Can Obama break the second-term jinx? Presidential Inaugurals bad for birds -- and more!
The serious newspapers and political websites are full of articles about how so many recent President imploded during their second terms. Can President Obama break the jinx?
The WASHINGTON POST's Scott Wilson writes the President is trying to aim big:
WITH AN EYE ON LEGACY, OBAMA DEVELOPING SECOND-TERM STRATEGY
"Amid his fiscal negotiations with Congress and the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama has managed to hold several 'think-big' meetings recently with senior advisers in the Roosevelt Room, and this month he dined with historians in the White House, searching for a rough road map for second-term leadership.
As one senior administration official described the brainstorming sessions, Obama has made a request that challenges the instinctive pragmatism he has shown in office.
'Let's not focus on what's possible or doable', Obama has advised, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. 'Tell me what our goal should be, and let me worry about the politics'.
At the center of Obama's search for a second-term strategy and lasting legacy sits a question being asked now by supporters outside the administration and officials within it:
Can Obama, given his political personality and partisan circumstances, be the transformational president he aspired to be or, instead, just a moderately effective manager during difficult times?"
That brings us to a column from rigorously non-partisan columnist Robert J. Samuelson in The WASHINGTON POST:
For this story to even be a concern, you can tell the press corps of this nation is rapidly aging.
By the way, the same jinx applied to Washington's second term.
Mon, Jan 21, 2013 11:32am
My take on this can be found in The Bible, specifically 1 Samuel chapter 8, where Israel asks for a king. I won't copy/paste the whole thing here for the sake of space, but here's a link where you can read it all:
Good article Mike.
Krauthammer put everything in proper perspective...if only the Republicans would actually listen to this man.
His quote below sounds like a good plan for the Republicans to follow:
"Want to save the Republic? Win the next election. Don’t immolate yourself trying to save liberalism from itself. If your conservative philosophy is indeed right, winning will come. As Margaret Thatcher said serenely of the Labor Party socialists she later overthrew: “They always run out of other people’s money.”
Mon, Jan 21, 2013 9:02pm
The liberals in congress and the white house aren't worried about running out of other people's money. They figure they can always just print more of it.
Mike from Delaware
Mon, Jan 21, 2013 10:10pm
Mr. Pizza: I think the point Krauthammer was making is, rather than the House GOP being perceived as a barrier to what the nation chose (they re-elected Obama and company for a second term). Let Obama and the DEMS have their way and if the GOP plan is good, by time the next election comes around in 2016, the people will be hungry for it and the GOP can make a come back and take the White House and both houses of Congress. THEN they can fix the damage done by Obama and the nation will THEN be behind them rather than fighting them. In other words, give the people what they want. Right now they want Obama and company, by 2016, they'll have had enough and will be begging for some sanity and at that point the GOP can come riding in on a white horse.
Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:56am
Let's see: the next vestiges of Obamcare become the law. A budget deal puts a dent in spending,although most of the nations' most vulnerable citizens will fall the the cracks. Obama pushes through 'comprehensive immigration reform' (legalizing illegal aliens).
No new wars and the economy just teeters along.
Not a bad term for the President of the United States.
Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:58am
Ooops, I forgot. Universal background checks on all gun sales, but not enough political courage to outright ban the assault weapons and large magazine clips.
All in Obama's second term.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jan 22, 2013 8:29am
Teatime said: "A budget deal puts a dent in spending,although most of the nations' most vulnerable citizens will fall the the cracks."
What budget deal that badly affects most of the nation's most vulnerable who will fall through the cracks? Who are these most vulnerable? Obamacare will provide medical coverage for those who don't now have it, Medicaid for the welfare folks will still be there, Obama certainly won't hurt Social Security, so I'm confused as to your meaning.
Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:57pm
MFD: It's unfortunate that the only hope the GOP has of winning is to just let liberalism fall on its own sword. If people are hungry for conservatism by 2016, it will be because the system will be wrecked beyond repair.
You and Krauthammer are probably right. It will take four more years of 1 Samuel 8 for America to learn its lesson.
Mike from Delaware
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 8:27am
Mrpizza: That was a religious society vs ours being a secular society.
A couple of things I get out of that passage. Samuel's sons who he appointed to be judges over Israel, became corrupt, unlike their father. This sounds like both DEM and GOP parties. Both are corrupt and without honor or integrity.
You act as if only the DEMS want a King of their making. Are the Republicans so different? Not at all. Just because the GOP has an anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage platform doesn't make them the "Godly party".
The GOP cares little for the poor and the lesser than thee and view the Middle Class as glorified surfs to serve them on the manor farm. The mainstream part of the GOP doesn't care a wit about the moral issues that you and I as Christian's believe in, they're just using folks like us to help them win elections. We're simply pawns in the political chess game both sides play.
The DEMS are no better; however, they DO care about the lesser than thee, but have the morals of a New York hooker.
There are parts of "liberalism" that aren't evil things, like Social Security. Prior to 1936 when the first payout of Social Security went out to the elderly, many of the elderly lived in poverty, even though they had worked, paid taxes, and contributed to our society. Mr. Romney, who I did support, was dead wrong to put those who get Social Security into his now famous 47% are takers remark. I don't know about you sir, but when I retire at 66 (Lord willing), I'll have worked full time paying into Social Security with every pay check for 47 1/2 years. I did my part of the deal, I've played by the rules. I totally expect Uncle Sam to keep his end of the deal when I retire. I am NOT a taker, I paid my way.
THAT's one of the biggest things wrong with the GOP. Here was some wealthy guy, who had free college, etc, paid for him by his wealthy Daddy, telling folks like me who've worked their butts off all their lives that because we want the government to finish their part of the deal (that they had no problem taking taxes from us for that program) that we're takers ??? That's Horse Hockey.
So you can bow and genuflect in front of the GOP elephant if you want, but no thanks. You won't see me bowing or genuflecting in front of the DEM donkey either.
I worship one God, the true God and his Son Jesus Christ. That's where my faith rests. As the ole expression goes, In God We Trust, all others pay cash - heh heh.
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 11:28pm
MFD: I'm not talking about the politicians wanting a king - I'm talking about the American people wanting one. The American people are the equivalent to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and politicians, especially the Democrats, are more than glad to be their kings, with all the taxation-without-representation that goes with it.
Hail, King Obama!
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 8:12am
Mrpizza: You seem to forget the GOP "King" His Royal Highness George the "W". He thought he was the king of the world and quite often ticked off the rest of the world with his arrogant pronoucements, where if you are with us, you're against us, etc, etc. Nope, its not just DEMS, but the GOP too who like kings, as long as its THEIR king.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 8:13am
typo, should have said: where if you are not with us, you're against us, etc, etc.
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 8:21am
Excuse me, but Bush never said that. It was Hillary Clinton who SAID Bush said that.
Mike from Delaware
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 8:28am
Excuse me, but I heard Bush on TV more than once say such arrogant stuff.
Sat, Jan 26, 2013 3:32am
Okay, so if you disagree with Bush you're a traitor. If you disagree with Obama, you're a racist.
I guess that makes me a patriotic racist!
Mike from Delaware
Sat, Jan 26, 2013 9:22am
Mrpizza: You're so partisan that its impossible to intelligently discuss this with you. You're premise essentially is -- the GOP is right 100% of the time and the DEMS are wrong 100% of the time.
Because I don't condemn every thing or idea Obama speaks and don't hate the ground he walks on doesn't mean I agree with him on all things. Sorry, but he's not wrong in the belief that we need some sort of medical coverage for all Americans. Now I didn't say "Obamacare" is the answer, but I agree with the idea that we need health-care coverage for all Americans. How we do that is the hard part.
Obama wants gun control; I believe that background checks should be made on EVERY gun sale, including private ones. I believe a gun-owner should have a gun-license (much like a driver's license) where the gun-owner successfully passed a NRA gun-safety program. I believe the HIPPA laws need to be changed so that someone with a mental problem can be reported so that he/she cannot get their hands on guns via a purchase (most of these school shootings are not criminals from the hood shooting up schools, but nut-jobs from the suburbs).
On the other hand, Bush Jr. was totally wrong to drag us into Iraq. I said it then at the time and have been saying ever since. Bush Jr. came across like an arrogant President. Yet Bush is a good man, he loves our nation, and frankly if he'd not listened to VP Cheney so much, he might have been a decent President. As it turned out, Bush Jr. wasn't a very good conservative, but became a Neo-Con which is why our economy went from the surplus we had at the end of the Clinton/Gingrich era to the debt we had at the end of the Bush Jr. era. Yes, granted Obama has added to that debt, BUT the GOP, so-called conservative Bush Jr. put us there with his idiotic unfunded wars. Does that make Bush evil? NO, but his face will never be on Mount Rushmore either.
So maybe you can listen to elRushbo, Hannity, and Jensen and swallow the nonsense they shovel out five days a week and be a clone that believes ONLY the GOP is correct and the DEMS are evil-incarnate, but I'm NOT that gullible.
Both parties can, and have been evil at times and neither is honorable. So I base my vote and views on each issue, etc. Sometimes I side with the GOP other times with the DEMS. So on this we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Sat, Jan 26, 2013 10:56am
Mike: You beat you head against the wall too much trying to prove yourself to me. Just relax.
I don't think anybody on the planet is 100% right. In fact, my party has pretty much left me at this point.
Mike from Delaware
Sat, Jan 26, 2013 11:42pm
Mrpizza: Its not that I want to prove myself to you, but that you'll acknowledge that the GOP, just as the DEMS aren't correct 100% of the time.
Your last post above, acknowledges that as you apparently aren't totally happy with the GOP. I'm just burned out on the extreme partisan-ism of both sides. So many folks act like this is a football game and winning is all there is. My point of view is making this country work and succeed IS winning. I don't care if its the DEMS or the GOP that make it work, but someone's got to make it work.
So you saying what you posted above in your last sentence is a real breath of free air. I say, welcome to the club of folks who CAN be honest enough to admit their political party doesn't always represent what they personally believe to be the best course of action.
Your comment that, your party has pretty much left you is exactly how I feel about the DEM party. I used to be a Democrat. Became an Independent when they picked Bill Clinton as their candidate. Just couldn't accept the idea that a known womanizer was their choice for Prez. So I became an Independent and have stayed an Independent since. The DEM's of today are not the party of FDR, Harry Truman, or even JFK in terms of party platforms and goals. So I totally understand your last sentence and greatly appreciate your honesty.
Sun, Jan 27, 2013 12:10am
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.