August 22, 2011

"What if Obama simply decided not to run for a second term as President?"

Writes Ed Morrissey in a post that's getting a lot of attention.

But you read it first here on Althouse, on April 3, 2011: "The reason why Obama should not want to run for a second term in 2012." I wrote (based on a conversation I'd just had with Meade, who proposed the idea first):
If he is reelected, then that will be the end of running for President. He'll be 54 years old, and what will he do? Move to Hawaii and play golf? But he could move to Hawaii and play golf in January 2013, if that's an enticing prospect. And, if he does, he won't have maxed out his eligibility for being President. He can tantalize us, year after year, with the possibility that he would run for another term — a fascinatingly out-of-sequence term. The thing he's best at is running for President. Why let that game expire? He could toy with it in 2016, when he's 58, and in 2020, when he's a clear-visioned 62, and in 2024, when he's a well-seasoned 66, and in 2028, when he's a beneficent elder, offering his services once again, because his country longs for the golden days of 2011. It will never end, as long as the icon of hope and change... walks the face of the earth... unless he serves that second term.
Morrissey emphasizes Obama's low poll numbers, the difficulty of reelection, the problem of dragging down some key Senate races, and the possibly exciting prospect of a Hillary Clinton candidacy:

She can step into the void with promises to return America to the economic policies of her husband.  The Left may not have much love for Hillary any longer, but she was winning the very working-class Democrats in the 2008 primaries that Obama is losing to the Republicans now....

Democrats might be loathe to push the nation’s first African-American President into an early retirement, but they may eventually balk at committing political suicide if Obama’s numbers and the economy keep going south in the next few months.  Under those conditions, even Obama might be ready to walk away without much pushing.
Please refer to my analysis of Obama's psyche. I'm portraying it as an exciting positive for him. I don't see how the Democrats can sink into pushing their man out. There has to be positive energy pulsating through the entire maneuver or it's not worth doing. Hillary isn't going to look good stepping up over the prostrate body of the man she couldn't best in '08. That whole scenario is grim. Too desperate. But if Obama wants to act very grand about being above running for President, it could be handled well.

83 comments:

Lucius said...

"Real power cannot be given.

It must be taken."

--"The Godfather Part III" ad copy

ricpic said...

Obama still has the power to "tantalize" the beautiful withit people? The mind reels.

AllenS said...

But if Obama wants to act very grand about being above running for President, it could be handled well.

The possibility of obama handling that scenario well, is zero. He'd cry racism. It's all he's got. He represents the failure of affirmative action. He'd have to admit as much, so it would get very ugly.

Jay said...

I don't understand this idea that Hillary! would be more popular than Obama.

Can anyone name any policy she would support that would reduce federal spending?

Is she for extending the Obama/Bush tax cuts?

The Congressional leaders of the party she is a member of believe unemployement benefits and food stamps create jobs. Does she feel any differently?

Which agency or department would she defund?


Also, her tenure as Secretary of State is of abject failure.

So what is her platform - Bill was great, vote for me?

pm317 said...

Hillary isn't going to look good stepping up over the prostrate body of the man she couldn't best in '08.

'she couldn't best', eh...yeah, if you fell for the shiny penny, teleprompter reading one trick pony. Most everyone knows what happened in Primary '08 except you. Hillary won't go 'rogue' and challenge him but the Democrats will be begging her and they will give Obama a face saving exit (if they are smart, which I doubt very much they are).

MadisonMan said...

The Grover Cleveland of the 21st century. It really doesn't have a nice ring to it.

Bob Ellison said...

Perhaps Novak Djokovic's recent example will inspire Obama.

wv: "coselly" - Down goes Obama! Down goes Obama!

Writ Small said...

The media convinced much of the country that Clinton was impeached for a private indiscretion, that George W. was illegitmate because he didn't win the popular vote, and that the Tea Party was responsible for the downgrade.

Given the track record, you'd have to say they could spin an Obama step down as a positive.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

If Obama doesn't run, even voluntarily, then the narrative will be that it is a victory for racism and solid proof that America is a terribly racist country. It will set back racial relations by years, allowing those too young to remember Jim Crow to continuously decry what they saw and force apologies for decades to come.

I don't like it. Either way, we're screwed.

- Lyssa

MadisonMan said...

then the narrative will be that it is a victory for racism

I disagree completely. If you can't find a reason that Obama might not run again in the Economy and Economic Outlooks, then you are blind.

Presidential history is littered (sort of) with casualties of the Economy. Why should Obama be any different?

traditionalguy said...

What if a polling in the 30s Obama will not step down?

Would the Dems lose gracefully, or would they try to make Barack into a fallen martyr?

Number one goal for the GOP is to keep Obama alive.

campy said...

Why would he not run when he's a iron-clad lock to win?

ndspinelli said...

LBJ was in deep trouble w/ his base when he decided not to run. The left was anti-war. We now see the left is only anti-Republican war. He's running and I would say the odds are 5/4 he'll win.

Calypso Facto said...

I'll bet you a $1 billion re-election fund he's running.

themightypuck said...

There is no chance the economy will recover by next fall. Obama will lose.

Curious George said...

Too bad America's Politico is in Nepal. It would be great to get the inside scoop on all this.

Meade said...

He could just say he wants to spend more time with his golf clubs. I mean, family.

The Crack Emcee said...

He can tantalize us, year after year, with the possibility that he would run for another term,...

Whew - I know some folks tease you about box wine, but, damn, you guys MUST be drinking a lot of something to come up with that one!

Henry said...

He's running now. He has no idea what you are talking about.

JAL said...

But if Obama wants to act very grand about being above running for President, it could be handled well.

Keep dropping him pointers Professor. Maybe someone on his staff reads you.

BTW -- Did you know you were voting for a "quitter" when you placed your AA vote? No wait -- he'll be grand. Just like Sarah who did it for the benefit of her beloved state. (<--- Actually not written sarcastically.)

MikeinAppalachia said...

What happens to re-election funds when politicians retire? Do they then become the property of said politician? Anyone?
If I had a $1 billion fund and had the choice of retiring with it intact or spending it on campaign ads, I know which choice I would make.

Michael Haz said...

Please refer to my analysis of Obama's psyche. I'm portraying it as an exciting positive for him.

The Obama brand management efforts continue.

Hagar said...

Obama is "surprised that he is allowed to keep so much of the money he has been making," and thinks the Government should take more of it.

Hillary does not see it that way.

Hillary has got control of something like a billion dollars, and she and she wants to keep it - all of it - and she can't keep hers without also protecting our little piles, and that's why she would make a better president than Obama.

pm317 said...

They are ginning up a 'Libya mission accomplished' to prop him up.. Let us see how far it takes him.

ThomasD said...

and the possibly exciting prospect of a Hillary Clinton candidacy...

You almost had me going until that line.

Don't feel bad though, comedy is hard stuff.

Tank said...

Obama voluntarily stepping aside?

No.

End of story.

David said...

The only way this works is if he can claim he's doing it for the good of the nation, putting country above self-interest.

He gets Congress to pass a grand compromise budget plan, raising taxes, cutting entitlements drastically, cutting military spending and postponing Obamacare for 10 years. Maybe he even gets rid of some federal agencies and programs.

Then he announces that it had to be done, but it makes him unelectable. He's not going to run again, but will be monitoring from the side lines and if future presidents muck about with his grand compromise, he'll come back to correct them.

Then he retires to Hawaii and plays golf.

Lincolntf said...

The only way he doesn't run is if he gets consumed by a huge scandal (not likely w/ the MSM on his side), or if he ends up polling in the 2O's and it's not worth his time/money.

Pogo said...

Once Obama personally shoots Gaddafi in the head, his re-election will be assured.

He'll be 2-for-2.
Watch out, Mubarak, Clint Obamawood is coming for YOU!
Make. His. Day.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

MM Presidential history is littered (sort of) with casualties of the Economy. Why should Obama be any different?

He shouldn't be. But that doesn't change the fact that he will be. Every president faces enormous amounts of criticism, much of it vulgur. Does that stop a number of people from believing that his critics are racially motivated?

- Lyssa

Henry said...

And frankly, if he bows out, there's no one out there that will be able to convince vice president Joe Biden that he isn't the heir apparent. Hillary would have to crush him, but it would drain her resources.

And you simply can't ignore the possibility of another fresh face from the hinterlands running the table again. Surely Democrats know by now that every time they run a proven national politician for President they lose. Obscurity is the only game they've got.

jerryofva said...

Obama is the SIMone of American politics. He is simply a creation of the MSM media. He might as well be a virtual entity.

Here is how I see 2012 unfolding. A fringe candidate (Kucinich?) will challenge Obama in the early primaries. He will garner 25-40% of the vote. The damage to Obama will be sufficient to induce Clinton to resign as SECSTATE and jump into the race. She will beat Obama in the super Tuesday primaries and he will withdraw. The African-American community will cry racism and sit out the election. The Moveon.org lunatic not-so-fringe of the Democratic Party votes green. Hilary loses big time.

The last three years have changed my perspective on the relationship between the MSM and the Democratic Party. The MSM is not the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the political arm of the neo-Fascist oligarchy who is represented by the MSM. They are finding it is much easier to destroy a Sarah Palin then create an effective leader. The made the Obama of their dreams but their dreams have been dashed against the rocks of reality.

Lincolntf said...

Mike in App, in State politics (at least some States) the pol can keep and spend the money, in it's tax protected condition, for future runs and political activity. So you spend 50 grand on a golfing retreat and say "Maybe I should run for Governor of HI" to your caddie and it's all good.

Henry said...

They are ginning up a 'Libya mission accomplished' to prop him up.. Let us see how far it takes him.

I'm happy to see Qaddafi go, but I wouldn't put much trust in the crowd replacing him.

Hagar said...

and you should stop talking about him as if he was a politician.
He isn't. He is an emissary and as convinced of his own righteousness as Jimmy Carter.

There is no way he is going to calculate the odds and give way gracefully.

Nor is he going to go away when he leaves office, whether in 2013 or 2017. Like carter, he is going to be around, whining, and causing trouble for his successors to the end of days.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)



I read this at HotAir, and don’t comment there. I will here. This idea is stupid at a host of levels:
1) Hillary LOST to Obama, but she’ll win on her own, even though she couldn’t get her own party’s nomination?
2) Filing deadlines. Obama has to quit NOW, otherwise, Hillary won’t be able to get on state ballots. Were Obama to wait until say November/January, he’d effectively preclude a Democrat from participating in a very large number of primaries and caucuses. And even if, TECHNICALLY, the deadline hasn’t passed, setting up an organization to compete would be a vast burden and an almost impossible to achieve.
3) Who won in 1952 and 1968? WHY? Because the POTUS had “damaged the brand.” So even IF Obama were to step down, it would be like Capt. Smith taking the lifeboat just after running the Titanic into the iceberg and leaving it to the Second Officer. The damage is done, changing captains isn’t going to undo the damage.
4) Lastly Hillary is a part of the Administration and she’s not be shown to be any great shakes in her current job, so we’d be replacing one unpopular incompetent for another, why is that a recipe for success?

Roger J. said...

I dont see why Mr Obama wouldnt run--there's nothing in his track record thus far that he puts country over self interest.

Henry said...

Joe wrote: 3) Who won in 1952 and 1968? WHY? Because the POTUS had “damaged the brand.” So even IF Obama were to step down, it would be like Capt. Smith taking the lifeboat just after running the Titanic into the iceberg and leaving it to the Second Officer. The damage is done, changing captains isn’t going to undo the damage.

Excellent point. Add to that: Who won in 2008?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

He gets Congress to pass a grand compromise budget plan, raising taxes, cutting entitlements drastically, cutting military spending and postponing Obamacare for 10 years. Maybe he even gets rid of some federal agencies and programs.

Then he announces that it had to be done, but it makes him unelectable. He's not going to run again, but will be monitoring from the side lines and if future presidents muck about with his grand compromise, he'll come back to correct them


The problem with this theory is, this is a VICTORY for Obama…the tax increases occur TOMORROW the, cuts, except for Defense NEVER occur….ObamaCare is UNTOUCHABLE (in Obama Land, so that can NEVER be a part of the Grand Compromise-it’s one of the two tangible successes for Pelosi/Reid, why would they ever agree to its postponement, either?)
In short, this give Obama what he wants, and having gotten that, he will run on that “Grand Compromise.”
LovelyLyssa, Obama and Michelle and the Congressional Black Caucus are going to claim “Racism” no matter what. When, as I hope, Sarah Palin is sworn in, they will have been busy banging the drum about racism, from November 2012, until Obama dies. So, to worry about what Obama and his allies say is a pointless exercise, UNLESS the TEA Party and the Republicans admit they are racists, and agree to not run anyone against Obama in 2012, this will be the Media frame/Meme going on from here on out, and it will only get worse if Obama loses. In short, there’s no point in worrying about what Obama is going to say and what effect it will have, because what Obama is going to say is INEVITABLE, and it will or will not affect race relations.

Roger J. said...

I have no problem in keeping Mr Obama in office for another term as long as the senate and state houses stay in republican hands. Divided government is a good thing even in this wretched economy. This is what Herbert Simon, my mentor, would say is a satisficing solution. Not perfect but OK

roesch-voltaire said...

Much depends on whom the Republicans nominate; if it is Huntsman, for example, Obama would not have much traction, if Bachmann, of course he will run again. And much depends on the economy, but I suspect that most folks up for re-election, given the mood of the country, will be thrown out.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Much depends on whom the Republicans nominate; if it is Huntsman, for example, Obama would not have much traction, if Bachmann, of course he will run again

Huntsman, Huntsman gets about 1% of REPUBLICAN votes…Obama gets LOTSA traction against Huntsman…and anyway polling so poorly, how much “traction’ does Obama need to beat Huntsman? I mean Huntsman would have to be ANOINTED the GOP candidate, since he can’t get it on his own…as Palin (once she gets in there’s no Bachmann) he gets beaten, badly…so you have it exactly bass-ackwards R-V, stick with the Environmental Engineering.

Roger J. said...

As a poster pointed out above, doesnt Mr Obama face filing deadline decisions in the 57 states?

agree with RV that who emerges in the Republican field, will be a major part of the analysis. Seems to me this speculation is premature.

Roger J. said...

Perhaps our present political system has morphed into the equivalent of fantasy football

YoungHegelian said...

There is no way that the Democrats aren't stuck with Obama in 2012. The reason: the black vote.

Obama is still personally very popular in the black community, and if anything unusual is done to even try to force him out, they will refuse to back the Democratic candidate.

Without the solid vote of the black community, the democrats lose, and they know it.

El Presidente said...

I recall the LBJ '76 and '80 runs. Oh how he tantalized the Americans. Sure LBJ was dead by then but even in Texas that was a feature not a bug.

Curious George said...

"Fore more years"


wv: abill. Obama's legacy.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

jerryofva said: The damage to Obama will be sufficient to induce Clinton to resign as SECSTATE and jump into the race. She will beat Obama in the super Tuesday primaries and he will withdraw. The African-American community will cry racism and sit out the election.

I have no hope that this will ever happen (this election will proceed like all others; the incumbant will get the nomination as he always does, with minimal challenge), but if it did, it would be amazingly wonderful for the country. A black class, always having been beholden to the Democrat party, suddenly and painfully divorced from it? That 88% that is taken for granted to reliably vote Dem every time, suddenly isn't? Blacks can think for themselves without being called oreos or self-haters?

It would be the most amazing thing in the world for our country, our lower classes and poor, and our race relations.

- Lyssa

DADvocate said...

The thing he's best at is running for President.

One time. Just like in football where you must update and change the playbook constantly or your opponents will out maneuver you, Obama can't run the same campaign he ran before. But, as we've already seen with his little bus tour and other events, his repertory is quite narrow.

Oligonicella said...

One more time - you really don't read people worth a crap.

Mike K said...

Hillary is at least as far left as Obama and much more of a lefty than Bill. This might make her attractive to the DNC base. I wouldn't rule this out of the economy tips into formal recession again.

Original Mike said...

"Please refer to my analysis of Obama's psyche. I'm portraying it as an exciting positive for him."

Even Obama isn't that self-centered.

Is he?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)



And the Hillary “love” is sexism, IMO. They don’t want Hillary at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they want BILL, but they can’t have him, so they think if they get Hillary, they‘ll have Bill. Hillary is just the substitute for Bill. They think if they can get Hillary (Bill) they can return to the 1990’s…magical thinking.

AJ Lynch said...

Obama has never taken the high road in his life and he has never had an original idea in his life. So you are dreaming Professor.

Tim said...

Thinking about politics as theater is bad for both.

It leads otherwise smart people to make tragically stupid decisions, like voting for the least qualified person ever to be president.

Mick said...

There's no Presidential eligibility to be "maxed out". Obama is not eligible today, yesterday or tomorrow. He hasn't been eligible since his birth as a British subject to a British subject father. I thought you were a "law prof"? Oh well, I guess that's why lawyers know nothing about the Constitution.

Chip S. said...

I just got an IM from America's Politico, which I'm happy to share with all of you:

Here's how it's going down. Ban Ki-moon announces that health considerations make it necessary for him to step down as UN Secretary-General no later than January 20, 2013. He will enjoy a lavish Soros-funded retirement. Sometime this fall the UN will beg Obama to agree to serve as the next Sec-Gen. He will make a major speech announcing that his duty to the planet supersedes his duty to America, so regretfully he has decided not to run for re-election as President. It's the perfect job for him, as there's always good golfing weather in at least one member state.

Hillary will run on a '90s revival platform, and announce that she plans to name Bill her Sec of State, since it's the second most important job in the federal government.

Dems roll to a 50-state wipeout of the Repubs, who will lose control of the House and their bowels.

This is what the K-Street money boys are planning. It's a done deal.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)



Thanx Chip, though the phraseology was subtly off…are you SURE AP sent it to you?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I don't like it. Either way, we're screwed.

You just noticed?

Personally, I want Obama to run again. He has crashed and burned so spectacularly that even a ham sandwich could win.

However, since the media will spin and spin and Acorn type voter fraud will be once again the rule instead of the exception. Obama might win ....but what the hey....we are already half way to hell in that handbasket. Maybe we should just hurry up the ride and get to the point where people have had enough and we can (literally) clear the decks.

Either way, we're screwed

MikeinAppalachia said...

But, but....I thought SecGen of the UN was Bill's job!
I guess he would "settle" for US SecState if it meant Hil would be POTUS. Is there a residence for SecState? Can't see Hillary wanting Bill hanging around the White House.

Chip S. said...

the phraseology was subtly off

I always run AP's stuff through Babel Fish to make it comprehensible.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

I don't like it. Either way, we're screwed

This is a bad attitude…we are NOT screwed, this is an OPPORTUNITY a la 1932 and 1964. If we begin with the premise of gloom and doom it de-energizes us and makes the doom more likely…plus no one votes for the Doomeister for POTUS.

ricpic said...

In roeschi's perfect dreamworld Obama would hand the ball over to Huntsman: statism forever!

roesch-voltaire said...

Joe the strongest candidates are not always nominated,and as folks learn more about Huntsman, I suspect they will see my point.

Chip S. said...

@r-v: Why stop at Huntsman? Imagine how many states the Republicans could win by nominating Hillary?

There's no point in winning an election by nominating someone who doesn't represent you well at all.

Paddy O said...

"Much depends on whom the Republicans nominate; if it is Huntsman, for example, Obama would not have much traction"

The funny thing about Huntsman is that he's really the most viable candidate for beating Obama... in the Democratic Primary.

Hillary did not have too much experience going into 2008, and now she has tied her record to Obama through a very lackluster term as Secretary of State. Had she stayed a senator she might be able to build some distinctions. Now? It's more of the same when no one wants the same. And there just isn't any other Democrat out there who has become distinguished as a counter voice within the party.

Obama is getting some pushback from his Left, but because he's already so left in his policies, that's a really small group of people who want the country to be even more liberal.

Huntsman, however, could switch parties, be the uniter not divider, offering much the same basic stance as most Democrats while running as an outsider to the present party leaders.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Joe the strongest candidates are not always nominated,and as folks learn more about Huntsman, I suspect they will see my point

Not true…the STRONGEST ARE NOMINATED…it’s the strength of the system…you might be the best candidate, but unless you have the capacity, money and will, plus some luck..in short the things you’ll need as POTUS, you don’t get the job to run. What will they like about him, BTW, his praise of Obama, or his support for Can and Tax and Globull Warmening? YOU like him, because he’s not threatening, meaning even if he WON (AS IF) he’d be Obama-lite or really that like McCain he’ll lose and give us Obama.

edutcher said...

Actually, it was not Miss Ann, but one of our commentariat, Shouting Thomas perhaps, that first broached the possibility several times over the last couple of years.

It would be an ego thing if Herbert Obama did it. He's underwater with Hispanics and in PA, NJ, and NY and he just couldn't take the idea of being pounded worse than Mondale - maybe even losing all 50 ('scuse me, 60) states.

That said, if the losses in Congress look to be bad enough, we just might see a primary challenge. Maybe not Hillary, but a Clinton consigliere who would be well-compensated. They do have a score to settle.

Curious George said...

"Fore more years"

Love it.

PS No surprise Roesch wants Huntsman. The Demos love him.

richard mcenroe said...

Hillary's problem is that Obama has pretty decisively soiled every policy she ever endorsed.

What is she going to run on to energize the Democrat base? Welfare reform?

And call me chauvinist, but she is really showing the wear lately...

AllenS said...

Dodging sniper fire has a tendency to wear on a person.

mccullough said...

Obama's not stupid. He knows he is weak but will be running against a weak Republican candidate. He will have a lot of money. Elections involve actual candidates after a long campaign season. Obama will run for re-election because he believes he can beat any of the Republican candidates. He might be right.

Beldar said...

I'm a fan of Ed Morrissey, but he was completely off-target in his comparison of Obama to LBJ. He writes that LBJ and Truman both made decisions not to run for additional terms in office "at least in large part because they had become so unpopular that they clearly couldn’t win, especially LBJ. Another parallel to LBJ is the effect of having an unpopular war tied around a president’s neck."

But that's silly. You will remember, Prof. Althouse, that on March 31, 1968, Lyndon Johnson was still the odds-on favorite to win not only his party's re-nomination, but to repeat the smashing landslide victory he'd won over Goldwater in 1964. The GOP had no reason to think it would do better. LBJ hadn't even started campaigning yet; yes, he was shaken by how well Clean Gene McCarthy had done against LBJ in New Hampshire, and he was even more shaken when that prompted Bobby Kennedy to announce. But RFK's entry meant that he and McCarthy would fight for the left wing of the Democratic Party, a wing that itself was splintered between those just coming to oppose the war and those who were literally already at the barricades demanding its immediate cessation. It was altogether possible that RFK's entry might have helped LBJ by splitting his opposition.

And the eventual Democratic nominee, even after the summer of violence (King's & RFK's assassinations, the resulting riots, the fights at the Chicago convention), was LBJ's vice president, Hubert H. Humphrey, between whom and LBJ there was very little space, including even on the war. LBJ's announcement of his withdrawal was an incredible surprise to the entire nation, coming at the end of a speech in which he had (foolishly) announced a halt to the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam to pursue (foolishly) peace talks, but the eventual winner of the election, Richard Nixon, was campaigning not on ending the war but on "peace with honor," including promises to step up the level of combat (as he did, and indeed, he expanded it to Laos and Cambodia, with predictable results from the Left, including demonstrations that I know you saw, Prof. Althouse, and in which you might even have marched).

So the notion that LBJ withdrew because it was "clear" that he "couldn't win" is just ridiculous, a misreading of history totally skewed by hindsight.

No, ma'am, I do not think Obama will drop out. And the parallel isn't to LBJ -- because Obama hasn't faced, and won't face, more than 1/1000th of the anti-war venom that LBJ faced.

The parallel is instead to Carter. Obama will rely upon his partisans to rally around him, just as they did around Jimmy Carter -- who, you'll also recall, regained much ground in the polls as the 1980 election approached despite horrific doubts about his leadership that had prompted Ted Kennedy to run an unsuccessful primary campaign against him. It wasn't until the very final days of the 1980 election that Reagan began to solidify and then expand on his lead.

No, Obama will do his damnedest to ride to re-election on fear -- by demonizing the GOP and, in particular, the Ryan budget. That's why the GOP needs Paul Ryan as its candidate -- he can not only defend, but advocate effectively for, the Path to Prosperity. And I think he would end up beating Obama more decisively, in even more of a watershed election, than Reagan beat Carter.

To draw analogies from history, one must first know history, either by having studied it, or lived through it, or both. Captain Ed is a bit younger than you and me, Professor A, so 1968 isn't as clear in his memory as I'm relatively sure it is in yours and mine. And what Ed thinks happened, didn't.

MadisonMan said...

Makes me wonder: what's the worse shellacking an incumbent president ever suffered?

Not that I think it would happen, but it's possible.

garage mahal said...

Obama is getting some pushback from his Left, but because he's already so left in his policies, that's a really small group of people who want the country to be even more liberal.

Obama is getting pushback from Reagan's former economic advisers. Yes, Reagan's.

Roger J. said...

Beldar--your comment on the LBJ/Obama thing seems right on target--nicely done

Joe said...

Were Obama interested in actually accomplishing something as president, this might be a possibilty, but it's abundantly clear that Obama simply wants to be president. As long as that remains his goal, he will win since nothing will restrain him. I fully expect Obama to spin out the most amazing lies and putrid nonsense and get away with it.

With this in mind, Republicans need to concentrate on winning Congress. Since Obama doesn't actually believe in anything but himself (yes, he has a peculiar marxist mindset, but that's about as far as it goes), his "legacy" will be more important than usual. As such, I believe he would cave to a Republican congress after pounding his chest a little and then take credit and the press will go along. Which is just fine, thank you.

Lincolntf said...

Why on Earth would he cave once he has nothing to lose? A second term is a blank check. Under any other President the GOP controlling Congress might be enough, but Obama has shown his willingness and apparent ability to bypass every check and balance we've got. From Justice to the EPA to Labor, he's rewriting our national identity and our economy with nary a vote. He must go.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

I'm betting that Obama will be the first former US President that will find it necessary to retire to France!

AllenS said...

Three years from now, obama and Moammar Gadhafi will write a book together titled: "I Coulda Been A Contenda".

Not even the people who bought the obama Commemorative Coin and Plate collection will buy it.

Joanna said...

Hillary will run for president. It's just a matter of when.

If Obama doesn't run in 2012, it'll be Hillary. And the GOP* will be screwed.


*Unless we nominate Palin ;)

John Lynch said...

Not running is an admission of failure. Not going to happen.

Concern trolls. The President would be foolish to take such advice from his political enemies.

hombre said...

We don't deserve him. He'll return when we've wised up. LOL

Methadras said...

Ego and hubris go a long way to dispel this idiotic notion that he will not run in 2012. Meade has it all wrong.