The Veiled Message in Clinton’s Endorsement

A highly strategic political game is being played out right before our eyes between the leader of the old-school liberal Democrats and the leader of the new-school socialist Democrats.  When Bill Clinton atoned for his sins in a New York City joint fundraiser with Obama, all I heard was “This Obama guy is no Bill Clinton”.

We got the message…

Don’t misunderstand Clinton when he calls Romney qualified and praises Romney’s business record.  Clinton is not giving up on his party affiliation.  If anything, he is trying to convert his party back to what it was before Obama.  Dick Morris is likely right when he insinuates that Clinton doesn’t want four more years of Obama.  But Clinton doesn’t necessarily want to see his party fail.  Nor does he want to lose the power and influence he has amassed for himself in the DNC.  He just wants to see Obama fail.

That is why Clinton’s endorsement was not a call to support Obama, but a veiled warning to stay home in 2012.  Clinton reminded the crowd that he is the one who gave them four balanced budgets.  Contrast that with Obama who has increased the deficit by a trillion and a half dollars every year in office, and whose wildest dreams of a budget won’t balance even ten years after he leaves office.  Every Obama budget has been voted down bi-partisanly as outlandish to both Republicans and liberal Democrats.  Nothing says “vote for the guy who’s added $6 trillion to the deficit” like an endorsement from someone who’s record is the polar opposite.  Clinton flaunting his budget record in his Obama endorsement was no mistake or gaffe.

Now, Clinton is not a deficit hawk.  He is not pro-austerity, and he certainly is not a conservative.  Anyone who has been alive long enough knows that it was Newt Gingrich who dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into those balanced budgets.  But Clinton’s perception of himself is as a non-socialist compassionate liberal who cut spending and saw it work.

Clinton cannot support Romney.  First, Clinton is not a conservative.  He opposes Romney on social issues.  He doesn’t really agree with Romney on fiscal issues.  Second, Clinton has no higher ambition at this point than to maintain what he has: his life as a Democrat celebrity.  An actual endorsement of Romney would destroy the Clinton dynasty.

But at the same time, Clinton knows what works and what doesn’t.  Even he can look at the Obama record and see what danger our country is in if the new-school socialist Democrats win.  Setting aside Clinton’s personal and racial beef with Obama, he understands what Obama’s out of control spending will do to the Democrat party’s legacy, and by extension his own, if Obama is given another four years to outspend revenues by over a trillion a year.

If Obama is smart, he will find a way to keep Bill Clinton in whatever corner of the country he has kept Joe Biden for the last four years.  However, don’t count old Slick Willy out yet.  Obama may be about to get schooled by the original campaigner-in-chief.

 

“Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my Party for another term as your President.”

Bookmark and Share    Last week White House 2012 asked readers if they believed  that there was a Democrat who could challenge President Obama and snatch the his party’s nomination away from him. In that poll, 49.15% of respondents indicated that they believed Hillary Clinton could do that while 25.42% feel that no one can take the nomination away from him at this point. That was followed by other names that readers felt could beat the President which included 8.47% for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, 5.08% for former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, 1.69% for Howard Dean, and 10.17% who believe that other Democrats could take the Democratic nomination away from President Obama.

At the moment, the President is so vulnerable that even the most optimistic of liberals must be having doubts about President Obama’s reelection chances. In many ways it does seem that his prospects for reelection are dimming each day. With increasing bad economic indicators, high unemployment numbers, low consumer confidence, and nothing to show for his effort except for a national debt that he brought up to crisis levels, no one is willing to suggest that Barack Obama is the person best suited to lead America in the right direction for the next four years. This is reflected by numerous national polls which demonstrate that President Obama is now at the lowest approval ratings that he has ever seen. On Monday Rasmussen reported that the President is approved by only 22% of those voters who are currently not yet committed to him or any particular Republican candidate who is running for President.

With the writing on the wall, President Obama has even realized that he must really work some magic to turn both the economy and his approval around. Yet his latest attempt failed to pull any rabbits out of the hat and was nothing more than a regurgitated version of his previous stimulus packages which only achieved the first ever downgrading of our national credit rating. After his big roll out of this plan before a special, nationally televised, speech to a joint session of Congress, most people simply yawned and asked themselves……. “didn’t we hear him say this before?” And now that President Obama has fired his big guns with his new jobs bill, it would seem that he has nothing left in his arsenal.

Oh sure the President can continue to position himself through an attempt to wage class warfare. And he can try to position himself in a way that will allow Republicans can be blamed for the economy because of their lack of support for his jobs plan. But such maneuvering still won’t help him. At some point people see through the posturing and at some point they will not deny where the buck stops and why it is not making its way in to their pockets.

That is why there are some who are beginning to wish that President Obama would decline the nomination to a second term.

This suggestion recently appeared in of all of places, The Chicago Tribune, one of President Obama’s hometown newspapers. In 2008, Barack Obama was the first Democrat that the paper endorsed in its 161-year history. Yet in the particular article, columnist Steve Chapman wrote;

“Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.”

Chapman who supported Obama also noted the following;

“Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, “it’s going to be impossible for the president to win.” Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: “Panic.”

Then there was a Monday morning article that appeared in the Washington Times which had the headline Liberals Vow to Challenge Obama in Democratic Primaries. According to that piece, so-called progressive leaders and more than 45 liberal leaders (both terms mean Democrats) want to recruit six candidates to challenge President Obama for the nomination in order to give a greater voice to liberal positions on everything from the military to poverty.

So it would seem that no one is really pleased with Barack Obama. His base feels he has not gone far enough, his opponents believe he has gone to far and those who are in the middle just don’t approve him of anything that he’s done. Such a situation does make it look as if Democrats would be better off running someone other Barack Obama in 2012. With him at the top of the ticket, not only do Democrats improve their chances of losing the White House, they will find themselves likely to lose control of the Senate and unlikely to gain any ground towards retaking control of the House. This would be a trifecta for Republicans that would set liberals back for a decade or more and spark the type of talk about the Democrat Party that Democrats themselves brought up regarding Republicans in 2008. After taking control of all three federal legislative branches, many on the left claimed that the G.O.P. was going the way of the Whigs.

Such setbacks could leave an incredibly negative legacy that will truly damage the  progressive, liberal Democrat agenda.  For that reason, the question of stepping down has to be at least considered. When President Lyndon B. Johnson saw his base divided and his popularity pummetting, not only considered not seeking reelection in 1968, he took advantage of not running.

While history still questions exactly al the reasons why Johnson decided not to run for reelection, it is clear that he was not entering the ‘68 campaign in a position that would have allowed him to win any popularity contests. He was even receiving a significant challenge from liberal Eugene McCarthy. Although Johnson did not actively campaign against McCarthy in the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, McCarthy still embarrassed Johnson by coming within 7 percentage points of defeating the incumbent President. But by that point in 1968, it was too late for Democrats to turn their electoral fate around, regardless of who they ran at the top of their ticket.  By November, not only did Democrats lose the White House, they lost seats in the Senate and the House. From the look of things now, President Obama will be costing Democrats far more seats  in 2012 than they lost in ‘68. And to make matters worse, the losses will be so severe that the G.O.P. will be able to repeal the President’s single self described, greatest accomplishment….. socialized healthcare.

No matter how you look at it, President Obama is doing no one any good. He is not helping his own Party and more importantly, he is not helping America. Which is why WorldNetDaily columnist Joseph Farah offered his own unique strategy. Farah suggests that Sarah Palin challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. He writes that “the idea would be for Palin to win the Democratic nomination with mostly Republican and independent votes.”

By getting Republicans and Independents to change their Party affiliations so that they can vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses, Farah believes Palin could beat Obama or at the very least, cause him to spend some of his ample war chest before the general election. According to Farah,

“Personally, I believe most Americans would lose interest in the Republican contest and focus their political money, time and energy on the Palin-Obama race.” He adds, “I think it’s a sure-fire recipe for saving America by making sure Obama is not even a viable option in the general election. He might be forced to run as a third-party candidate, a write-in or not at all! “

While Joseph Farah’s Rush Limbaugh-like 2008 launch of Operation Chaos which compelled Republicans to vote for Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primaries, such a scheme for Palin is unlikely to work. But Democrats should be able to turn to someone other than Sarah Palin to save them. Right now President Obama is a rudderless ship steering the United States into the thick ice. Republicans are more than willing to change the course before the hull of our ship of state is pierced and the water starts filling in. And right now most voters agree with the need to change course. The only people who do not believe so are the diehard Democrats. Unless one of them is willing to admit that the ice is straight ahead and the wayward Captain must be removed from the helm, the American voter will be forced to do so in an electoral mutiny that will throw many Democrats overboard come Election Day 2012.

Of course there is always the chance that Republicans can simply blow their chance to prove themselves. They could get off topic and begin to make Barack Obama look like the rational candidate running. But the G.O.P. will have to really screw things up to do that. Still I do not past it past the ability of the Republican political establishment to shoot it self in the foot, However; is hoping that the other guy screws up more than you really a good strategy? It’s time for us to stop the hoping that President Obama wants us to keep doing and it’s time that someone start the doing that we need. Since 2008, Americans have moved far beyond hoping for change and are now demanding big changes. Whoever can prove that they will provide real change in 2012, will win. For Democrats, the best way to show that they are the the agents of change is to change the top of their ticket.  But we all know that  four more years of the same we’ve seen is not the kind of change that anyone is hoping for.

Until and unless a Democrat is willing to come forward and say “I must save the Party and the nation from Barack Obama”, only President Obama can spare us from any more of his failures. And while many may view the chances of President Obama declining a run for a second term as thin to none, they should remember that few anticipated Lyndon Johnson’s announcement that he would refuse the Party’s nomination for President in 1968.

Back then President Johnson, was delivering a speech regarding the war that was raging on in Vietnam. But at the very end, he shocked the nation with the following words;

“Believing this as I do, I have concluded that I should not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year.

With America’s sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office–the Presidency of your country.”

 Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my Party for another term as your President.”

Given the seriousness of our national debt and budget problems, problems which our own Secretary of Defense defined as a national security issue, is it that hard to see President Obama do the same as Johnson? Can any one not see President Obama say the following after delivering another speech about the economy?;

“I have concluded that I should not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that preventing us from making the hard decisions that are required to reduce our debt and get our economy back on track.

With America’s working force sidelined, with America’s future being challenged right here at home and abroad, with our hopes and the children’s hopes for propsperity in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office–the Presidency of your country.

 Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my Party for another term as your President.”

President Obama does not need to actually mean those words. He does not need to believe those words, but by saying them, he will give his Party a fighting chance in 2012 and as a lame duck President, he will create the opportunity for liberal leadership to come out of Congress,fill the void that he has created, and allow for a new voice to offer a viable liberal vision for his Party.

Bookmark and Share

Voters Still Believe Hillary Could Take the Nomination Away from President Obama if She Challenged Him

Bookmark and Share    This past week, White House 2012 asked readers who they believed could defeat President Obama if they challenged him for the Democratic presidential nomination. Given that he has helped lead us in to the longest recession in our national history and has accomplished nothing other than expanding the size and scope of government, the question is a legitimate one but the likelihood of that happening is now nonexistent.

However, nearly 50% of WH12’s readers believe that if she chose to challenge the President for re-nomination, Hillary Clinton would be able to defeat him. That was nearly twice as many as those who believed that no one can defeat President Obama for the nomination. This was followed by 8.47% who think New York Governor Andrew Cuomo could have a shot at beating the President for the nomination.

The actual results were:

Interestingly, unbeknownst to WH12, Public Policy Polling recently took a survey of Democrat primary voters in South Carolina which asked;

“If the Democratic candidates for President in 2016 were Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Russ Feingold, Kirsten Gillibrand, Deval Patrick, Brian Schweitzer, and Mark Warner, who would you vote for?”

The results of that poll were as follows:

  1. Hillary Clinton 57%
  2. Joe Biden 23%
  3. Andrew Cuomo 5%
  4. Deval Patrick 2%
  5. Russ Feingold 1%
  6. Mark Warner 1%
  7. Kirsten Gillibrand 0%
  8. Brian Schweitzer 0%
  9. Someone else/Undecided 11%

When asked the same question without Hillary in the field, respondents gave the first place nod to Andrew Cuomo but by a margin significanty smaller than Hillary:

  1. Andrew Cuomo 15%
  2. Mark Warner 8%
  3. Russ Feingold 7%
  4. Deval Patrick 4%
  5. Kirsten Gillibrand 3%
  6. Brian Schweitzer 2%
  7. Someone else/Undecided 61%

The way I see it though,  it won’t matter who Democrats run in 2016, they will lose to the second term bid of the Republican President we elect in 2012.  And if by chance the G.O.P. screws 2012 up, it still won’t matter who Democrats run in 2016, because they will not be able to defeat Marco Rubio, the man who in that scenario will undoubtedly be the Republican nominee.

Bookmark and Share

Gore/Clinton 2012 Fading, but Hillary is Golden

Back in mid June, I wrote this.  Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would be successful primary challengers to Obama.  I think this very early prediction may need some adjusting.

Al Gore has recently joined the quickly backfiring liberal trend of charging opponents with racism in any context.  Gore, whose own father voted against the Civil Rights Act, said that global warming deniers should be treated like racists.  So, Mr. Gore, as a global warming denier myself, I’ll be expecting a gift-wrapped tie on Father’s Day.

Of course, Gore’s timing is terrible.  This is also the week that Andre Carson declared that TEA Party members would like to see blacks hanging from trees.  The constant charge of racism, especially towards a multi-racial group like the TEA Party, is getting stale and ridiculous.  At this point, Democrats who make charges of racism every time someone disagrees with them have lost credibility.

Enter Hillary 2012.  Back in June I didn’t think Hillary would have success at the head of the ticket because she lost in 2008 and has worked for Obama ever since.  In fact, hiring Biden and Clinton were probably the smartest things Obama has done politically. Now, I think she may have a better chance.

The worse things get, the more nostalgia sets in.  People start to fool themselves into thinking Hillary could be as moderate as her husband became when Newt ran Congress.  Already, 32% of Democrats are admitting they need a primary challenger.

Hillary could pull a Rick Perry, riding a wave of anti-current field sentiment and quickly becoming the front runner.  By entering the race now, she would be a fresh face.  She would carry the excitement of being something new and different.  She would bring change, the only thing more distracting to a Liberal than a shiny object.  She could offer the Democrats everything Obama has failed to deliver on, even though her similar policies would produce the same results.

If ever Hillary was going to be President, 2012 would be her year.

 

Bachmann, Lincoln Agree: Founders Opposed Slavery

George Stephanopolous probably thinks he’s a pretty smart guy.  At least he didn’t call Michelle Bachmann a flake.  But his attack on her facts about our founders just might backfire against his own credibility.

For most, it really is no secret that many of our founding fathers did oppose slavery.  Even the ones who owned slaves saw it as more of a necessary evil.  To borrow from Hillary Clinton, who said this about abortion, they believed it was “horrible and tragic, but should be safe and legal”.  They understood though, that if they tried to fight the revolutionary war and civil war at the same time, they would lose both.  Still, they did fight to end slavery, even if only laying the groundwork for it’s final elimination.

John McCormack, writing in the Weekly Standard, is now demonstrating that Abraham Lincoln believed the same thing as Michelle Bachmann about our founder’s work to end slavery.  He used that argument in his own speeches against slavery.

From the article:

“The Founders put slavery on the path to ultimate extinction, Abraham Lincoln said. But the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 threatened to bring about slavery’s resurgence by opening up new territories to slaveowning. In 1854, Lincoln made this argument in a series of speeches on behalf of candidates opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. “In these addresses Lincoln set forth the themes that he would carry into the presidency six years later,” writes Princeton’s James M. McPherson in the Battle Cry of Freedom. McPherson summarizes Lincoln’s argument:

The founding fathers, said Lincoln, had opposed slavery. They adopted a Declaration of Independence that pronounced all men created equal. They enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery from the vast Northwest Territory. To be sure, many of the founders owned slaves. But they asserted their hostility to slavery in principle while tolerating it temporarily (as they hoped) in practice. That was why they did not mention the words “slave” or “slavery” in the Constitution, but referred only to “persons held to service.” “Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution,” said Lincoln, “just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time.” The first step was to prevent the spread of this cancer, which the fathers took with the Northwest Ordinance, the prohibition of the African slave trade in 1807, and the Missouri Compromise restriction of 1820. The second was to begin a process of gradual emancipation, which the generation of the fathers had accomplished in the states north of Maryland.

Here’s what Lincoln said of the Founding Fathers in his 1854 Peoria speech:

The argument of “Necessity” was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory—-the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word “slave” or “slavery” in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a “PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR.” In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit,” &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade—-that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory—-this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries—-as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808—-the very first day the constitution would permit—-prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.

In Lincoln’s famous 1860 Cooper Union speech, he noted that of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 22 had voted on the question of banning slavery in the new territories. Twenty of the 22 voted to ban it, while another one of the Constitution’s framers—George Washington—signed into law legislation enforcing the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery in the Northwest Territories. At Cooper Union, Lincoln also quoted Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favor of Virginia emancipation: “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly….””

 

Gore/Clinton 2012?

Al Gore has a new cause: socially responsible capitalism.  And it could be his ticket to the Whitehouse.

Now, Whitehouse2012 is normally a GOP primary website blog and I certainly would never endorse an Al Gore candidacy.  However, it is worth noting that Barack Obama’s economy is in trouble, his ideologies are becoming highly unpopular with many of the social liberal/fiscal conservative Democrats who elected him, and the contrast between his words and deeds are becoming ever more apparent.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but Obama’s policies are failing and he has no one left to blame.  Even DNC Chair Debbi Wasserman-Shulz said Democrats own this economy.  Of course, in her opinion things are going pretty well in America these days.  Obama on the other hand, with a playful chuckle, has admitted that his trillion dollar stimulus hasn’t created the “shovel ready jobs” he hoped it would.

Meanwhile, Al Gore is presenting himself as a contrast to the anti-capitalist rhetoric of his party.  At least that is how he is positioning his pro-socially responsible version of capitalism.

Gore has some other things on his record that could make him a formidable opponent to Obama:

1. He won the vice presidency twice and won the popular vote in 2000.  Al Gore may be the last person left who could run against the “wrongs” of George W. Bush and actually get votes because of it.

2. Gore has Clinton/Gingrich’s economic coattails to ride.  Bill Clinton balanced the budget, even if he did it by siphoning money from Social Security.  But that could help Gore too, after all he coined the term…

3. Social Security lockbox.  Just sayin’.

4. Gore is the ultimate green energy advocate.  I mean, come on.  He won a Nobel Prize.  Nevermind that his garage consumed more energy every year than George W. Bush’s entire property.

5. Gore is an outsider who has been out of the spotlight long enough for the stink of dirty politics to wear off.  People look at the Clinton years and even Gore’s candidacy with nostalgia now.  Sure he tried to sexually assault a massage therapist a few months back, but he’s a Democrat.  It’s part of the job description.

All Al Gore needs is a good running mate.  Who better than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?  While Obama is out there bowing to dictators and can’t seem to rub enough etiquette together  to keep from embarrassing himself every time he visits England, Hillary has become somewhat of a rockstar of foreign policy.

In fact, she is even the hero of a new comic book.  How’s that for an inspiring idea for a Summer 2012 movie?

Hillary is the Democrat most Democrats wish they had run in 2008.  She fixes Obama’s overseas messes, and can invoke the “following orders” argument for embarrassments like our war on Libya.

There is still time for an opposing Democrat ticket to make a primary out of it.  When this latest leg of the great Obama recession kicks into full gear, a Democrat primary is going to look real appealing to the disappointed left.

So you heard it here first: Gore/Clinton 2012.  Time to get the band back together.

%d bloggers like this: