Can the Obama Presidency be saved?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Saving the Obama Presidency

On this day in 1994, Bill Clinton's presidency was saved.

It didn't look that way at the time. After threatening to keep Congress in session until a health-care bill was passed, then Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell gave up and let members return home for their recess. The legislative push for universal health care never recovered, and scarcely 11 weeks later Republicans led by Newt Gingrich woke up to find that they had just won control of both houses of Congress...

Today the lesson that President Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress take from that 1994 defeat is that they need to avoid Mr. Clinton's "mistakes." Avoiding mistakes, however, is not a winning strategy. A far more productive strategy would be to embrace Mr. Clinton's success, which was freeing himself from his party's left and returning to the centrist themes he had campaigned on.

No doubt that would be a bitter pill for Mr. Obama, given how he has made health care his signature issue. Still, a wiser West Wing ought to have seen this train wreck coming. For months polls have shown a huge gap between the popularity of the president and the unpopularity of his policies. Sooner or later, one of these had to give...

Public skepticism increased when the Congressional Budget Office issued findings contradicting Mr. Obama's claims that his health-care reform would lower costs. And the more Americans have learned about the specifics, the more they dislike the plans. The president understands that he loses when he talks about substantive issues, which is why he's been fudging on the public option. He may not understand that he is closing the gap between his unpopular policies and his personal popularity in the worst way a president can: by reducing his own credibility.

Back in 1994, Mr. Clinton faced pretty much the same problem. Though he too had won the White House promising to be a new kind of Democrat, his first two years had a distinctly liberal tenor: battling over gays in the military, promoting a new energy tax, turning a promised middle-class tax cut into a huge tax hike, and trying to push through universal health care. Though he continues to deny GOP contributions to his success, after his 1994 health-care defeat, Mr. Clinton did what all smart pols do: He appropriated the most appealing parts of his opponents' agenda.

The result was a new Bill Clinton, embracing everything from deregulation and welfare reform to the Defense of Marriage Act. In his 1996 State of the Union, he even struck a Reaganite chord by announcing that "the era of Big Government is over." From this newly held center, Mr. Clinton advanced his presidency and pushed, both successfully and unfairly, to demonize Mr. Gingrich. Mostly he got away with it...

Even in the midst of a Republican resurgence, Mr. Clinton would go on from the defeat to become the first Democrat since FDR to be elected to two terms. By contrast, Mr. Obama's handling of the health-care debate—making villains out of cable television and insurance companies, questioning the motives of those who disagree, imposing artificial deadlines—suggests a rigidity typically associated with a lack of executive experience and responsibility.

At the moment, Mr. Obama plainly remains wedded to the view that the 1994 failure to get a health-care bill through Congress marked a catastrophe for the Clinton presidency rather than its liberation. On Friday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said his boss was "quite comfortable" with the idea that sticking to his agenda may well mean "he only lives in this house" for one term. Sounds like a man who appreciates the limits of a president's personal popularity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2806338544.html

[Peikko 1,575]

People in positions of influence always have to decide whether to take the path of popularity or purpose. The Scottish justice minister chose purpose. Let's see what Obama chooses

[AbbynSheryl 0]

i guess we wait and see.

abby n sheryl

[nowhereman 1]

People in positions of influence always have to decide whether to take the path of popularity or purpose. The Scottish justice minister chose purpose. Let's see what Obama chooses

That's a very, very, very bad example.

[Peikko 1,575]

People in positions of influence always have to decide whether to take the path of popularity or purpose. The Scottish justice minister chose purpose. Let's see what Obama chooses

That's a very, very, very bad example.

This Scottish justice minister made a very unpopular decision but one that can be fairly, reasonably and correctly argued as legally absolutely water tight. As this was a legal judgment and not a political one - he kept his head while those around him are still losing theirs

[alienlovechild 75]

This Scottish justice minister made a very unpopular decision but one that can be fairly, reasonably and correctly argued as legally absolutely water tight.

So all convicted mass murders are released after an 8 years if they have a terminal disease?

[nowhereman 1]

People in positions of influence always have to decide whether to take the path of popularity or purpose. The Scottish justice minister chose purpose. Let's see what Obama chooses

That's a very, very, very bad example.

This Scottish justice minister made a very unpopular decision but one that can be fairly, reasonably and correctly argued as legally absolutely water tight. As this was a legal judgment and not a political one - he kept his head while those around him are still losing theirs

What I know about the Scottish legal system could fit on a stamp, but even if his decision was "legally absolutely water tight" it is nothing to be proud of.

[Peikko 1,575]

If mercy is only granted when the criminal is guilty of minor crimes mercy is worth very little. The challenge is to show mercy in the face of great wrong doing. That is the example that sets the compassionate and civilized community apart from the brutal, inhuman one. I might not be a christian, but I absolutely believe in the sentiment behind compassion and the message it is meant to convey.

[alienlovechild 75]

That is the example that sets the compassionate and civilized community apart from the brutal, inhuman one.

Prisons are the most compassionate settings around. Criminals go in as rotten people and come out as peace-loving citizens. Most of us wish we could live in such wonderful institution with fascinating friends. The brutal, inhuman place is the outside world that makes people nasty.

Fools like me believe prisons were the alternative to capital punishment, cutting off limbs or allowing victims' families dole out the punishment.

There is a public policy involved. Why not send the terminally ill go on terrorist missions knowing they will get short sentences? Aren't drunks and drug addicts sick people, too? Shouldn't they be released because they couldn't help themselves?

Edited August 25, 2009 by alienlovechild

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I submit to you that it cannot! Surrender the White House to the Republican goons who ran this country to the ground for 8 years....we can't match their ineptitude!

[Peikko 1,575]

That is the example that sets the compassionate and civilized community apart from the brutal, inhuman one.

Prisons are the most compassionate settings around. Criminals go in as rotten people and come out as peace-loving citizens. Most of us wish we could live in such wonderful institution with fascinating friends. The brutal, inhuman place is the outside world that makes people nasty.

Fools like me believe prisons were the alternative to capital punishment, cutting off limbs or allowing victims' families dole out the punishment.

There is a public policy involved. Why not send the terminally ill go on terrorist missions knowing they will get short sentences? Aren't drunks and drug addicts sick people, too? Shouldn't they be released because they couldn't help themselves?

There is no point addressing this as it is a jumble of emotionally charged rhetoric with no actual point.

[alienlovechild 75]

There is no point addressing this as it is a jumble of emotionally charged rhetoric with no actual point.

Let us know when you figure what the words "public policy" or penology mean.

I'd wait for the answer but I've seen dogs get their heads out of buckets faster.

[The Dude 206]

There is no point addressing this as it is a jumble of emotionally charged rhetoric with no actual point.

Let us know when you figure what the words "public policy" or penology mean.

I'd wait for the answer but I've seen dogs get their heads out of buckets faster.

Although I do agree with you that this man deserves no mercy or pity, I also agree with MC that you are making a poor attempt at your point. Legally, the Scottish minister made a proper decision, however, on a moral level, I think the man failed.

[nowhereman 1]

There is no point addressing this as it is a jumble of emotionally charged rhetoric with no actual point.

Let us know when you figure what the words "public policy" or penology mean.

I'd wait for the answer but I've seen dogs get their heads out of buckets faster.

Although I do agree with you that this man deserves no mercy or pity, I also agree with MC that you are making a poor attempt at your point. Legally, the Scottish minister made a proper decision, however, on a moral level, I think the man failed.

That's my point as well. For example the verdict in the original OJ Simpson trial was legal, but from a moral standpoint reprehensible. As for prisons being the same as Club Med that is indeed silly rhetoric.

[tmma 467]

The Scottish Justice minister is supposed to make sure that the law is applied fairly and equitably; I'd like to know how many Scottish mass murderers have been released so soon for a merciful reasons ( terminal illness) per Scottish law.

*going to take a look*

edit-releasing this murderer -whilst legal-is an affront to all those who lost their lives and their families.

Edited August 25, 2009 by tmma