PoliticsDaily.com

Obama's Compromise: Neither Reaganesque nor Clintonian

Regarding President Obama's announcement of a proposed compromise with Republicans on taxes and extending unemployment benefits, it strikes me that there were two things he could have done politically: stand up to Republicans and try to stare them down over the notion of them holding the middle-class tax cuts hostage by wanting to give millionaires a tax break -- while not extending jobless benefits (at Christmas!) -- or claim the whole compromise idea as his own and declare victory.

Either option would have signaled a coherent strategy moving forward. We might not have agreed with his move, but it would have at least made strategic sense.

Instead, Obama chose a third way -- he conceded defeat, accepting a compromise that he admitted he didn't much care for. As Jonah Goldberg put it on Fox News, Obama was "not a guy declaring a victory. This is a guy made to eat spinach."

Obama, of course, was forced to eat that spinach because he is in deep political trouble, lacks the votes to pass his agenda, and now must worry about his dwindling re-election chances. To change that, he must seek to replicate the success of Presidents Reagan and Clinton who, after bad losses in midterm elections, went on to win re-election.

But Obama punted when presented with an opportunity to pick a strategic model.

Clinton, of course, faced with a similar situation, became famous for "triangulating." Liberal partisans will say such a move is a sign of weakness, but standing up to one's own party and ideology takes guts. As Clinton adviser Dick Morris recalled in his 2002 book, "Power Plays":

Every time Clinton's internal gyroscope called for a move to the center, the ideological police of his party were there to try to drag him back to the left. That he could defy them enough to balance the budget, cut crime, and slash welfare rolls is a testament to his courage and skill.

Ultimately, though, it was Clinton who led the way to the center, seemingly by choice (though we know that wasn't the case).

Continues

===================

My issue with what Pres.Obama did is that he didnt just compromise, he capitulated. He totally caved in. 

This is not about optics.  Yes, for sure he looked and behaved like cattle cornered by the fence.  He behaved like a caged hungry fox when Dems complained that he gave in.

Compromise is NOT doing what both sides want. It is when both sides let go a reasonable degree of their demands and move towards the center.  They didnt.  It was more like, Mr.President, you get 3 items in your list; we get all 10 to the fullest degree.  That is not compromise.  That is being balled down 9 pins in one in a bowling alley, (whatever that is called).

You never go into a negotiation without knowing your walk-away point. Pres.Obama did not have a walk-away point..  He had not prepared the nation for a potential walk-away point.  So, he had no standing for negotiation. 

Bottomline, Pres.Obama does not know negotiation. This is bad news for the next two years.