Hillarysworld

"
How Many Fights Will Obama Pick With America?

by Thomas Del Beccaro

Politics is a game of addition – successful politics anyway.  Great leaders, when faced with a divided electorate, not to mention difficult economic times, use a limited agenda to forge consensus out of broken paradigms.  Once they achieve an initial success, they seek a broader consensus.  In the 1980’s Reagan faced a divided Republican Party and a fractured and dispirited nation.  Concentrating on the prosperity issue and our national prestige, Reagan first brought Republicans together and then independents and even many Democrats.  Indeed, so successful was Reagan at bringing people together, that in time he could rely on a group of Reagan Democrats.  Few other Presidents have had such success at building consensus let alone are able to claim a voting block from the other party in their name.

There is little doubt that Obama faced a divided electorate when he first took office and a difficult economic climate.  Rather than start with a limited agenda designed to build consensus, Obama did the opposite.  Obama chased too many rabbits at once and preferred ideological fights over practical solutions.  As a result, the Country is more divided than ever – not less.

The most recent manifestation of that divisive M.O. is the White House’s amazing decision to insist on a terror trial in New York.   Of course, it remains a jarring ideological decision to treat KSM as a “criminal” versus the warring “terrorist” that he is.  As I wrote, in my article Internment, CSI and Eric Holder’s Disarming of America, that decision will have profound negative consequences for decades to come.  To the point of this article, Obama is compounding his initial divisive decision (treating him as a criminal) by fighting with New York over the place of the trial.  It is a political fight which he cannot win regardless of the outcome of the trial.

In addition to that fight, Obama’s first year featured a huge and controversial agenda that has not served his Party or his Presidency well.  Keep in mind that successful Presidents achieve but two, maybe three, lasting achievements during their terms – many less than that; hence the need for a targeted and consensus building agenda – not a controversial far-reaching agenda.

Out of the gate, this President chose controversy over consensus.  His massive, $800 billion spending/stimulus bill divided Americans.  To be sure, there is not a majority in this country for uncontrolled deficit spending.  Indeed, the deficit is at the height of American worries and more Americans than not think the bill has not worked.

Next, Obama took on Cap and Trade.  While it is unsurprising that those on the Left – who  arrogantly think they can socially engineer the lives of free people also think they can engineer the climate of a 4.7 billion year old planet – there is little doubt that pushing that major agenda was not a consensus building maneuver.  Witness the fate of that bill and the cries of moderate Democrats if you think otherwise.

From there, Obama pushed a massive ideological takeover of 17% of the US economy in the form of the Health Care bill. [snip]

More . . .
"
=========

And, of course, now he picks on Vegas.


Never forget that this President thinks he is qualified to lead and govern as President because he did a successful campaign of divide and rule involving sending scripted talking points to the MSM.

If MSM remains with the WH talking points, and  the people are willing to stay accept MSM's word as gospel....   ... but neither is likely with economy in the dumps the way it is.




-- Edited by Sanders on Wednesday 3rd of February 2010 12:09:39 PM