If Barack Obama wins reelection in 2012, as is now more likely than not, historians will mark his comeback as beginning on December 6, the day of the Great Tax-Cut Deal of 2010.
Obama had a bad November. Admittedly shellacked in the midterm election, he fled the scene to Asia and various unsuccessful meetings, only to return to a sad-sack, lame-duck Congress with ghostly dozens of defeated Democrats wandering the halls.
Advertisement
Now, with his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as the orchestrator, dealmaker, and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama.
Compare this with Bill Clinton, the greatest of all the comeback kids, who, at a news conference a full five months after his shellacking in 1994, was reduced to plaintively protesting that “the president is relevant here.” He had been so humiliatingly sidelined that he did not really recover until late 1995 when he outmaneuvered Newt Gingrich in the government-shutdown showdown.
And that was Clinton responding nimbly to political opportunity. Obama fashioned out of thin air his return to relevance, an even more impressive achievement.
Remember the question after Election Day: Can Obama move to the center to win back the independents who had abandoned the party in November? And if so, how long would it take? Answer: Five weeks. An indoor record, although an asterisk should denote that he had help: Republicans clearing his path and sprinkling it with rose petals.
Obama’s repositioning to the center was first symbolized by his joint appearance with Clinton, the quintessential centrist Democrat, and followed days later by the overwhelming 81-to-19 Senate majority that supported the deal. That bipartisan margin will go a long way toward erasing the partisan stigma of Obama’s first two years, marked by Stimulus I, which passed without a single House Republican, and a health-care bill that garnered no congressional Republicans at all.
Despite this, some on the Right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where would they go? Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred — and they know it. For the Left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal.
The conservative gloaters were simply fooled again by the flapping and squawking that liberals ritually engage in before folding at Obama’s feet. House liberals did it with Obamacare; they did it with the tax deal. Their boisterous protests are reminiscent of the floor demonstrations we used to see at party conventions when the losing candidate’s partisans would dance and shout in the aisles for a while before settling down to eventually nominate the other guy by acclamation.
And Obama pulled this off at his lowest political ebb. After the shambles of the election and with no bargaining power — the Republicans could have gotten everything they wanted on the Bush tax cuts retroactively in January without fear of an Obama veto — he walks away with what even Paul Ryan admits was $313 billion in superfluous spending.
Including a $6 billion subsidy for ethanol. Why, just a few weeks ago, Al Gore, the Earth King, finally confessed that ethanol subsidies were a mistake. There is not a single economic or environmental rationale left for this boondoggle that has induced American farmers to dedicate an amazing 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop — for burning! And the Republicans have just revived it.
Even as they were near-unanimously voting for this monstrosity, Republicans began righteously protesting $8.3 billion of earmarks in Harry Reid’s omnibus spending bill. They seem not to understand how ridiculous this looks after having agreed to a Stimulus II that even by their own generous reckoning has 38 times as much spending as all these earmarks combined.
The greatest mistake Ronald Reagan’s opponents ever made — and they made it over and over again — was to underestimate him. Same with Obama. The difference is that Reagan was so deeply self-assured that he invited underestimation — low expectations are a priceless political asset — whereas Obama’s vanity makes him always need to appear the smartest guy in the room. Hence that display of prickliness in his disastrous post-deal news conference last week.
But don’t be fooled by his defensive style or thin-skinned temperament. The president is a very smart man. How smart? His comeback is already a year ahead of Clinton’s.
I seem to remember a classic episode of the Andy Griffith show where Andy uses "reverse psychology" to great effect on Barney........why do I feel lke Barney?
If he's using reverse psychology, it's hard to see what he's hoping to accomplish. And if he's not using reverse psychology . . . it's hard to see what he's hoping to accomplish.
posted 12/17/10
While I agree for the most part with Charles’ analysis I’m not so sure I would describe Obama as “smart”. Crafty, manipulative, deceitful, maybe lucky, but not smart. Obama is more like a wounded animal whose survival options have become very limited. Hide, play dead or stand up and fight. Like a western diamond back with its rattle cut off it is still a very dangerous creature. It would be foolish to underestimate the damage that this snake can still cause.
You can't have it both ways, Dr. K. Several days ago, you argued that if the GOP had forced a budget crisis/government shutdown, as Gingrich et al. had with Clinton, Obama would benefit. Now, you submit that the GOP has abetted a "comeback." If your lament is that the GOP could have negotiated a better deal, then your logic cuts against itself. I.e., by your reasoning, Obama could have declined to enter a more favorable deal and forced the very showdown which you contend would have benefited him. Let's dispense with logic and apply the maxim that pride goeth before the fall. This "very smart" and very arrogant man will cause his own demise.
Clinton's comeback was buoyed by an economy and a stock market that was just getting revved up. Anybody have that same feeling now? I certainly don't.
The Bush Tax Cuts were tax cuts...in 2001 and 2003. In 2011, the failure to extend them would have been a tax increase- meaning that the extending of the tax cuts likely will not spur the economy too much- we just avoided an almost guaranteed double-dip recession.
Unemployment rate in Jan 1993 when Clinton took over- 7.3%. HIGHEST unemployment rate during Clinton's two terms- 7.3%.
Unemployment rate when Obama took over in Jan. 2009- 7.7%. LOWEST unemployment rate so far during Obama's presidency- 7.7% with the average rate being 9.5% (though the rate hasn't been below that since July 2009).
And Dr. K, you are regrettably ignoring the sad fact that Obama has the political instincts of a grapefruit. How else to explain his tacit approval of the recently defeated Omnibus bill? 63 seats not enough of a hint for him?
Clinton might have had the moral compass of a used car salesman but the man devoured and excelled at politics. I would imagine there are still scrapes on the floors of the White House left from Clinton's fingernails when they had to drag him out of there in January 2001.
Obama? It is obvious for anyone who cares to look that he likes the idea of being President better than being President.
Let's not be too hasty. Obama hasn't met the tea party congress yet. Let's see how he does with them before we talk about his great comeback.
The tax bill was accepted because the next congress didn't want to have to deal with tax rates first. They have an agenda that they wanted to get through.
The Omnibus bill failed. Now we must not let the Dream Act pass.. We must not let anything more pass in this lame duck congress.
The fact that enough republicans have aided and abetted this situation highlights the uphill battle the nation faces on the road back to Constitutional
self governance.
The alternative, however selfishly easy it may be for the current generation, is nonetheless untenable for the ones to follow.
Some of these comparisons are pretty tired, this isn't 1995 for one thing. The economy is much worse off and the same Keynesian assumptions about "stimulus" and this tax bill are in many peoples minds. Frankly there is still high uncertainty built in which was a flaw of the Bush tax cut compromise as well with "expiration dates" which is a concept that should be ended. If they want higher taxes let them vote for hire taxes and take their chances with the public.
We may soon realize there are trillions more of zombie debt assets backed by governments but non-performing and buried in balance sheets everywhere. Let's have a look at those Fed assets as a start. This is far cry from 95' but I simply don't think the issue was ever about "demand" but fear and loathing of the debt driven economic model that has run the course. We will have two major states (CA and NY) heading into reorganization at best in the coming years that will make TARP seem like a cake walk.
It's time for a new economic system and washing relics such as Obama out of the system. No amount of added debt is going to restore economic confidence. We need stronger money and losses to be washed out. We need to end government debt supports and get closer to a cash economy. Obama simply isn't up to this task.
Obamacare will become front and center for the next two years again. That's what destroyed Obama of late and it will have repeal votes cast in Congress and it will be the primary news coming from many courts. That cost him 30 points of approval and having that as the topic of the day for two years will cost him his job.
Presidents are historically re-elected in two-man races (not counting Green Party or Libertarians or Tax Payer Party). Only Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover lost in more than 100 years. However, they lost for having a poor economy and looking like they were bumbling around. I think that describes Obama very well.
The tax vote will simply ensure more RINOs will face primaries in 2012 and more Democrats will be defeated. Who thinks John Cornyn or Jim Webb are winning in 2012 after their 2010 actions?
Dr. K may be correct that the Republican's could have won the battle by pushing things into 2011. At the same time risk was not worth the reward politically here. If you have the high stack in a card game it is sometimes better not to call, even if odds dictate you have a higher percentage chance of winning the hand. You don't want to give your opponent a chance to "double up"and regain power. Sometimes it is better to keep the opponent weak and wait for them to make a desperate move when your hand is unbeatable. That seems to be what the Republicans are doing here.
The POTUS said that failure to pass the tax bill would doom his presidency. Why didnt the conservatives base grant him his wish? The POTUS is always said to be the smartest individual in the room- by what standards? Are individual IQ's kept on record? Intelligent, wisdom, knowledge ,and common sense are not synonomous.Hopefully, the changing of the guard will right our country's ship.
Obama standing on third base doesn't mean he hit a triple. It means he walked over to third.
This tax compromise was the best thing McConnell et al could dream about. If the issue was kicked to the next Congress, the House would be fighting the Senate for full extension and the President could sit back and let the GOP bloody itself while the media painted the picture of rich men whining about a 4% tax hike.
The 96 welfare reform fight is illustrative of the message (greedy GOP) the left and the academy would've undertaken in attacking the tax debate. By getting it done now, the GOP steals this meme.
On top of that, we get U/I extended, stealing another leftist whipping boy before it can even hatch. The GOP will be depicted as blood thirsty scrooges anyway, we might as well get some of the substantive "scrooge" fights (taxes, U/I) done with Dem and POTUS cover.
The House can now rail on about pork, Obamacare and unfunded liabilities and drag the Senate along for some bills that are politically defensible for most Dems and will force Obama to veto popular measures or sign things he abhors.
I agree with others in that I don't think getting the extension through in 2012 would be as easy as Krauthammer believes. If the compromise fell through, not only are all bets off, but the dynamics change. The Pressure from the Left base and MSM would be extreme, as all of a sudden over $600 billion in new revenues would begin to stream into the Treasury. Once the spigots are open they cannot easily be closed. To make matters worse, the narrative would suddenly change by pitting the GOP against the "middle class". Efforts to smear the GOP by putting all of the blame on them would probably be successfull in that many in this nation still adhere to class warfare.
Finally, I am agnostic about the chances of a robust recovery. By recovery, I mean lower unemployment. Most of the jobs lost in 2008-2009 will not be coming back. The Housing Market will take years to recover. And as long a labor is being priced too high due to governmental mandates (ObamaCare for one), the pressure to outsource will remain.
Follow
