Home › Blogs › aberman's blog ›

Why I'm calmer than I thought I would be

Submitted by aberman on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 22:12

I've been wondering why I'm not as devastated as I thought I would be just 24 hours ago.  Here's what I'm thinking:
 

Obama's Mandate:

Consider the following points:

  1. The Republicans in Congress showed no leadership or vision whatsoever, and our Republican President has an approval rating in the low twenties.  Yet Obama won moderately and Democrats made only moderate congressional  gains.  It was the landslide that wasn't.  What does that say about Obama's mandate?
  2. Though Obama expressly came out against proposition 8, Californians simultaneously voted overwhelmingly for Obama and banned same-sex marriage. What does that say about Obama's mandate?
  3. McCain was tied with Obama until the financial crisis hit.  McCain then proceeded to act very erratically and impetuously, suspending his campaign to go back to Washington and coming out with several seemingly random proposals for the economy.  Obama did basically nothing and gained in the polls. What does that say about Obama's mandate?

Answering these questions collectively, it seems to me that Obama has the following mandate:

  1.     Fix the Economy.
  2.     Look calm, cool, collected, and thoughtful.  Above all, don't do anything rash.

That is the 'change' the electorate is really looking for.  A good economy and no rash behavior.  Not a great basis on which to justify any hard-left turns, is it?

Obama's Weakness:

Nobody is great at everything.  Obama is a great speaker and thinker, but one can look at his record in the legislature and even at the Harvard Law Review for guidance as to what he actually *does*.  The answer is:  not that much.  In the Philosopher-King department, George Bush was too much King and not enough Philosopher.  Obama will be too much Philosopher and not enough King.  Fine with me.

A Historical Analogy for the Wosrt-Case Scenario:

Finally, to those who think America will become irreparable after Obama-- I have a historical analogy.  New York City once elected a thoughtful, calm, and charismatic big-time Liberal who put a moderate face to the public yet had ties to the radical left and even to the New York wing of Chicago-style black-power movements.  Really a good likable guy, but had the completely wrong ideology. He governed as a big-government leftist and New York City looked horrendous at the end of his tenure.  Yet after David Dinkins came a new mayor by the name of Rudolph Guliani.  And he changed everything.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Huh?

Submitted by gabriel on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 22:52.

Bush couldn't break 300 EC votes either time. You think that stopped him, led him to say, "hmm, i don't have a mandate"?

Of course not.

 

Stop deluding yourself. Democrats control the WH and Congress. Your side lost BIG.

Another historical analogy

Submitted by pdm on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 23:24.

Well, not quite historical yet.  In 2006 Massachusetts elected Deval Patrick as governor, running a campaign that could easily be described as a prototype for Obama's campaign.  Check out a WSJ article on how things are panning out so far:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420254658343011.html

Of course, any analogy can't predict how an Obama administration would unfold.  But I think that as Republicans regroup from what I'd too call a big loss don't forget that Democrats/Liberals are far from invincible. 

 

Peter

 

Ohio Dem Governor

Submitted by George HW Bush on Thu, 11/06/2008 - 00:09.

In 2004 Dem Ted Strickland became governor of Ohio after a terrible and ocrrupt Republican governor.  Strickland overwhelmingly won that election, but now with the bad economy his job approval rating is 48%.  Voters hold politicians responsible in the end.

Obama has NO MANDATE to DO anything (only to BE President)

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 11/06/2008 - 01:38.

you see, talk to an obama supporter and they are happy that their guy is president - to BE somebody. but they are vauge and contradicting on what to DO. No mandate for any real policies except some 'middle class tax cut' plus some spending promises that add up to a bunch of things we cannot possibly afford.

I am very concerned that obama and the House will implement socialistic policies up the wazoo. But it is tempered by the knowledge that the worst parts of the Obama/ Pelosi agenda were NEVER highlighted - the union check card, the amnesty for illegals, the fairness doctrine, etc. The people who voted for Obama do NOT support the fairness doctrine that is an attack on the 1st amendment. Majorities say YES to offshore drilling and any bar to it should be stopped.

It will be our job to expose his agenda and defeat it ... stop Obama's Socialism.

PS. I agree that Obama is a talker not a doer. It may help him... the less he DOES, the less ammo he will give folks like me to expose him.

Obama is smarter than Bush was in 2004, we must be smarter, too

Submitted by Liberally Conse... on Thu, 11/06/2008 - 04:33.

In 2004, the Bush administration thought a 51-48 mandate meant that they could partially privatize Social Security. Obama's smarter than that. He ran as a reasonable liberal, and that meant that he surgically picked his battles. Instead of either stressing the need for gun control or hunting in an obviously-staged performance, he said that gun laws were different for hunters in Montana than they were in inner-city urban areas. Controversy sidestepped. Abortion? Above his pay grade. Gay marriage? He kept quiet. The War in Iraq? End it responsibly.

It's not that Obama ran as a moderate, he still espoused liberal positions, but he didn't put any stress on them, and he ran on two things; tax cuts and health care, and that was a much better platform than McCain's "victory in Iraq" and "Drill, baby, drill", even before the banking fiasco. So, there isn't going to be much to expose. Obama has a liberal-flavored take on health care and tax cuts? How surprising!

What I would be looking for is Obama to make one specific goal at a time, push it through Congress with token Republican support, and get it solidified before going for the next item. After health care and tax cuts? Alternative energy and withdrawing from Iraq, probably. Those two policies are also fairly popular among middle Americans, and shouldn't be the line in the sand for Republicans. The Iraq War isn't worth possibly breaking the Republican party for, and alternative energy is an inevitable future development. What I would look for is Obama and Pelosi to either overplay their hand and propose some liberal idea that would not have support from the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, or for Obama to get in a tiff with Congress, and have them beat each other up while Republicans stand at the side and say "America wanted change and better governance, and look what the Democrats are doing!"

If Republicans want to keep fighting the 2008 election, then there are some seats gained in 2004 that the Democrats wouldn't mind getting for their goal of 60.

Exactly

Submitted by gabriel on Thu, 11/06/2008 - 09:59.

Obama is not a wide-eyed leftist so he's not about to do anything crazy. But elections have consequences and the country has clearly moved to the left. Ignoring that will only pronlong the GOP's time in the wilderness.