An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Is Congress Obama’s Weak Spot?

smaug.jpgIt was a cold, drizzly day in Laketown as Bard, descendent of Girion of Dale, lifted his bow toward the flying figure of the great fire-drake, Smaug. The dragon was covered in jeweled armor from nose to tip of tail, impervious to arrow or spear, but Bard had found a bare spot on the beast’s belly where the plating had fallen away. He launched his arrow skyward, striking the drake in its vitals and sending it crashing into the waters of the lake below. So ended Smaug, last of the great fire breathing dragons who had previously been thought undefeatable.

It seems appropriate to ponder a make believe setting such as Middle Earth this morning, as I find myself about to quote William Kristol, who I frequently consider to be living in a fantasy world. But today he may be on to something. Just as Bard found the weak spot on the dragon, Kristol thinks he may have found the hole in Obama’s armor which John McCain can exploit.

Given the unpopularity of the current Democratic Congress, given Americans’ tendency to prefer divided government, given the voters’ repudiations of the Republicans in 2006 and of the Democrats in 1994 — isn’t the prospect of across-the-board, one-party Democratic governance more likely to move votes to McCain than to Obama?

John McCain spent much of the last week hitting swing states with a message of progressive energy and economic policies. The latest three day averaged Gallup Polls, however, seem to indicate that Obama’s armor remains strong, opening up a nine point national lead after he rode Messiah One, skipping around the power centers of Europe. Perhaps Kristol sees something here. I can vividly remember explaining to friends how I felt that our government worked best when the two parties were forced to work with (or even against) each other. When one party gets control of both the legislative and executive branches, they tend to run wild, straight off the rails, like kids cut loose in a candy shop. The earlier portion of this decade when the Republicans held that position should be more than enough of a lesson, and the current Congress already has approval ratings in the single digits.

Personally, I do not believe that the Democrats will come out of the November elections with a veto-proof majority in either house, but barring a major, rapid sea change, the GOP will almost certainly be arguing from the cheap seats. Kristol goes on to note how the public may find some appeal in this line of argument and McCain – if his team is smart – will seek to exploit it.

McCain will then assert that if you don’t like the Congress in which Senator Obama serves in the majority right now, you really should be alarmed about a President Obama rubber-stamping the deeds of a Democratic Congress next year. A President McCain, on the other hand, could check Congressional appetites — as well as work across the aisle with a Democratic Congress in a bipartisan spirit where appropriate.

If Team McCain can’t come up with a positive strategy to convince Americans he is the right man for the job – rather than simply sounding the alarm that Obama is the wrong man – perhaps it is time to get away from the whole attack mode and try this new strategy. Our government dove too far to the right under iron-clad GOP control. Will we be better off if we turn around and let them swing equally off to the left?

(Painting by John Howe)
e-mail the author: jazzshaw@gmail.com

  • Jim_Satterfield
    The problem with that claim, of course, is that in spite of what the GOP sells and you have apparently bought into, the Democratic Party is not nearly so ideologically pure or able to get their members to march in lockstep as the Republican Party was when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches. What should terrify any real moderates is the possibility of John McCain being able to slip through a Democratic Senate a stealth version of Roberts, Alito or Thomas which is after all what he's promised to do.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    Have you so quickly forgotten Tom "The Hammer" Delay and votes held up until enough arms could be twisted?
  • Ricorun
    In order for McCain to use the "divided government" argument he'd have to at least imply that the GOP is going to get their butts kicked in House, and especially Senate races. While many people are predicting that, I think it would go over like a lead balloon if McCain said it.

    Also interesting is the example Kristol used to support his "divided government" idea -- the 1948 elections. Interestingly, that was a year when people were frustrated with a divided, ineffective government and voted it out, not in.
  • runasim
    Browsing through some blogs, I read another reason why people should vote for MCain: Obama is too thin (seriously).

    Are people looking for excuses instead of reasons now?

    There are two candidates, Pick one according to his policies, or whatever other criteria you use. That's all that is necessary.
  • RememberNovember
    Kristolian logic seems to be to posit a series of observations and then take a complete detour from the logical conclusion and jump over to something completely out there.
  • Silhouette
    Actually, until after August, there are three candidates.

    Pick one according to his or her policies or whatever other criteria you use. That's all that's necessary. (I'm talking to superdelegates and regular folk here). ; )

    And next to the scandal, the looming possibility of democrat fascism (oxymoron alert) with them controlling both Congress and the Whitehouse pales in comparison.

    Obama has a lot to be worried about. But more than that, those who support him advidly no matter what had better braces themselves for a very big let down. Even if some slim chance allows him to overcome looming obstacles and he makes it to the Oval Office.

    Be careful what you wish for. Obama has a history and not all of it is pretty.
  • Kristolian logic seems to be to posit a series of observations and then take a complete detour from the logical conclusion and jump over to something completely out there.

    That's because his conclusion is never in doubt. "Vote for Republicans."
  • DLS
    "[I]sn’t the prospect of across-the-board, one-party Democratic governance more likely to move votes to McCain than to Obama?"

    Yes, under normal circumstances, but 2006 made it clear these are not normal circumstances. The Republicans (think Half Trillion Dollar Deficit) are not in any way appealing even as the lesser of two evils to people, who are tired of them.

    Obama shouldn't be president. His ears look too funny.
  • DLS
    Liberals hated "divided government" (translation: a Republican president who was no longer willing to obediently approve Democratic legislation coming from Congress) in the 1980s and even some elitist Republicans wanted fusion of powers and other things like the banning of ticket splitting in elections.

    I don't believe the public wants "divided government" now, not to the extent they remain dissastisfied and expressed this in the 2006 elections and will do so again in November. Many of us actually don't fear what ordinarily would be frightening for Americans to contemplate, a thoroughly Democratic controlled Congress _and_ a liberal Democratic president who would invite the left wing of the Democratic Party as well as many of its more mainline members to consider all kinds of ambitious, conceit-driven plans for "change."
  • Marlowecan
    Well, everyone is clearly Democratic and pro-Obama here hahahahahaha....

    However, Kristol makes a good point. There is something more than a little unsettling in the MSM's fait accompli attitude to the Annointed One's ascension.

    Elections...schelections. We don't need no stinking elections.

    Imagine 3 more months of "Obama in the Highest" refrains from the MSM bombarding the American public. The Obama campaign needs to avoid peaking early.

    I always cite this wonderful piece from Saletan in "Slate" (September 2000) - "Why Bush is Toast" - on the MSM's popular wisdom about definite outcomes being wrong.

    http://www.slate.com/id/89619/

    Gore, like Kerry...peaked early...and the American people decided they didn't like being dictated to by the MSM (pro-Gore and pro-Kerry...and now are even more pro-Obama).
  • Neocon
    Tom "The Hammer" Delay

    Haha.........Good one, Jim!!!

    Thats what Im talking about.
  • DLS
    "Elections...schelections. We don't need no stinking elections."

    The elitists in media, academia, and government (well left of the US public) know what's best for us, anyway. No more elections means they might even someday get laws passed that have no chance of passing through legislatures receptive to public opinion, common sense, and wisdom.
  • DLS
    "Gore, like Kerry...peaked early...and the American people decided they didn't like being dictated to by the MSM (pro-Gore and pro-Kerry...and now are even more pro-Obama)."

    No, we didn't like the Blue Cheerleading Society (who forms part of the Obama cult this year) back then, nor do we now. But one thing I'd say is that I don't think Gore peaked early. He seemed stronger than Bush all the way to the debates (Bush was the "brand name" desperation GOP candidate in 2000, don't forget). I and everyone I know and all the public discussion I was following assumed Gore was going to win. It was the shocking loss by Gore to Bush in the _debates_ (!) which surprised everyone and gave non-liberal voters a glimmer of (true) Hope (pun intended). "Hey, this guy [Bush] might actually win!" Which, of course, he proceeded to do -- Gore went downhill in the debates and never recovered. (Trying to steal the election he lost and get illegitimate entry into the White House only made Gore and the Dems look worse.)
  • DLS
    "What should terrify any [radicals and "progressives" as well as other liberals who continue to defend illegitimate judicial activism] is the possibility of John McCain being able to slip through a Democratic Senate a stealth version of Roberts, Alito or Thomas which is after all what he's promised to do."

    ** CORRECTED **
  • DLS
    "Tom 'The Hammer' Delay"

    It's an open question if the equivalent or stronger Democrat will emerge if the House goes as strongly Democratic as I suspect it might. (Reid will already be strengthened by a more Democratic Senate.)
  • runasim
    Artificially engineering the political stackup in DC is frought with the danger of unforseen consequences.

    The 'democratically controlled Congress' that is blamed for inaction by everyone on the Right and Left, is actually made helpless by what was presumed to be the premier guarrantee of bipartisanship. The strength of the minority was assumed to guarrantee cooperation. What we got instead was round the clock filibusters and obstruction, and there is less bipartisanship than ever.

    You can't take lessons from the past either. When the Republicans forced Clinton to change course on some issues, that was possible because Clinton was a pragmetic politician who understood the art of the deal. and so were many GOP members of Congress.
    Today's GOP has far fewer pragmatic politicians and far more extreme ideologues or extreme party loyalists making duplication of the past impossible.

    After thinking about it, I've come to think that this call for a divided house is just a way to either A) hamstring Obama if he is elected, or B) to use a Democratic sweep as a scare tactic, the way they tried to use Pelosi in 2006.
  • I think we are indulging in a lot of mindless speculation about "what the voters want." This can't really be determined from past elections or current polls. It's almost impossible for voters to make sound decisions based on the spin of each party. Truth is, everyone wants government policies that create the best opportunities for them. Each party spins their policies in a way that makes those policies look like they will have the most advantageous results.

    Our country is roughly divided between those who believe that "free trade," deregulation to "set companies free," and tax cuts will increase their chances for a better life, (more or less based on "Reaganomics" or more accurately Milton Friedmanomics), and those who believe that social spending is a good thing and that government regulation of business and finance can result in policies that protect American workers and jobs, the environment and the economy from the abuses that have currently landed us in recession, war and environmental destruction.

    Conservatives will always distort the historical record of their policies, and I suppose liberals will as well. But our current situation is that the country has been led into deep trouble by conservative policies and there is a huge backlash against those policies. Liberals appear poised to make big gains both in Congress and in the presidency. I see absolutely nothing to suggest that leaving the Republicans in charge of appointing judges, setting foreign-policy or stewardship of the economy has any merit whatsoever. I think most voters agree with me.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC