A Challenge From The Left?
In the Sept 19, 2011 edition of American Thinker, it is being reported that a CNN poll taken on August 24 - 25 is finding 27% of polled Democrats would prefer a nominee other than President Obama in 2012. This is not news to those of you who listen to talk radio - the story has been circulating on all of the major shows as a way to underline Obama's vulnerability to the GOP nominee. After all, if a small percentage of people who HAD voted for Obama in 2008, were not motivated to show up in 2012, a second term would be a near impossibility.
From another angle, that 27% represents a rise of 15 points over what is normally expected at this point in a Presidential race. We see this sizable jump in disapproval among the Democrat base as a sign of his weakness within his own party. The "jobs" bill announced earlier this month (and still not submitted for action) and the "deficit" proposal made this week are clear attempts to shore up his base. We sense that he has given up on the "independent" voters. They certainly have given up on him.
What is the reality of a 2012 challenge? We had fun with that nearly a year and a half ago ( Where's Hillary? ) as it became obvious that the Obama Presidency was losing control of itself. At that point it was wishful thinking - now the idea is out there. Is it gaining steam? Can it happen?
We doubt that if there is a challenge it will be Hillary, or that it will be easy for a challenger to be successful. One only has to look back to the bruising that Teddy Kennedy got from Jimmy Carter to come up with the usual outcome of these contests. That has not stopped Dennis Kucinich from sending up trial balloons about a challenge. Ralph Nader is in the mix for sure. Okay, really - no one is going to take either seriously.
Hillary's name is being put forward by such liberal poobahs as Larry Summers and James Carville - both claiming that she wouldn't have made so many mistakes and bad calls. What of it?
We are of the opinion that Hillary has very little to gain from challenging Obama. She now has a global reputation as Secretary of State as virtually the only heavyweight on the Obama team. She has respect in her current position, and a reputation for seriousness that she values. Throwing that aside for what would be a brutal primary campaign would risk all of that. We take her at her word that she wants to return to private life when Obama's current term ends. The only way we see her stepping up is if the President pulls an LBJ and chooses not to run. We can't imagine Obama doing that.
There have been hints surfacing of Al Gore feeling a bit bored and ignored, and looking to take on Obama for one last hurrah. He certainly doesn't have the reputation to worry about anymore. Still, he would be seen as a nuisance rather than a credible threat - the Donald Trump of the left (even though Donald Trump IS the Donald Trump of the left).
That leaves us for looking at the "strategery" of Barry's political advisers. There has been an active effort among them to get Joe Biden dumped from the ticket. The argument goes that he's old, he's gaffe prone, he's wrong a lot, and he's sort of an administration embarrassment. They posit that Joe can be moved over to Secretary of State where none of that matters, and a suitable replacement can be brought on with something to bring to the table.
On that, one name surfaces over and over - Andrew Cuomo, current Governor of New York. Cuomo (the son of Mario, and former HUD Secretary for Bill Clinton). He's serious minded, has golden liberal credibility, and he is in the process of rescuing New York from financial disaster. He's doing it not by raising taxes, but by trimming spending and reigning in the public sector unions. He has recognized, at least it looks that way, that you can only tax so much, and that government can only get so big.
Cuomo is an Uber-Democrat. He has avoided the negative press that has been hurled on his Republican counterpart to the south, Chris Christie, as well as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. He remains popular because his understanding of the people of New York is based in reality, not ideology. He has respect, and gets results.
We are not tooting Cuomo's horn for our own pleasure. We are raising his name because he has been actively encouraged to accept the VP spot with Obama in 2012. He has rebuffed all advances, claiming that the needs of his home state preclude him from leaving his current job. We see a far longer term strategy.
Cuomo has already decided to run for President in 2016. The way he governs New York will project him as a pragmatic leader, who is dedicated to liberal causes (he managed to get gay marriage approved), but who takes on issues in order of importance. More importantly, he gets results. He is, on the Democrat side, the anti-Obama. Why give up what will be enormous advantage in 2016, for a job that has been famously described as "not worth a bucket of warm spit"? There is no good reason to step up as a lackey in 2012 for a person who will be irrelevant in 2016. And maybe in 2013.
This is where the threat to the Obama 2012 campaign lies. If the Democrat base joins the Independents in abandoning Obama, Cuomo is the obvious, and winning choice. We repeat - impeccable liberal cred, gets things done, doesn't raise taxes, does the important things first. Oh, then there's the icing on the cake - Cuomo will be far better equipped to beat a GOP nominee than Obama. We can easily see a "Draft Cuomo" campaign starting up, soon, and catching fire. If we can see it, so can Cuomo. We think that is the plausible scenario for a Democrat challenge to Obama.
We have often cautioned the GOP not to start ordering new drapes for the Oval Office - this isn't over. If enough liberals get tired of the petulant child in the White House, they will be leading the charge to switch horses in mid-stream. Suddenly it will not be "anybody but Obama", but "which guy do I vote for?". The approach of the GOP so far has been doing a beat-down on Obama rather than presenting issues and solid positive arguments for the conservative approach. That strategy is moot if Obama is NOT the candidate.
We have stressed from day one that this campaign will need to be about issues that affect everyday life in America - jobs, inflation, taxes, and spending. Basic Bill Clinton - "It's the economy, stupid." Punk-slapping Obama might be fun, but it is not offering the people a clear and alternative vision for the country. While it might work out if Obama is the candidate, if not, the guy who started talking ideas first will be the guy that the GOP needs to look to for leadership. It is time to put our pants on, before we get caught with them down. So says Common Sense.
RLB
Categories: Presidential Campaign 2012, political leadership, Partisan Politics
Tags: Barack Obama DNC partisan politics political leadership Presidential Campaign 2012
Don't be giving them any ideas - it's a gift to run against Obama.
Reply to this
This article has proven very interesting! Nice to hear democrats seeing the lies and corruption from BHO. I will say that I am republican turned independent turned tea party for the simple fact that I believe in decentralized gov't, states rights, and personal responsibility - the opposite of what we have received since the days of JFK and Reagan (LBJ and Nixon both moving us away from the Constitution and left towards big gov't). Back then the parties could debate two sides of an issue and still remain in the ballpark of the 9th and 10th amendments.
IMO "trusting Hillary at her word" is naive. Did you believe her when she said she wouldn't run for Senate? For president? She is a serial liar just like Bill Clinton and Obama, and has the same lust for power - always seeking the "grail" of socialism, healthcare. It is likely she will seek the WH as the democrat candidate once Soros and Co. have moved BHO along, having inflicted the desired damage to our economy and system of gov't. BHO will obviously seek to run the UN (barf bag, please) where his style of corruption is welcomed.
My vital point to you independent minded fine Americans is this: It is a false argument to pose right v. left "extremists." The true spectrum has big gov't on the left and anarchy on the right (i.e., the difference b/t communism and fascism is small - they both reside on the extreme left).
The Constitution sits right of center where decentralized gov't, free markets, and the rule of law reside - making us actually "fundamentalists." Thus, the "extremists" are the elite in BOTH parties who seek to tax and regulate our every move and pit us against each other using class warfare, moral issues and an oppressive tax code - always "the ends justify the means."
I'm not excusing repubs, but democrats have moved this country towards big gov't for 100 years: 1913 with the income tax/fed reserve, continued "progress" with FDR, picked up speed with LBJ's Great Society and took off like a rocket under BHO. The repub leadership really sold out after Reagan: thus the RINO was born as was the Tea Party.
Tragically, there is no way back to self governance other than taking back the republican party from the elitists, THEN if possible, MAYBE the democrats. You mentioned a "democrat that doesn't raise taxes." There hasn't been one since JFK, but something to shoot for. A viable third party candidate will ensure democrat control.
Here's what's going to take a leap for you common-sense, old school democrats: you will need to register REPUBLICAN (hold your nose) and vote for true Constitutionalists in the PRIMARIES.
As far as the moral issues go, keep in mind that Tea Party members largely agree to leave those issues up to the STATES, and to have a legit national discussion if we are to amend the Constitution.
Consider: One tax rate, no corp subsidies, care for the needy at the state/local level. This economy would take off like a rocket.
Wh
Reply to this
Hear, hear! I agree & don't care how long winded it was. This mess requires a complicated fix & can't be summed up in one paragraph. This country needs to be returned to the people. We want to know that we aren't being sold out to the UN & NWO! The constitution can hardly be respected by us when it's own government doesn't adhere to it. Enough with the lies & corruption. Return our checks & balances & if you want to create jobs, rather than creating more government czar & underling positions, create civil jobs which serve to inform the public of what our public officials are doing! And for God's sake, return Him to our country before morality is as absent as God in our leadership. We need healing. Political, spiritual & moral healing. God bless US All!
Reply to this
A little long winded, but I agree with Adam. Our Constitution was created to balance the need to have a federal presence on the world stage, with absolute limitations on what it can do to the individual. The States are the molders of the society within . The 10th Amendment was put in specifically to address this, and it is now largely ignored.
Reply to this
Cuomo, huh? I think that you stay awake nights dreaming up scenarios to scare the hell out of the GOP. Good luck with that - Boehner will work with Obama, and he'll work with Cuomo - probably in 2016, because Obama will be sitting in the White House until then.
Reply to this
Cuomo would be a nightmare for the GOP. This isn't all that far out either. The far left will throw the Bamster over in a second if they feel their agenda is going down the toilet. They will not be happy until the nanny-state is making all of our decisions for us. If Obama gets sent packing, Cuomo would be a tough fight.
Reply to this
I don't know much about Cuomo, but I do know that I'm not going to make the mistake of voting for Obama again. If it's this Cuomo guy, I guess my vote would depend on what the GOP guy was saying.
Reply to this
You know, I could see this happening. It's a conspiracy theory I can believe in. As long as we don't get stuck with Biden for any period of time as President, it could work.
Reply to this
Oh, geez - don't give them a game plan. This will be a cakewalk if it's just obama out there. You really don't need to be planting any seeds for the libs to get the upper hand.
Reply to this
Like we're not already thinking about this. Obama is losing the argument. We need a better standard bearer. If we can get the loser to step aside all the better. We'll push him if we need to.
Reply to this
This is a fun exercise, but it's pretty pointless. No one is going to take on Obama because whoever does will get destroyed by him. Chicago way and all. There'sno one out there with any possibility of being taken seriously that wants their career to end on a fool's errand.
Reply to this
Let them all challenge him. It would turn the left into the circus that it really is.
Reply to this
It would be fun to watch them feeding on themselves, but no matter what happens Obama will be the nominee. Reputations have been destroyed for less.
Reply to this
So let's say they get Cuomo, and we wind up with Romney. Doesn't that work out to running 2 candidates pretending to be more conservative than they really are?
Reply to this
OK, so what results (not who) are you all looking for? Lower taxes? Feed the poor? Gay rights? Help me out here.
Reply to this