Thread: He Promised Change,but Is This Too Much,Too Soon? Obama

These types of articles are appearing in the more msm papers. And today in the Rasmussen poll the spread between those who strongly approve/disapprove was -11 -first time double digits. This is going to be a very interesting break for our representatives as we make our disapproval known over their August break...


He Promised Change, but Is This Too Much, Too Soon?

By Dan Balz
Sunday, July 26, 2009

Among the biggest decisions President Obama faced in the weeks before his inauguration were how to assess the scope of the mandate he had received from the voters and how to act on it.

It was inescapable after the troubled presidency of George W. Bush that people were ready for change. But how much and how fast were not so apparent from the election returns. Obama's decision to launch the most ambitious domestic agenda since Lyndon B. Johnson's thus became the defining decision of his presidency.

Obama is now dealing with the consequences. His approval ratings on key issues have eroded. He is battling congressional resistance to his health-care initiative. His energy bill passed the House by a narrow margin and is on hold in the Senate. His verbal misstep on the arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. created an untimely distraction.

But was his strategy a mistake?

The economic collapse, which came late in the presidential campaign, offered Obama two paths. He could have argued, justifiably, that he would have to scale back his agenda, that the economy was in such a fragile state that all his attention should be focused on nursing it back to health as soon as possible.

He also could have explained that, given the amount of money the government would be pouring into the economy, the country could not afford for now a costly overhaul of health care nor an ambitious initiative to combat global warming that includes a controversial cap-and-trade system of energy taxes.

Given all the challenges Obama is facing, there are some who argue that following that path would have been more prudent. If he had moved more slowly and with a narrower focus, Obama could have nurtured his electoral majority, built greater public confidence around his leadership and emerged with a bigger mandate to pursue his postponed campaign agenda.

The second path available to Obama as he prepared to assume the presidency was to go big and bold. Rather than using the economy as an excuse for lack of action on health care and energy, he could use it as the catalyst for action. This strategy was articulated most succinctly by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who advised, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

Obama decided to use the economic crisis to build momentum behind a turbocharged first-year agenda. His rationale was that until the country addressed the cost and availability of health care and put itself on a path away from dependence on foreign oil, there could be no assurance of long-term economic security.

That strategy also assumed that winning could beget winning, which would strengthen Obama's hand and stiffen spines in Congress for some truly difficult votes. If voters were frustrated by gridlock in Washington, Obama would show he could make the system work.

There was also a strong case for taking this path. A crisis atmosphere might help galvanize the country and even bring Democrats and Republicans together with a sense of urgency to act. Striking quickly became attractive. Though it would tax the political skills of the new president and his team, it was ultimately more appealing.

One obvious miscalculation was in assuming there would be a measure of bipartisan cooperation. Each side blames the other for not cooperating, but the result is a more polarized environment than Obama had anticipated.

But who was to say that waiting on health-care reform would have made it easier? Given congressional inertia and the realities of the legislative and political cycles, putting off health-care and energy legislation would probably have meant delaying action until after the 2010 midterm elections and perhaps until the beginning of a possible second Obama term.

As Bush learned with Social Security and tax reform, delay is not necessarily a president's friend. But he also learned that it is easy to over-interpret a mandate for action on something as large and complex as Social Security or health care. Bush failed to build support for his Social Security plan as a candidate in 2004 and could not muster public backing for it in 2005. Did Obama make the same mistake on health care?

At the time of his election, much was made of the fact that Obama won 53 percent of the popular vote. That was the best by any Democrat since Johnson's 1964 landslide and the first time since Jimmy Carter's 1976 victory that a Democrat had gotten at least 50.1 percent of the vote.

But Obama's victory percentage, when applied to legislating, appears far less dominating. During Bush's presidency, critics expressed dismay that he tried to enact big policy changes with slender -- and generally partisan -- majorities. Obama now risks doing the same thing on health care and energy.

He knows he must succeed in passing health-care reform, in some form or another. But should he try to do it with token Republican support?

In the ideologically polarized House, Obama can expect virtually no Republican backing. The same could happen in the Senate, and many Democrats are prepared to move ahead on that basis. But not all think that is the best plan. Democratic strategist Tad Devine agrees.

Devine argued that, given the state of public opinion and the complexity of overhauling the health-care system, Obama should press for a package that can attract Republican support, at least in the Senate, by which he means more than two or three votes. As he put it, while voters have become more comfortable supporting Democrats in the past two elections, "there hasn't been a deep ideological conversion to our side."

A new Gallup poll released last week showed the consequences of doing what Obama has done this year. The survey found that two in three independents now think Obama's proposals call for too much government spending and three in five say his agenda calls for too much government.

Obama has a tough call ahead. Should he press for passage of a health-care bill over near-universal Republican opposition, assuming that he and the Democrats will reap a political benefit for accomplishing something that has eluded others? Or should he make bipartisan agreement a top priority in the Senate, even with a scaled-down compromise, to ease concerns about the size of government and the deficit?

The end of this story is far from written. Obama has warned not to bet against him. In his calculus, failure on health care is not an option, but what are his terms for success? Once again, he will have to assess the mandate he has to govern.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 9072502457

On a good day we have a Black Kim Jong Ill

It's too much Change when he's trying on purpose to take down America.
His plan is Socialism bordering on Communism.
Throw in his Reparations and that it's obvious that he has no use for Jews or Whites.
He's a lying Muslim too.

Suppose I'll get a beer invite?

Originally Posted by WorriedAmerican

On a good day we have a Black Kim Jong Ill

It's too much Change when he's trying on purpose to take down America.
His plan is Socialism bordering on Communism.
Throw in his Reparations and that it's obvious that he has no use for Jews or Whites.
He's a lying Muslim too.

Suppose I'll get a beer invite?

dont forget the apologizing tours across europe and the mid east