Obama - A Lame Duck After One Year?
February 8, 2010
By Tom Barrett
A few weeks ago I received a phone call from Dave Williams, my best man many years ago when I married my bride. Dave lives in what he calls the Socialist State of Massachusetts where he used to be a state police office. He joyously informed me that Scott Brown, a Republican, had just won Ted Kennedy's seat in a previously unimaginable upset victory. I interrupted the conversations of the ten other ministers with whom I was dining to give them the good news. After expressing their joy, their interpretation of the victory was similar to Dave's and mine – this spelled the beginning of the end for Obama's Socialist agenda.
And this is just the latest in a series of political body blows that Obama has had to absorb over the last few months. First there were the two stunning losses of governorships in New Jersey and Virginia that the Democrats fully expected to retain. Republicans winning those governor's mansions caused considerable heartburn in the White House, because Obama has to run again in less than three years, and governors have a lot to do with bringing their state's votes to their party's candidate.
During that same election period the race for a US Congressional seat representing New York State caused great consternation in both the major parties, even though the Independent lost by a small margin. Again, the seat was considered a lock, but this time for the Republican Party, which had held it for the last 17 terms. An Independent named Alan Hoffman announced for the seat and very quickly polled much higher that the candidates for both of the major parties. The Republican, a liberal, pro-choice person who was not favored by the Conservative voters, knew she should step down, but did not do until she had split the vote and thrown it to the Democrat.
This frightened Obama and the Dems because it showed how vulnerable they were to a Conservative Independent. The Republicans were frightened for the same reason. That experience has caused a shift in the type of candidates the Republicans have been putting forth. They now understand that in order to ride the wave of change that is sweeping the nation, they must become more conservative or become irrelevant. But that's a different article.
Scott Brown's victory was a stunning defeat for Obama, the Democrats, and the Liberal-Socialist agenda in general, because it meant that they no longer had a filibuster-proof "super-majority" in the Senate. Regardless of their political persuasion, this was good news for all Americans. It has never been healthy for the nation to have a dictator in the White House, and that is effectively what we have had any time we have had a president of either party who controlled both houses of Congress.
Scott Brown made it clear in his acceptance speech that he was going to Washington to stop the government takeover of the health care industry. Teddy Kennedy was the Senate's strongest proponent of the wasteful multi-trillion dollar bill. The loss of his seat to a strong opponent of the bill is an indicator of the massive change in the attitude of Americans toward the bill and toward the president. Obama went to Massachusetts and made a personal appeal to try to get the Democrat elected. If the President of the United States can't get a Democrat elected to a seat that has been held by a Democrat for 40 years in Massachusetts – something has changed!
Health care "reform" has been at the top of Obama's agenda. Suddenly he's barely talking about it. If Scott Brown hadn't won, half of his State of the Union address would have been about the health care bill. But he barely spoke about it.
Instead, he talked about what the people are concerned about – the economy and jobs. Of course it was just that – talk. For instance, "Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed." (FACT:
The unemployment rate was 8% when Obama took office; it is 10% today. In what world does that translate to 2 million more people working?) "And we're on track to add another one-and-a-half-million jobs to this total by the end of the year." On track? Is that the same as "Hope"?
His self-serving commentary on the economy would be humorous of it didn't have such serious consequences for the nation: "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted — immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."
I hardly know where to start. He doesn't mention that the government is FAR more deeply in debt today than when he took office. And you will note that the "experts" who thought we "might" face a second depression were from the "political" spectrum. He couldn't find one credible economist who would support that false claim. And yes, a year later, the worst has passed – as it always does in the normal ebb and flow of the economy.
And many economists have stated that the economy would have recovered more quickly without the so-called stimulus bills.
The bottom line: Obama is on the ropes. He has been forced to back away from his far-left agenda. And against his will, he may have to keep his campaign promises and start to work with members of both parties.
It remains to be seen whether Obama is actually a lame duck president after only one year in office. But one can hope.