Obama, a one term president?

[CookieMonster]

Pres. Barack Obama has made a tactical mistake, one that is characteristic of the man. Suffering, as he plainly does, from a tendency toward self-aggrandizement, President Obama has undertaken to do too much at once, seeking a radical re-ordering of American life: legal, political, economic, constitutional, and cultural. In some of these endeavors he is likely to be successful. On several critical fronts, however, Obama’s overreach has given conservatives an opportunity to put a halt to the worst of the president’s contemplated excesses. It is crucial that conservatives — congressional Republicans in particular — do not squander the opportunity that has been set before them.

The Agenda and the Moment by The Editors on National Review Online

Now, leaving aside the source of the article what struck me was this line: " President Obama has undertaken to do too much at once, seeking a radical re-ordering of American life: legal, political, economic, constitutional, and cultural."
Does that indicate that he knows that he must do as much to dramatically damage the American way now, because he knows that he won't have a second term to finish it off?

[Question R24U]

it is a tad early for that assessment to be made. Obama's haste could just have as much to do with a fear that he won't survive the term. Unlike blair, obama has not finished off his opponents and the next election is far from certain.

[lapsedmethodist]

Unless he gets beaten in the Democratic primaries, he won't get beaten by anything on the Republican horizon.

[cactusflower]

The Agenda and the Moment by The Editors on National Review Online

Now, leaving aside the source of the article what struck me was this line: " President Obama has undertaken to do too much at once, seeking a radical re-ordering of American life: legal, political, economic, constitutional, and cultural."
Does that indicate that he knows that he must do as much to dramatically damage the American way now, because he knows that he won't have a second term to finish it off?

Now why would he want to do that ?

[youngdan]

Obama does not have one term. He has until January 2010.

His goose is cooked already. He got the bailouts so far through and he got cap and trade through the House by 7 votes.

However even with 60 democrats he can not bring it to the Senate and it is shelved till at least September.

He will try health care next most likely.


What he has to worry about is the 90 democrats who have signed on to Ron Paul's audit of the Fed. Roll on this debate.

[FutureTaoiseach]

That may be so but methinks he is also factoring in the risk of a Republican takeover of Congress next year. Since WW2 divided govt has been the norm in US politics, (usually a Democratic Congress and a GOP President). The latest Rasmussen poll shows those very dissatisfied with Obama exceeding those very satisfied. A Gallup poll still has his approval-rating at 58%. Roland Burris is not running for election so the Illinois Senate race next year is wide open. Chris Dodd has become embroiled in a controversy over his links to subprime lenders and a May poll has him trailing the likely GOP challenger 45-39. Kirsten Gillibrand was parachuted into NY and is on the right of the party with respect to guns, so a primary-challenge seems inevitable. Senate majority leader Harry Reid where he is contending with poor approval-ratings (voters want to replace him 45-35). On the other hand, the Senator John Ensign scandal evens things a bit in that state (59% want to replace him). Kay Bailey Hutchison is challenging Rick Perry for the GOP nomination for Texas Governor so that's another incumbency at risk. Incumbency is usually a plus in Congressional elections.

[KingKane]

Obama does not have one term. He has until January 2010.

His goose is cooked already. He got the bailouts so far through and he got cap and trade through the House by 7 votes.

However even with 60 democrats he can not bring it to the Senate and it is shelved till at least September.

He will try health care next most likely.


What he has to worry about is the 90 democrats who have signed on to Ron Paul's audit of the Fed. Roll on this debate.

That gap of 7 votes for the cap and trade was as a result of the deliberate managing of the democratic vote by the congressional whips in that they allowed loads of dems whose electorates would not be keen on the bill to go off the reservations on it.

[KingKane]

That may be so but methinks he is also factoring in the risk of a Republican takeover of Congress next year. Since WW2 divided govt has been the norm in US politics, (usually a Democratic Congress and a GOP President). The latest Rasmussen poll shows those very dissatisfied with Obama exceeding those very satisfied. A Gallup poll still has his approval-rating at 58%. Roland Burris is not running for election so the Illinois Senate race next year is wide open. Chris Dodd has become embroiled in a controversy over his links to subprime lenders and a May poll has him trailing the likely GOP challenger 45-39. Kirsten Gillibrand was parachuted into NY and is on the right of the party with respect to guns, so a primary-challenge seems inevitable. Senate majority leader Harry Reid where he is contending with poor approval-ratings (voters want to replace him 45-35). On the other hand, the Senator John Ensign scandal evens things a bit in that state (59% want to replace him). Kay Bailey Hutchison is challenging Rick Perry for the GOP nomination for Texas Governor so that's another incumbency at risk. Incumbency is usually a plus in Congressional elections.

Republican take over of congress are you indulging in wish fulfilment again? Sure there has been more divided government than not but how are the republicans going to win back the necessary seats in the house for this to happen? They are so far behind in some seats that changed hands last year someone running is going to be throwing money away just to have their name on the ballot.

[CookieMonster]

Unless he gets beaten in the Democratic primaries, he won't get beaten by anything on the Republican horizon.

I can certainly see that to be the case, I don't see any Republican with enough of the right stuff to be a credible presidental candidate. Well I don't see one right now anyway, but I think it could be early days in that reapect.

But you've hit the button with your first line, if he continues the way he is with the rapid and radical approach he is taking, which I think is unlikely to have the dramatic results that his administration are claiming, coupled with the fall in his approval ratings contonuing assuming things don't pick up that there could be some Democrat (Hillary hasn't gone away, has she) waiting to swoop in as white knight and knock St Barack off his pedestal when the time is right and then reap what, if any, rewards there are for Obama's work in their first (or what would have been Obama's second) term. Politics does tend to be short sighted.

Too much radical change too quickly was never going to go down well with Americans, we're already thankfully seeing a shift back towards conservatism. From the majority swapping from pro-choice to pro-life and recent surveys showing the country taking a more conservative approach. Maybe it won't even be a Democrat, maybe a non-descript moderate republican will seem like just to ticket after uber-liberal Obama. Again, who that could be I still haven't figured out.

[reknaw]

The National Review, hmmm. The neocon Pravda.

They do like a bit of wishful thinking, don't they?

Unless they can come up with something better than Sarah the Failin MILF, with Joe the Dumber as her running mate, Obama will have few worries.