ability to take on the GOP with an option of winning the Whet House in 2012. One can certainly not rule out one Hillary Clinton, who, as previously mentioned, should have been sitting at Pennsylvania Avenue since 2008, which leaves many moderates certain that the House and the Senate would not be in play, and the Democrats would never have suffered such an inglorious defeat in the mid-terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment