One of the main reasons I disagree with my co-blogger — not to mention an apparently emerging media consensus— about the president’s prospects for 2012 is that a year hence he can no longer duplicate the formula which served him so well just shy of three years ago.
A charismatic man with a powerful presence, a winning smile and a mellifluous baritone, he could fire a crowd up with his voice, taking a nothing speech and making it seem profound, save to those who read the words after. Hope and change worked in 2008 because people wanted change. And Americans believed that this newcomer could effect the kinds of changes they wanted.
Unlike the then-incumbent president, he spoke well. He hadn’t been in Washington very long and didn’t seem part of the establishment that, they believed, needed altering. But, instead of diverting the Potomac to clean out the Augean Stables which lines its banks, he brought in more straw to feed the horses who had made the place such a mess.
The “net spending cut” he promised “throughout” campaign has become instead an exponential spending increasey. Even his allies and ideological confrères have excoriated him for his recent budget proposal, with one calling it a a ‘Profile in Cowardice.’ Unlike his two most recent predecessors, he hasn’t even made an effort to reform entitlements which account for bulk of the outpouring of red ink from Washington.
He simply hasn’t been the change agent he promised to be. He isn’t the new kind of post partisan politician presented to us in the presidential campaign. Indeed, as Jennifer Rubin reminds us, his tone this week at bi-partisan gathering of governors was “sharper and more overtly political.”
Commenting on a piece on how the president resembles 1980s General Motors CEO Roger Smith, Michael Barone suggests the president has deployed that rhetoric to defend the current order:
. . . in his posture toward labor unions and the costs they impose, Obama today is following the same strategy that Smith did at CEO: trying to preserve an unsustainable status quo by throwing money at it. Smith propelled his company toward bankruptcy.
Trying to “preserve an unsustainable status quo”. Doesn’t sound much like change to me.
Can we change back??
May all of us who were called racist back in 2008 for saying he was nothing special indulge in an “I Told You So?”
President Obama’s true colors are red as in Communism; therefore, through public sector unions, he seeks to effect his change. Yet Obama ran into a roadblock from his own party when they could not pass Card Check, despite super-majorities in the House & Senate. The Obama Democrats & President Obama used all their political captial in ramming through ObamaCare which is still an albatross for the Democrat Party & will remain one until it is repealed.
Obama’s empty slogans of Hope & Change were propelled by his mystique since the MSM did not vet him at all; now that Obama has revealed himself to be a Communist, he can no longer hide behind superfluous rhetoric. Obama was always status quo. That’s what Communism is.
I also disagree Obama possesses any charisma & charm since he needs at least 2 teleprompters to speak proper English without turning into gibberish. Obama sounds like he’s bored more than anything else. Leading is more than speeches & believing in “magickal thinking.” It actually requires talent which Obama does not possess. Obama is not a leader.
Unfortunately, the Obama “Hope” and “Change” agenda seems to be built on three pillars; government jobs, government unions and government money. We have all heard this argument before from the Wobblies, the Socialists, and the old-school Radical Left….all tired and discredited retreads from the early 1900s.
Charisma also doe not require a script; the point of charisma is one can speak from the heart & off the cuff. Obama can do none of these things without putting both legs into his mouth from a gaffe or two which require a newsworthy story for a week or two. Obama is really an overpaid Katie Couric. He does wear the black dress in the family. Eunuchs are like that.
Obozo’s 2008 campaign was based on Hope and Change. Of course, after winning it’s been revealed that all this overblown oratory was little more than Hype and Chicanery. I am puzzled as to what his 2012 campaign will be based upon. A “new face” campaign can only work once, after that the next election is about issues. Obozo’s done very little of what he promised (closing this, opening that, making this more transparent, hiding that) and what he has accomplished seems to be in deep disfavor with voters. All those 18 to 29 year olds who were so fervent for Obozo in 2008 won’t be so enthusiastic this election. They’re all four years older, and likely still hunting for a job after graduating (or living back at home with parents.) About the only group with whom Obozo will match his 2008 performance with in 2012 is AfricanAmericans. I think he’s likely headed for a defeat in 2012 regardless how many times the MSM claims he’s back on top.
“….taking a nothing speech and making it seem profound….”
He’s gonna make it after all!
Still thinks he’s on MTV Cribs.
Re-election will have to be done by force. Look at the total lawlessness going on in WI, OH and DC for that matter. Remenber these words, by any means”.
Doesn’t matter how as long as the result is what the radical communists want.
Doug, the SEIU Purple Shirt brigade will actually backfire on Obama as shown in their violent, “by any means necessary” protests; furthermore, these protests are not organic, but a creation of the Obama White House. However, the general public is turned off by the Purple Shirt brigade as it drowns out Obama’s own 2012 message. Obama is on the road to a meltdown.
Obama is on the side of a very slim minority of the people. This time it’s unions. Next week it will be socialists. Or radical arabs. Anyone near the center in his liberal party is quitting. They know what to expect in 2012. It’s going to be another socialist liberal blood bath. When liberal Democrats aren’t able to hide who they truly are, when the curtains are removed, theylose and lose big.
The trouble is that I don’t know how much of the voting public at large has caught on. A certain engaged portion of the public certainly has, and they turned out in force during this last election cycle. But 2012 is another general election, and so many people buy into what the mainstream media reports that I don’t think they realize just how many of our current problems are being made worse by the actions (or in some cases inaction) of this administration. Instead, they regard anyone who says anything like that as a partisan with an axe to grind and dismiss it. There’s no other way to explain his fluctuating approval ratings, where he’s way down one week and up around 50% the next. If more people were engaged with what’s happening, those fluctuations wouldn’t be quite as extreme or as frequent.
If the economy doesn’t rebound significantly, Kurt, people will catch on. Unemployment is particularly high among twentysomethings, Obama’s base. Without their enthusiasm, he won’t be able to build the kind of organization he had in 2008. And if 50 is the peak of his popularity, as the polls you cite suggest, he’s going to have a much tougher road to hoe next fall than his adversaries suggest.
His 2008 campaign was not a particularly brilliant one, but one perfectly suited for the times. Axelrod has not shown himself to be as deft as other political strategists. Maybe I’m wrong, but listening to him on the talk shows, he doesn’t really seem attuned to the changes in the political landscape these past two years.
The President has also been conspicuously silent when it comes to calling for the left-wing protesters in Wisconsin to behave with civility.
Obama will try to replicate his 2008 campaign in 2012, but it will be a disaster like it was for him in 2010. He cannot run the same 2008 campaign in 2012 because President Bush is no longer POTUS & Obama has a visible record such as ObamaCare & Porkulus to just name a few which the people outright reject. For the past 2 years, Obama continues to govern against we the people with his Marxist policies. He cannot run on empty slogans anymore. He must run on his accomplishments such as ObamaCare, Porkulus, & high unemployment which the people reject.
Obama will try to find another enemy to demonize as he continues to do with President George W. Bush, but this will make him look even more impotent & petty.
But don’t forget, Obama has an ally: fiscally “moderate” Republicans. The people showing timidity in today’s battles. “Oh, we can’t cut the budget.” “Oh, we can’t reform Social Security.” Yes we can (to coin a phrase), as Chris Christie shows. But it takes a tough individual to tell the truth about what must be done and to bring about real changes. They’re called leaders, and they’re just beginning to emerge on the GOP side. Meanwhile, the GOP nay-sayers help Obama. As they tie up the GOP in knots, Obama and Axelrod run circles around the GOP. That’s why the Tea Party exists, basically.
Dan, I respectfully disagree. Unemployed 20-somethings will be fantastic Obama volunteers: dumb, somewhat energetic and attractive, having scads of free time, -dependent on government-, and -quite eager to be more dependent-, i.e., to have government/Obama give them more.
He’s silent on a lot of things. Even liberals notice. Ruth Marcus has a column out today titled “The Waldo Presidency” (as in, the Where’s Waldo? books)
I’m sensing a pattern here, a possible campaign theme: Tea Party vs. Flee Party.
BTW, this is my first use of “Flee Party” and wish I could claim credit for it, but I just saw it here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0302-20110302,0,876016.column
Kass has some other cute phrases: for example, he says the WI Democrats are Behind the Jell-O Curtain 🙂
Maybe I just feel rather discouraged about the public catching on because I live in the state that re-elected Harry Reid. Admittedly, Sharron Angle had serious flaws and shortcomings as a candidate, but the fact is that as unpopular as Reid was (and is), he still managed to pull out a win. Among the current crop of Republicans who might run for president in 2012, I see all of them as having flaws and limitations which might weaken enthusiasm for them at the polls. All Obama needs to do is hold on to his base and turn out enough so-called moderates to win in a handful of populous states; if there’s a third-party candidate (a possibility some folks don’t want to dismiss) his task will be even easier.
At the rate Pres. Obama’s failing, both domestically AND aboard, I’m starting to consider that a Trump/Gingrich ticket might actually have some appeal. **shudder** ….It would certainly be an entertaining administration.
Otherwise, is it time for Hillary in 2012? **dry heaves**
Kurt, Obama needs more than his 19% radical Marxist Leftist base to win again; he needs Independents & Republicans. At this rate, Obama’s 2012 run will mirror Jesse Jackson’s 1984 run. All who will vote for Obama is the black vote & the 19% Marxist Code Pink wackos.
And: intimidate the GOP into giving in / not leading on spending reductions. So that voters in 2012 will once more be faced with “an echo, not a choice”.