A rebuke of the president |
Featured Commentary

A rebuke of the president

We know Barack Obama is good at least at one thing — getting Barack Obama elected president of the United States. How good he is at being president of the United States is a subject of considerable debate. A less debatable proposition: He is just plain awful at running a political party.

People often forget that among the many formal roles the president has — commander in chief, first diplomat, etc. — he is also the leader of his own party. And in that role, he stinks.

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. In 2008, Obama was supposed to herald a new progressive era, the harbinger of a new New Deal. He flipped several solid red states blue — or at least purple — and many Democrats, led by Obama himself, believed that a permanent realignment had arrived.

Confident that history was on his side, Obama ran Washington on a partisan basis, using solid Democrat majorities in the House and Senate to ram through ObamaCare. It was the most partisan major piece of social legislation in a century.

In 2010, retiring Arkansas Congressman Marion Berry warned the president that ObamaCare felt like a replay of the disastrous “HillaryCare” effort of 1993 that led to a historic 54-seat Democrat loss in the House of Representatives and put Newt Gingrich in the speaker’s chair. Obama scoffed at the suggestion, according to Berry: “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” He was right. The Democrats lost 63 House seats in 2010.

It’s true that Obama won re-election in 2012. Again, he’s good at running campaigns that are all about him. The problem is that ability doesn’t rub off on his presidency or his party, which is ironic given that in 2008 he insisted that his ability to manage a presidential campaign proved that he had the management experience to be president. He was wrong.

According to a lengthy report in The Washington Post, Senate Democrat operatives were exasperated with the president’s reluctance to help his party’s candidates get elected in last week’s midterms. He tasked his lawyers with monkey-wrenching efforts for Obama to fund raise for Sen. Harry Reid’s Senate Majority PAC.

“We were never going to get on the same page,” David Krone, Reid’s chief of staff, told The Post. “We were beating our heads against the wall.”

In Tuesday’s wake, any talk of an Obama-fueled realignment seems delusional. Young voters have soured on the president. Hispanics didn’t show up. Contrary to a lot of spinning early on election night, this wasn’t an “anti-incumbent wave”; it was an anti-Democrat, or more properly, an anti-Obama wave. The GOP captured Senate seats in Iowa and Colorado, each of which voted for Obama twice. The governor’s race in deep-blue Maryland, where Obama campaigned, went to the Republican as did Obama’s home state of Illinois and liberal Massachusetts. Incumbent Republicans triumphed almost everywhere while incumbent Democrats lost almost everywhere.

When the next Senate convenes, 25 more Democrats who voted for ObamaCare will be gone and the GOP’s majority in the House will be so big and solid that NBC’s Chuck Todd says Democrats won’t be able to recapture it until at least 2022.

But Obama is still the president, which is apparently all he ever cared about.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of “The Tyranny of Clichés.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.