Whose Fault Is It, Really?

   President Obama continues to maintain that the reason his party was "shellacked" (his word) in the recent mid-term elections was that Democrats didn't "communicate" their messages well enough. Failure to communicate might account for a "spanking," or maybe a "drubbing." But a "shellacking" goes a lot deeper than blaming the electorate for not getting your nuanced brillance.

And diving deeper, a researcher from California now says that the president's legislative agenda, not his golden pipes, accounted for 32 seats of the historic losses suffered by Democrats on November 2.

Eric McGhee of the Public Policy Institute of California focused on the four most unpopular Obama initiatives: the TARP bailout, the failed stimulus bill, healthcare taxation-and-annexation, and the carbon tax known as cap and trade. He compared Democrats who voted for those four boat anchors to lawmakers who voted against them. The result? For each time a Democrat running for reelection lined up behind Pres. Obama on these four bills he or she lost anywhere from two-thirds of a percentage point to four percentage points in his election re-bid. Losses were obviously greater in the more moderate districts.

McGhee's conclusion is that Republican gains would have topped  out at 210 House seats, rather that the 242 they'll have in the next Congress, had the losing lawmakers not lined up behind the White House Pied Pipers.

Former Bush election engineer Karl Rove points out that McGhee's analysis demonstrates that legislators who buck the will of their constituents end up paying their own postage come January.

Meanwhile the fingerpointing of Democrat failure continues--it's the president's fault, it's Speaker Pelosi's fault, it's Harry Reid's fault, It's Fox News' fault, Rush Limbaugh's fault and on and on.  The real story is that a bunch of congressmen who at some point stopped listening to their constituents have only themselves to blame.

Just thought you might like to know.

Making Sense Out of Nonsense

The mid-term elections are a week away. It appears as if the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives; loss of the Senate to the Republicans is not as clear. But will it make any difference?

While Pres. Obama may tout his legislative accomplishments, the truth is that even with huge majorities in Congress, he struggled with his two main domestic goals: healthcare reform and punishing the American people for climate change. It took months of rancorous debate for him to pass healthcare and then by only a wafer-thin margin. His plan to tax American business for their productivity and success, euphemistically called cap-and-trade, couldn't get out of the Senate. If, holding large majorities in Congress, he couldn't rally the nation, it's hard to see him doing worse without them.

So in the next Congress it appears now that he will lose his majority in the House, and, while retaining the Senate, he will lose his ability to shut off debate in the upper chamber on proposed legislation. Expect Democratic party discipline to go out the window after the president and speaker Pelosi lead the troops over a cliff next Tuesday. The weak in politics are killed and eaten. Pres. Obama will be a weakened president.

That leaves him with two options. The first is to continue pressing his left-leaning agenda, despite the fact that poll upon poll shows the American people thinking that this is taking the country in the wrong direction. He's already said he'd rather be a one-term president (one can only hope) than compromise his principles. So the threat of his continuing to march into hell for a heavenly cause, becoming the Harold Stassen of left-wing domestic policy,  is real.

On the other hand he could steal a play from Bill Clinton's playbook, work with the Republican and position himself, as he did during his presidential run, as a centrist. The question is whether anyone will buy that the second time around.

However, George Friedman writes today in Stratfor that there is a third choice: shift his focus from the domestic agenda and make his case for a second term in foreign policy. As Mr. Friedman points out, "The founders created a system in which the president is inherently weak in domestic policy and able to take action only when his position in Congress is extremely strong. This was how the founders sought to avoid the tyranny of narrow majorities."

Foreign policy is another matter, with our system giving the president, in his role as commander-in-chief and head of state, pretty decent leeway without congressional interference. Ronald Reagan took advantage of this following his midterm election reversals in 1982 by basing Pershing missiles in Europe to blunt any Soviet thoughts of expansion. He also played party pooper with Libya's Colonel Ghaddafi, dropping a cruise missile in his tent in 1986. These acts energized his base and made him a stronger president.

But on this third rail Pres. Obama will also struggle, notes Friedman.  Despite plenty of opportunities to show his chops in Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and with Iran, the president's M.O. up to this point has been conciliation, not confrontation. So it's as hard to see him blowing up Ahmadinejad's nuke plants as it is to see him extending the Bush tax cuts.

Second, the American public has settled into a war weariness--nine years in Afghanistan, seven in Iraq, and almost constant deployments throughout the equitorial hot spots of the world. The American public's focus isn't abroad--it's on our ailing economy. And unless that improves nothing else matters. Like everything else in this world, it comes down to money.

Just thought you might like to know.