Resign yourself to not having Barack Obama to kick around very much anymore.

This is basically what happened:

President Barack Obama wanted Congress to pass a variety of trade-related proposals, and he didn’t want to have to rely on Republican votes in order to see that happen. He lobbied his fellow Democrats in favor of trade, and he lobbied them hard. In the end, it wasn’t enough. On Friday, the president endured a stern censure from the very members of the party for whom he once served as a savior. Barack Obama’s presidency is all but over. It’s Hillary Clinton’s party now, but she does not seem inclined to lead it so much as to emerge as its supervisor by default and through a process of attrition. She is not in a hurry to rush that process, and there is no alternative Democratic leader waiting in the wings. Inadvertently, what House Democrats did on Friday was to decapitate their own party.

…and it’s important largely because it means that the President is going to be more and more constrained in his activities for the next year. Not because Barack Obama understands his limitations any better; because everyone else around him will.  If I was a federal bureaucrat right now I’d be taking a cold, clear-headed look at whatever directive from President Obama comes down the pike, and asking myself: what is this guy’s successor going to think about this? – Because the next President is going to be somebody who ran for office on a platform of hacking back the regulatory state, and whether or not you believe that can happen the next President will still at least be able to lop the tops off the most egregiously tall stalks.  Which is still bad news, if you’re one of those stalks.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: There are many, many people out there who assume that there will never be another Republican President, and that there certainly will not be one in 2017.  And at least some of those people do so because then they don’t have to worry about the painful, messy, and often frustrating realities of governing. I politely suggest that those people, at least, start taking seriously the possibility that the Republicans will win the next election, because the people who take that possibility seriously are going to be the people most assured of being listened to by the Republican party leadership. There’s a classic political text that presents an argument along these lines; I wish that more people would read it.

16 thoughts on “Resign yourself to not having Barack Obama to kick around very much anymore.”

  1. Don’t worry the Bush campaign has entered Pickett’s charge mode.

    Bloomberg Is Jeb Bush’s campaign in Pickett’s Charge mode?

  2. Moe, the chances of the Republicans winning the 2016 Presidential election depends largely on the candidate. If we have another candidate like Romney, chances are we will lose.

    I don’t think Jeb Bush and Chris Christie could win.

    It is possible that Lindsey Graham could beat Hillary due to his foreign policy experience, (I don’t think he’d be a good President).

    I think Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, and Carlie Fiorena could beat Hillary.

    1. And I would add that one of the surest ways that the Republicans could lose any putative elections in 2016 would be to demoralize their own voter base. Tuesday, the House under Boehner will bring the TAA part of the Trade Enabling Act back up, and if he has his way the Republican Party will pass it for Obama’s benefit.

      When the Republicans use their electoral power to pass the Democrat agenda, people don’t see much reason to vote Republican as an alternative to Democrats.

      There is nothing in that case to vote FOR.

        1. Alas, I must admit that I have not been very favorably impressed with the man’s actions, as well.

          1. I issued a challenge, in another forum, to cite one thing Boehner did that was useful to conservatism.
            Thus far, the individual challenged has responded with “but Harry Reid!” …
            I .. do not accept an inability to work around a guy who got beaten up by gym equipment as a valid excuse… but then, I *am* in the private sector, and I *do* expect results.**
            ** Classical ref.

      1. Moe, I want the strongest candidate possible to run against Hillary that would be the best President. I don’t want us nominating another flop of a candidate.

        As such, I’m giving my own analysis of the situation. It is better to ruffle feathers now so that we nominate someone that can win, instead of trying to rally behind a very weak and uninspiring candidate.

        Remember when the primaries were going on in 2012, I said that Romney couldn’t win the general election and I got ripped for it.

        Romney was the weakest candidate to face Obama (barring Ron Paul, and Obama’s former Ambassador). He couldn’t attack Obama’s weak points due to Romneycare. He provided Obama his favorite attack line (class warfare).

        Look Romney may be a good man, but he was not a good candidate to face Obama. If it had been Romney vs Hillary, then his chances would have been better.

        In fairness to Jeb, he does have a chance of beating Hillary, particularly due to the Clinton scandals; however, I don’t think it’s likely.

        Furthermore, the behavior of Boehner and others in congress isn’t helping matters.

        1. He would have been an excellent candidate to face Obama in 2008, when it would have been much easier to attack Obama’s inexperience and the crisis of fall 2008 played right into his expertise. He wasn’t the greatest in 2012, but everyone else running was worse (Perry shouldn’t have been, but he was).

          1. Considering how much he had to outspend his opponents by, I’d say he was one of the worst candidates. Look the mainstream media was shilling for Romney during the primaries, doing their best to keep us from uniting behind anyone else, because they thought he was the easiest to beat.

            I believe Gingrich vs Obama would have resulted in a Gingrich victory.

            Perry probably wouldn’t have won unless his health improved.

            Santorum could have beaten Obama, it wouldn’t have been easy, but he could have done it.

          2. You know, I think we’ve been analyzing the wrong problem. The question isn’t “Which candidate can win?” so much as it’s “How can we enable the primary system to pick an optimum candidate without crippling that candidate’s chances in fratricidal competition?”

            I see two potential solutions: Enforce Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, and get rid of winner-takes-all primaries and caucuses.

  3. Hillary Clinton will not get more than 200 electoral college votes in 2016. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will go red.

    You read it here first.

Comments are closed.