Last Week’s Elections and What it Means for Legislation is Audacity

Audacity has always been a favorite term and mindset of Team Obama. And there was no better display of audacity this week when White House Press Secretary stood before the gathered national media and proclaimed that 110,000 voters was a better indication of President Obama’s policy and political capital than 4.3 million voters.

As several media outlets have reported, last week Gibbs said that Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey do not signify anything for President Obama, but the dynamics and the Democratic candidate's success in an Upstate New York special election has consequences for the Republicans.

That is audacity Team Obama style.

If the White House wants to convey to a shaken and weakened Democratic majority on Capitol Hill that they have the bandwidth and power to move voters next fall they are clearly overconfident or don’t really care. How can the White House possibly dismiss the voters of New Jersey and Virginia - two trendsetting and economic powerhouse states – and formulate their political calculations on special election filled with more sideshows and spectacles than the Iowa State Fair? Why is the White House not seeing that their leader made five visits across heavily Democrat New Jersey in the closing days of the race which did little to get out the vote? What is the White House thinking now that part of their political coalition of African-Americans and young Americans has clearly proved to be a part time democratic force that sees their work being done as a result of winning last year’s election? It must be audacity.

As I see it, the White House is basing their political calculations on the fact that their term in office is unique and unprecedented. As such, it will demand sacrifice from the most vulnerable members of their party for the greater good. Without doubt, the White House is telling freshman Members of Congress like Rep. Tom Perriello and Rep. Glenn White, without our massive war chest and GOTV efforts last year you wouldn’t even be voting on Capitol Hill – so get inline. The White House surely knows they will lose seats next fall, but will they lose 40 seats; they must not think so. Meaning they can maintain majority control on Capitol Hill that will be diluted but not vanquished while being able to move aggressive legislation before November 2010.

With this mindset coming from the White House, upcoming legislation will be shaped by moving now -you can already see this in play from Saturday's night healthcare vote. Team Obama can realize their dream of changing the country's economic, cultural, banking, energy and healthcare foundations regardless of the outcome next fall. The loss of a few members who don’t really represent Democratic districts or the simple fact that a majority of voters clearly doesn’t support their agenda is of no concern.

Speaking with a former union organizer in Los Angeles the day after the election, he lamented how disappointed, frankly shocked, he was by the lack of turnout by Obama’s coalition. He went onto say, how can his team expect to move their political agenda, their core legislative goals and cherished dream of healthcare reform if those who elected Barack Obama last fall aren’t constantly engaged in the process and not voting. He closed by saying, it is clear that presently a majority of voters are not fully embracing what Obama is attempting to do, but last year’s election is what matters and their great political cause is more important than a tough race for a few Members of Congress or Senators in an upcoming election.

With such thinking coming from liberal activists in the field as well as what I believe to be the internal thinking of the White House, I fully expect condition normal and full speed ahead with Team Obama’s aggressive and multifaceted legislative agenda. As the White House has learned, winning one election means little in America. Other concerned citizens and targeted industries should heed this warning as well.

When your mindset is based on audacity, it is clear you are willing to make sacrifices so long as it moves long held and treasured legislative priorities closer to reality. I suggest to the numerous constituencies that Team Obama hopes to change, regulate and control, last week’s state elections mean little and last week’s federal election means everything to the White House. As they see it, all that matters is the fact that 110,000 voters sent them one more vote in Congress for them to use to pass their agenda.

 

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

Audacity has always been a

Audacity has always been a favorite term and mindset of Team Obama. And there was no better display of audacity this week when White House Press Secretary stood before the gathered national media and proclaimed that 110,000 voters was a better indication of President Obama’s policy and political capital than 4.3 million voters.

As several media outlets have reported, last week Gibbs said that Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey do not signify anything for President Obama, but the dynamics and the Democratic candidate's success in an Upstate New York special election has consequences for the Republicans.

That is audacity Team Obama style.

Actually, "audacity" would better describe your own comments. But only because a more blunt description would appear to be rude. Obama's concern about an alleged 4.3 million votes is, I imagine, tempered by his own 70 million votes. The Republican victories in both Virginia and New Jersey (where the incumbent was despised) were born of exceedingly low voter turnout (a 40-year record low in VA). The reason so much attention has been focused on NY23 is because the conservatives insisted so much attention be focused on it. That was the race with which they were centrally concerned until they lost it, and it immediately disappeared as a subject of conversation. You could use that word "audacity" for that, as well.

If the White House wants to convey to a shaken and weakened Democratic majority on Capitol Hill

The "shaken and weakened Democratic majority" in congress is actually a super-majority, and it grew larger with these elections. Somehow, I suspect they're not quaking in a corner.

So you are saying Obama is meek, timid, yielding, reserved,

I did see a little bit of humility when Obama said he was unworthy of the Nobel Price.

I refer you to the dictionary

  1. Fearless daring; intrepidity.
  2. Bold or insolent heedlessness of restraints, as of those imposed by prudence, propriety, or convention.
  3. An act or instance of intrepidity or insolent heedlessness: warned the students than any audacities committed during the graduation ceremony would be punished.

Antonyms: gentility, humility, meekness, modesty, timidity, yielding, care, carefulness, caution, reserve, timidity

I would say people who consider Obama audacious are being sincere be it untimid or not.

RE: Last Week’s Elections

> As several media outlets have reported, last week Gibbs said that Republican

> gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey do not signify anything for

> President Obama, but the dynamics and the Democratic candidate's success

> in an Upstate New York special election has consequences for the Republicans.

 

Actually, why not!

You see, Obama's approval ratings in NJ and VA remain fairly good and he is not doing badly in NY-23 either. Christie and McDonnell mostly focused on local issues whereas the big conservative/Tea Party muscle-flexing exercise was supposed to be NY-23, its special election essentially being nationalized by Limbaugh, Beck, the Club for Growth, Dick Armey and Sarah Palin. Apparently the locals wondered where the beef was, when Hoffman knew nothing about local issues important to them.

If the Republicans get their act together and field 50 Bob McDonnells a year from now, they will win quite a few races. The GOP has been trying to recruit attractive candidates with some success, witness Kirk, Castle, Crist etc.. Problem is, as NY-23 shows the Club for Growth and Tea Party movement might not let them be pragmatic. And in that case, the gains most likely will be much less than anticipated although even a bunch of dunderheads and nincompoops such as today's conservative movement is bound to make SOME gains next year. This is the worst economic crisis since the 1930s after all (so what do these guys do? Cite Herbert Hoover as a great model worth emulating and Amity Shlaes as a great insightful writer, ouch:-).

MARCU$