Does a GOP Congress Help Obama For 2012?
AP/Obama Campaign
It didn't work. Republicans took control of both houses of Congress, and pundits saw the vote as a clear repudiation of the president's policies. Media coverage suggested it was all but over for the Democratic president.
And then -- just two years later -- Mr. Clinton cruised to a nine-point reelection victory over Bob Dole to win a second term.
On CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Mr. Clinton suggested he saw parallels between his experience and the fate of President Obama. If Republicans take control of the House in the midterm elections, he told Bob Schieffer, "it would increase [President Obama's] chances of being re-elected."
Clinton: Losing House Would Help Obama in 2012
Clinton: Don't Know Where Tea Party Standss
That's not something anyone in the Obama administration will say out loud, and for good reason: It reeks of the very Washington cynicism that many voters find repugnant. Indeed, any sign that the president is not fully behind his party would be met with outrage; when White House spokesman Robert Gibbs merely suggested back in July that Democrats might lose the House - which they very well might - Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her anger known.
Much like Mr. Clinton did, Mr. Obama has been traveling the country to raise money for Democratic candidates and generate enthusiasm heading into the midterms. The parallels between their efforts are striking, though John Boehner has replaced Newt Gingrich as the designated GOP bad guy. Even the message has been similar: "The other party spent a decade driving the economy into the ditch...now they want the car keys back," Mr. Obama said at a Missouri fundraiser in July. They can't have them back. They don't know how to drive."
But while Mr. Obama certainly seems to want to hang on to the House, it would be naive to think the White House isn't considering both the plusses and minuses that come with a loss. The big potential advantage, as Mr. Clinton suggested, is a bump in Mr. Obama's reelection prospects.
Critical Contests: Interactive Map with CBS News 2010 Election Race Ratings
Why would this be the case? Because once Republicans are back in power, even in a limited sense, they will be expected to help govern the country. And from a messaging standpoint, that's a problem.
While Republicans are trying to portray themselves as having new ideas to move forward - they are releasing a new legislative agenda Thursday - they have gotten much more traction in the past two years with an anti-Democrat message than with a pro-Republican one. (Remember, despite all the energy on the right, Republicans remain the less popular party overall.) The argument that American needs to throw the (dangerous, extremist) bums out becomes more difficult to make when you're among the bums.
Newt Gingrich.
/ APA political upside to a GOP takeover is no sure thing, of course. If the economy comes roaring back in the second two years of the president's term, it could be the Republicans, not Mr. Obama and the Democrats, who get the credit -- something that would likely infuriate the White House.
And it's not just about politics. For those who believe in Democratic policies, the prospect of a reelection bump is the silver lining on the overwhelmingly dark cloud that is the possibility of a GOP House takeover. A Republican-led House would make it virtually impossible for Democrats to pass anything remotely ambitious. (Granted, with Democrats unlikely to emerge from the midterms with anything close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, that will likely be the new reality no matter what happens in the House.)
Instead of passing aggressive Democratic initiatives like the stimulus bill and cap and trade (which didn't get through the Senate), Republicans would be focused on turning back the legislation passed in the previous two years. They will also likely aggressively investigate the Obama administration for perceived misdeeds and scandals. By June, California Rep. Darrell Issa, who would become House Oversight and Government Reform Committee if the GOP takes the House, was already reportedly making plans to "hire dozens of subpoena-wielding investigators" if his party takes over.
"I will use [subpoena power] to get the very information that today the White House is either shredding or not producing," he said.
That prospect has Democrats gritting their teeth, including Mr. Clinton, who would know. He is warning his party to "expect investigations into the president's staff, his appointees, and every policy he promotes -- not to mention his response to crises like the BP spill."
"Democrats should be able to keep the House and President Obama should be successful in 2012 either way, but nobody wants to see Darrell Issa...tying up reform with senseless investigations for two years," Democratic Strategist Jamal Simmons told Hotsheet.
Indeed, on the whole, the Obama administration would likely much rather face a slightly tougher reelection landscape in the 2012 cycle than deal with the many headaches that would come with a Boehner and Issa-led House. But that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Obama and his advisers are well aware that in politics, a loss isn't always 100 percent bad news.
And as they plot a reelection campaign that will begin in earnest after the midterms, the architects of Mr. Obama's 2012 run will be looking closely at the lessons of Mr. Clinton's presidency - and preparing themselves to take advantage of the potential benefits to be had if things go south in November.
CBSNews.com Special Report: Election 2010
Popular in Politics
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 755 Comments
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH 61 Comments
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
- Letter to a young scandalmonger
- Immigration bill would require fingerprinting at 30 airports
Don't forget to get out the vote, if we all vote we can continue to dismantle the failed, criminal Republican party. And save our country from economic ruin from more illegal and immoral invasions.
Oil Companies
Medical Insurance Companies
Pharmaceutical Companies
War Contractors
Hedge Fund Managers
Wall Street Gamblers and Brokerage Houses
State Special Interest Pork $pending
Offshore Tax Free Banks
Media Companies
Gun/Weapons Manufacturers and Dealers
And, what for the American Working Middle Class?
Hello?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Texas California
Conservative Liberal
Repuiblican Democratic
600 million dollar budget surplus 13 billion budget deficit
added to rainy day fund
home to over half of fortune 1000 lost many fortune 1000 companies
companies last year
8% unemployment 12% unemployment
Large populated state Large populated state
You do the math
by Mortar_29 September 22, 2010 1:29 PM EDT
"Well, you err first becuase you bring up Bush. I dont defend him. I slam him on almost everything he did. TARP should have never happened!!
.....It was Pres. Bill Clinton who had the lending standards reduced, (to basically lending to anyone with a pulse to buy a house) and the bankers appraisers would appraise the property for whatever the mortgage amount was. People did not do their due diligence either, (and paid twice as much as the "replacement cost" w/ means they could have built the house for half the asking price). With low interest rates, all ran to the same asset class. Too much capitol chasing too few assets, drives the price up. Look at gold right now....all bubbles burst eventually...
**the bank's FDIC statement now says, "all deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. ".....
I said I give charity all of the time. And you say something about building mega churches. Can you not focus?
Again, NO ONE has a right to health insurance, or health care, or food, or clothing, etc. In order for someone to have those rights, it means that another person is obligated and must perform certain things for those people. And if they dont, they can be FORCED to.
------
And you expect people to believe you give money to help people you keep saying over and over don't deserve any of your money.
LOL...but no one is buying it mort.
I give all of the time...a very healthy portion of what God has blessed my family with. Here's the thing...
Did the person deserve the charity which we gave? Of course not. But that isnt why we gave it. We give in order to help our fellow man.
But, to TAKE money from my neighbor to help our fellow man is an abomination, it is immoral. It is theft!
But I'm sure you won't allow yourself to get this...lol...poor mort.
Reply to this comment by Mortar_29 September 22, 2010 12:32 PM EDT
GITS, you really need to get into college and take some economics classes.
Here's what we do. Let's take every dollar everyone makes, and let's let the government decide where it is spent and on what. I mean, if they can take 30-50% of it, why not 100%?
You Marxists are all alike. The problem is, Marxism/socialism only works as long as you can tap into someone else's money.
--------
There you go again. Just because you force yourself to think one way works best in all situation, you shouldn't use that as a basis for how you think everyone else operates.
Most people are open minded and are willing to use the best solution that works for a given situation. Give it a try.
That's just a lie....you don't know what you are talking about.
Catholic Charities provide help and create hope for over 9 million people each year regardless of religious, social, or economic backgrounds.
------
If I'm lying you won't have an issue with discussing how much of every dollar you donate actually goes to services that help the poor? Not only do they have very high administrative costs, they also spend a lot of money pushing their anti-abortion and sponsoring abstinence-only programs.
Simple all they had to do was file for reorganization, that would have thrown out ALL union agreements. With the union pensions off their back they would have come roaring back.
------
OK. Back to my original question: Who besides you thinks this is based in reality? Is Rush saying this?
How would've they survived a long drawn out (typical) bankruptcy with no funds? Your union theory is a bit light on reality.
Well, it is you and those like you that are the problem. Which is why we are in this mess in the first place.
First off, in order to give money to a company to rescue it, you must take that money from someone else. Take it by force. That isnt right. That person received no good or service for their money. It was just taken from them and handed to another. That is immoral and is NOT a proper function of government.
When the light bulb was invented, I could see you and those like you. You would be blogging like crazy (if there had been blogs then) about how the candle making business, a major pillar of our society, would be ruined by this new invention. And we must find a way to save candle maker jobs.
Instead, candle making jobs should die out. And that is a GOOD thing! It means we have progressed to light bulbs instead of candles.
If a company like GM cannot make a product that people want to buy at a price they want to pay...and still make enough money to pay their employees, shareholders, etc...then they should go out of business.
Someone else will come along that will make something that people do want, at a praice they do want to pay.
Throwing my money at a company that did nothing to deserve it is immoral, it is theft...and it is a sure way to continue the disasterous economic realities the government continues to create.
=====================================================
Probably not a good analogy since the candle-making business didn't die out. In fact it's still going pretty strong. They adapted and overcame (by adding things like scents to the candles) and were still a necessary product (how many people light candles when the power goes out, or when they just don't feel like having bright lights on?)
Plus didn't the "too big to fail" issue happen under Bush? Not even counting the fact that if the "too big to fail" banks would have failed, it would have spread to other industries. Hell, that's why I'm unemployed right now. The industry I was in was based on construction. The orders never materialized because the "too big to fail" banks wouldn't give loans (even after they were given TARP funds for that specific purpose), so the companies couldn't proceed with the construction that my industry relies on.
So Mort,
It's one thing to allow an inferior product to die off in favor of a superior product (your light bulb analogy), and it's quite a different thing to allow an industry to fail, which takes out other industries, which takes out other industries...... Think about it. Where do your customers get the money they spend in your business? If the "too big to fail" banks fall, and it affects their money and spending, won't it affect yours too?
Now, onto your question. Here's the thing. Even if your position is correct (and I believe it isnt), where does ANYONE get the right to go to the government and say "my business is failing. I want you to confiscate money from Americans to keep me afloat. If I go under, others will be hurt also." Where do they get a right to have the government take money and hand to them.
You see, my first concern is that of morality and legality. It is immoral to take from one person and give to another who did nothing to earn it.
And it is illegal for the Federal government to take tax money and spend it on things not listed in the Constitution. It is illegal for them to spend tax money on acts of benevolence (charity), whether that be corporate or individual.
So, whether you are correct or not is a moot point to start with. Because, the government taking money from one person and giving to another is immoral and illegal.