How the Congressional Democrats Doom Obama to One Term

American Thinker ^ | March 03, 2010 | Clarice Feldman

[neverdem]

At a dinner party at my home, a Democrat friend (who is a Washington player with extensive experience as a congressional staffer and in the executive branch before he entered the private practice of law) and I were discussing those things on which we did agree: the overstaffing on the Hill; the fact that much of that staff is young and utterly inexperienced; how the dismantling of the seniority system -- which we'd all been for when the Southern committee chairs blocked civil rights legislation -- had not been an unmitigated good; and the failures of this administration, with the almost certain consequence that Obama will not be elected to a second term.

I had in the back of my mind been mulling over my estimation that Obama is failing because he allowed the congressional Democratic leaders to shape major legislative endeavors. I believed that this delegation to Congress had resulted in unpopular legislation which filled the coffers of the various interest groups behind the party without meeting critical national needs. Further, I thought that this had been done in a way that was so openly corrupt (like the Louisiana Purchase) that it weakened the president and makes it increasingly likely that he will achieve nothing of significance...and certainly will be denied a second term.

I had considered this collapse of the incumbent's power and popularity down to Obama's failure to focus and his laziness and inattention to detail -- not to mention his utter failure to master the executive skills he lacked when elected.

My friend had a very different take, and I think it so brilliant that I'd like to share it with you.

He believes that there is an interrelationship between the staffing situation on the Hill and the ineffectiveness of recent Democratic presidents like Carter and Obama -- a structural problem that, if it remains uncorrected, will doom most Democrat presidents to a single term in office.

He observes that where once legislative initiatives originated in the office of the Chief Executive, in recent decades, they are increasingly being written on the Hill (by those inexperienced twenty-something staffers). The problem is that once a Democrat is elected president, if he has a Democrat majority in the Congress, then the Committee chairmen believe and act on the assumption that they are in charge. (He didn't say this, as he remains a staunch Democrat, but I will -- many of these congressional leaders come from safe districts far to the left of the majority of Americans.) They craft bills which might be popular in, for example, San Francisco or Manhattan or Boston, but are wildly unpopular across the country. The White House is largely cut out of the process, except to sell the package or twist what arms can be twisted in a White House gathering to obtain needed votes.

This process, my friend continued, dooms the president to one term because he quickly loses national support.

He concedes that there were two exceptions: Clinton and LBJ. He explains that LBJ never allowed himself to be manipulated by Congress. He paid great attention to every move on the Hill. He personally called in each recalcitrant committee chair and member and ruthlessly employed threats -- such as promises to block all funds and assistance to their districts -- if they failed to support him. Clinton, as we all know, manipulated Congress by his outsized charm and ability to seduce the opposition inside and outside his party to work with him on acceptable compromises.

It's possible to nibble away a bit at my friend‘s thesis on some historic points. My friend didn't say this, but, of course, Clinton's charm offensive was more critical when the Republicans took over Congress. In fact, it may mean that Clinton was not an exception to the rule. One might argue, as well, that LBJ might not have been that exceptional either because the Democratic leadership in the 1960s was less extremely leftward than it presently is.

But without getting too far afield, I think my friend has made a valid point in general, and without a substantial change in the drift of the congressional Democratic leadership, his analysis will be applicable going forward.

That brings us to my friend's final point: No one should be elected to the presidency without having had a lot of executive experience -- either in business or at a government level outside of the Congress (governor, for example, or cabinet secretary).

Given the historic congressional overreach into executive functions and the disparity in the views of the safe Democratic districts from which so many congressional chairmen come compared to those of the American people, unless a president forcefully commands control of the process as LBJ did, or has the charm and skill of Clinton to woo his colleagues to his way of thinking, Obama and any other Democrat elected to the office can count on no more than one term.

[rfp1234]

Obambi has no business being anywhere near the Oval Office; a ceremonial role would suit him better.

He's a wannabe Royal Prince; even his ears are almost as big as Charles'.

[campaignPete R-CT]

and how many Congressional Democrats are Doomed to one Term?

[research99]

"Clinton, as we all know, manipulated Congress by his outsized charm and ability to seduce the opposition inside and outside his party to work with him on acceptable compromises."

So the FBI files on individual Congressmen, had nothing to do with it?

[KC_Conspirator]

Thats way too technical. Zero is a leftist ideologue and he and his liberal minions think that they are still hoodwinking the public. democraps only care about the will to power and nothing is to get in their way.

[bayareablues]

What is frightening is that he and this hapless bunch of thugs in the WH have unfettered access to privledged State security and other information.

[SmokingJoe]

So the FBI files on individual Congressmen, had nothing to do with it?

I would have suggested Rahm Emmanuel et all, had “files” on Lindsay Grahamnesty. The only thing is, Grahamnesty was already a RINO long before 0bozo became president. He is a very willing stooge. They don't even need to blackmail the sucker, before he jumps into bed with them.

[tanuki]

I think this is a profound article. One thing I would like to add: Clinton may have left things to his staffers originally, but he was devoted to his political survival. While he never, by any means, went rightward, he did come to an uneasy accommodation with the center-right consensus of this country. Obama lacks this adaptability and really doesn’t have the degree of control over his administration that maybe we should expect of a Chief Executive. He’s going to be mated to his agenda to the end and in the end, it will bring him down.

[Hypo]

[USNBandit]

Obama's failures are due to one consistent issue. The man is completely devoid of any executive leadership ability. We elected a backbencher senator to do the job of a president. This guy had never been in charge of anything.

The healthcare summit is a perfect example. It accomplished nothing because Obama put nothing on the table to work with. One facet of leadership is being able to convince people to do things they don't want to do, and making them believe they want to do it.

Obama doesn't know how to do that and doesn't know that ability is important to being successful in his job.

[olivia3boys]

This makes sense to me; I have a dear relative who is on Obama’s staff; he formerly worked for a very left-wing Congressman. He’s only in his 20s. . .it’s really amazing, when you actually look at the numbers, how few people really work for the President and how young they are. . .maybe that’s the case for all Presidents too though—the young and fired up idealists. . .

[Misterioso]

Perzackly.

[fightinJAG]

No one should be elected to the presidency without having had a lot of executive experience -- either in business or at a government level outside of the Congress(governor, for example, or cabinet secretary).

I do agree with this. I also think that it's just dumb to have a blanket approach of anti-incumbents. Professional politics takes skill and experience, and very few rookies win a Super Bowl. You simply have to have some folks who know the ropes and don't bumble around and get taken advantage of like this man-child we have in the Oval Office now.

Same thing on the Hill.

[fightinJAG]

He’s also just a horrible, horrible politician. By that I mean, he has absolutely zero political skills or instincts. He just has no grip on how politics gets done, either on the Hill or on Main Street. He is tone-deaf to a profound, stunning degree. He is, as the mayor of Las Vegas said, a “slow learner.” He has no sense of political strategy, of the zigs and zags that must go into a political act. He is blind to the meaning and function of the moves of his political opponents, including in his own party. He has no internal political context for understanding and processing the political chatter that is the political zeitgeist.

Shall I go on?

[Senator Goldwater]

"Shall I go on?"

Yes, by all means, please do.

I was enjoying that too much for it to end.

[lentulusgracchus]

Clinton may have left things to his staffers originally, but he was devoted to his political survival. While he never, by any means, went rightward, he did come to an uneasy accommodation with the center-right consensus of this country.

When was that? During impeachment? When he carefully and deliberately worked corruption in the People, managing their impeachability thresholds upward in order to survive the revelation of his perjury?

Was it when he corruptly pandered to the racism of his black base by going to Africa to apologize for America and white racist people, while brutal African dictators laughed at him, and us?

I think I must have missed the accommodation part.

[Fred911]

There is probably a tribe somewhere in Kenya who could use a good witch doctor.....

[muawiyah]

Fairly astute observation.

I've noticed a recurring theme in all the major pieces of Democrat legislation over the last 25 years ~ that is that "Somebody's gotta' get punished".

I've never understood that. We have an entire criminal code available to cross reference and yet the Democrat legal writers on Capitol Hill continue to rewrite it inside the new laws.

The two best examples of this are the old Hillary Care deal where doctors got punished (most of the text) and the newer Obama Care deal where patients got punished (most of the text).

It's like no one ever heard of "incorporation by reference" ~

If the Democrats are going to persist in this nonsense the least they could do is bring in some federal administrative types to advice them in the crafting of bills. Of course, being Democrats, all the folks who'd otherwise be willing to do that have been grilled by some doufous half-drunk dopeusing reprobate in front of a TV camera, and it's not likely they ever want to go back to the Hill under any circumstances.

[Joe Boucher]

Obummer and prince chuck,
What a couple of real dufusses

[arthurus]

Soetoro’s presidency is the worst Congress in history?