Fearfully, the Democrats Creep Towards 2012

Clarice Feldman over at The American Thinker neatly captures the mood:

I think sentient Democrats are watching their party’s chances in 2012 slip away, and had they not made such a big deal of claiming all opposition to  Obama was racist in motivation and effect, they would now be urging him to quit and seeking a  new contender for his office.  Like Coleridge’s ancient Mariner, however, they can only stand on deck with that albatross around their neck watching both the White House and the Senate slip from their grasp just as did so many state governorships and the House of Representatives.

In the meantime the Ship of State runs  aground on the shoals of  incompetence,  corruption and laughable idiocy…

Ed Morrissey is also on the same wavelength, writing about the prospect of Obama not seeking a second term.  Farfetched?  Certainly…but it has happened before, most notably in 1968 when President Johnson surrendered to his foes (foreign and domestic) and withdrew from contention.  For Democrats it is the summer of discontent – nothing has gone right, and nothing looks like it will go right…and none of them really know what to do about it.

Some liberals out there, I’m sure, are hoping that the downfall of the Gaddafi regime will give Obama a boost.  It will – but not much, and not for long.  Thing about “leading from behind” is that any attempt to take credit for success looks silly…as if you were afraid to stick your neck out, but them leap to the front, claiming credit when things work out.  Also, if handing us bin Laden’s head on a platter only gave Obama a temporary boost, the downfall of Gaddafi doesn’t look to do more than move the needle for a a day or two (yesterday, Rasmussen had Obama approval/disapproval at 44/55…we’ll watch and see).

It must feel a bit like being in a car driven by a maniac…you want to reach out and grab the wheel, but you’re afraid if you do, the car will crash. All sensible Democrats must realize by now that Obama was massively oversold.  Also, that the concept of spending money to cure a recession/depression leaves much to be desired.  Having now a clearly unfit leader and an economy which can only be fixed by ditching 80 years of liberal politico-economic policy, they are rather boxed in.  They have to stay in the car, they have to let Obama hold the wheel…and they have to defend policies which have clearly failed.  Can’t be fun for them.

Unless there is an unforeseen turn around in our economic picture there is a huge hurdle to Obama being re-elected next year (stories that his personal popularity will trump distaste for his actual policies are asinine…no one will re-elect a likeable failure).  How Democrats will play it remains to be seen…but if by May of next year you start seeing Obama fund raising drying up while Senate Democrats are awash in cash, then you know what has happened:  the party is writing off Obama and trying to keep the GOP below 60 Senators, if not out of the majority.

And, of course, Morrissey could be right – Obama might quit.  About 1000-1 again, but it is a real possibility.  So, too, is a real primary challenge.  It could get mighty interesting next year (we’ll leave the prospect of a GOP split – and still having a GOP victory – for another day).



26 thoughts on “Fearfully, the Democrats Creep Towards 2012

  1. Cluster August 22, 2011 / 10:46 am

    Holder should be in jail, and Obama should resign over the gunwalker scandal.

  2. libertyatstake August 22, 2011 / 10:52 am

    Obama quitting is about as likely as Hillary baking cookies for Bubba. Next to zero – he (Obama) is on a mission from Alinsky. Abort is not in the playbook.

    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    • Sunny August 23, 2011 / 12:30 pm

      What a stupid remark.

  3. Green Mountain Boy August 22, 2011 / 12:31 pm

    Barack Obama will not run for president in 2012. Barry Sotero will.

  4. arcman46 August 22, 2011 / 1:19 pm

    Obama is an albatross around the neck of the Democrat party. The Leftists wanted to have their Messiah so badly that they failed to consider that not only was he vastly unqualified for the job, but that he was also about to jump into a situation where he was vastly over his head. As a one-time lifeguard, Obama reminds me of the drowning man, who decides that he is going to climb on top of his rescuer, thus causing both to drown.

    • js August 22, 2011 / 2:32 pm

      as the puppet or the puppeteer…no matter…the twain as one and inseperable…

      soros is why obummber is president…his DNC…insured that for him…something like…200 million dollars cannot be positively show…to have come from citizens of the USA…for obummers campain…and nobody…wants it investigated…well..not nobody…just people who hold the power to demand that investigation be done without outside inflence…once again…soros…who is a socialist…has many strings to his puppet…

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. August 22, 2011 / 4:09 pm

        Barack Obama is president because the majority of Electors cast their votes for him; plain and simple. And also very Constitutional! He also received more than 62 million votes that counts for something.

      • neocon1 August 22, 2011 / 6:46 pm

        diane velcrow BS MF

        illegals, drunks, felons, stuffed boxes, fraud, NBBP intimidation,
        yeah the tooth fairy voted for the kenyan kommie to.
        a flop like mcLame nearly beat him.

  5. js August 22, 2011 / 2:04 pm

    pure democracy works…for tyrants as well as communists…the key is to control who people can vote for…and to villify and criminalize the opposition…

    in a republic…political parties…dont control who can run for office…anyone can take a chance under the democratic theory…

    and thats sufficient to realize…that the United States is devolving from a republic to a democracy…thank the DNC for that….then the GOP as well…because they allowed it to happen right under thier noses…

  6. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. August 22, 2011 / 4:18 pm


    Obama’s current political playing field and that of Johnson cannot be compared. Obama will run in 2012 but he very likely, barring a resurgence of the US economy, will not win a second term. Then everyone here who is calling for the damage done to the US economy and to America as a nation over the last decade to be reversed in a swift manner will be calling for patience as the GOP realizes to its horror that they have wished for power at the worst possible time for their set of solutions.

    Imagine a United States in late 2014 with Bachmann/Perry/Ryan/Palin as President and unemployment well over 11% and the Fed powerless to do anything about INFLATION? Now, in that scenario with Obama as President you would be calling for “revolution” wouldn’t you?

    Another few questions: How long do you expect to wait for prosperity to return to America once a GOP president is elected? What unemployment rate would you accept as a sign of recovery? Does that same unemployment number apply now to President Obama until November 2012?

    • RetiredSpook August 22, 2011 / 4:52 pm

      Imagine a United States in late 2014 with Bachmann/Perry/Ryan/Palin as President and unemployment well over 11% and the Fed powerless to do anything about INFLATION?

      My, how times have changed since one of your cohorts made this comment 18 months ago:

      For quite some time you never commented about economic issues because there’s very little “spin room” when it comes to matters of economics. Back in September 2006 when the first frays in the US economy were appearing the commenters here were quick to make their arguments as to why the same man you now tout as an expert on the “dismal and poor” economy was dead wrong.

      Roubini was making the same warnings in 2004 and then he was assailed by the right as an operative of the left whose sole purpose was to try to put fear in the minds of voters that the “housing boom” was in jeopardy. Now we know that what Roubini said then was correct. I think he may be correct now as well that there will be another spike in unemployment toward 12% and then it will reset sharply in the fall of 2010 with the rate being under the 8% mark by Q3 2011. All of this will be over and the new economy will be battling inflation by Q3 2012 as the US economy once again is creating over 150K jobs per month. The problem isn’t who is in office Mark the problem is that the people in office have too much time to help fix what’s wrong. No matter how much you pray for economic failure there’s just too much time between now and the next presidential election for your side to use the economy to regain the Congress and the White House. Ten quarters was enough time for Reagan; it’ll be enough time for Obama. (emphasis added)

      Along the way you can enjoy gaining seats in he 2010 election cycle and other little victories but none of the things you really care about will have changed. (Sadieannmartin at B4V 1/31/10)

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. August 22, 2011 / 5:05 pm

        Roubini and Sadie missed the mark on those calls clearly. Much of the fault there lies in the hands of businesses and banks that refuse to get off the cash and start hiring. this would be the best stimulus of all.
        In August of 1983 unemployment stood at 9.5% higher than the current rate [thought the labor force was smaller then] and by October 1984 unemployment was 7.4% so it is not impossible [given a renewed stimulus from the private sector] that a similar turnaround could happen now.

    • Mark Edward Noonan August 22, 2011 / 10:41 pm


      Fixing the economy is quite simple, if very painful. Balance the budget (or, at least, send it in that direction within a 5-7 time frame) and eliminate taxes and regulations which punish wealth creation. This will immediately cause a severe recession (though, of course, by the time the GOP gets in to power in January of 2013, we might already be in one) which will last about 18 months as all the bad debt and worthless financial garbage in our economy is killed off. Inflation won’t be a problem because (a) demand will collapse during the recession and (b) we’ll tar and feather the Federal Reserve if they try to print their way out of a banking collapse. We’ll get badly hurt in the 2014 mid-terms as we suffer through the worst of it (though with what we’ll run up in 2012 we’ll probably still maintain our majority) but by then, even though the pain is bad, recovery will already be taking hold. By 2016, we’ll be getting that 5-7% growth you’re supposed to get out of a recession…but even that might not be enough to lower unemployment (which may spike as high as 25%) sufficiently to save the GOP President elected in 2012…but that would be ok, even a Donk coming in on January 2017 wouldn’t be able to undo the deep and lasting reforms already enacted…and would probably still have at least a GOP Senate to contend with.

  7. RetiredSpook August 22, 2011 / 4:59 pm

    BTW, Diane, the last President to be re-elected with unemployment over 7.2% was FDR. I don’t see any dynamic, other than BLS ramping up their effort to fudge the numbers, that gets it below that point in the next 15 months. What the Republicans can do to get it down to that level depends entirely on what majorities they have in Congress and who the President is on 1/20/13.

    • M.Q. Duck August 22, 2011 / 5:39 pm

      “What the Republicans can do to get it down to that level depends entirely on what majorities they have in Congress and who the President is on 1/20/13.”

      Retired Spook. Could eloborate on that. This is kind of a vauge statement. How about just a best case, worse case scenario?

      • Cluster August 22, 2011 / 6:18 pm

        I will expand on that, and taking a page from Newt:

        We have to repeal Obamacare, repeal Frank Dodd, reform tax code, reform entitlements, reform regulations, lift the oil exploration moratorium, and bring some certainty to the private markets

      • M.Q. Duck August 22, 2011 / 6:23 pm

        Ok. I agree with all that but how many reps and senators are needed and which person would you need as president?

      • Cluster August 22, 2011 / 6:27 pm

        Well, if we had reasonable democrats, like Evan Bayh, it wouldn’t take too many, but considering the current crop of far left, looney tune democrats, we may need a 60 majority in the Senate, and Marco Rubio for POTUS.

        But since Rubio is not running, we may have to force Romney or Perry to get it done.

      • M.Q. Duck August 22, 2011 / 6:31 pm

        How would you go about forcing Romney to get it done? Perry I am not so sure you would have to force but the jury is still out on him.

      • Cluster August 22, 2011 / 6:41 pm

        Is this a game of 20 questions that I am not aware of yet?

      • M.Q. Duck August 22, 2011 / 6:44 pm

        Not that I am aware of. You stated that Mr. Romney may have to be forced to agree with your program. I am interested on how this might be accoplished.

  8. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. August 22, 2011 / 5:07 pm

    Actually the October 1984 number was 7.4% making Reagan the last president reelected with unemployment that high.

    • Caveat Emptor, Arguendo Reductio ad Absurdum August 22, 2011 / 7:15 pm

      Obama, I served with Ronald Reagan, I knew Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. Obama … you’re no Ronald Reagan.

    • RetiredSpook August 22, 2011 / 11:54 pm

      The October, 1984 number may have been 7.4% (actually it was), but the election was held in November, when the rate was 7.2%.

  9. Cluster August 22, 2011 / 6:04 pm

    Great to see you back in the battle spook!

    Diane, there is a reason why business’s are sitting on their cash and not hiring, and the fact that you and other liberals can’t figure that out, just cements my assertion that liberals should never be allowed to govern. And the trajectory this country was on when Reagan was elected in ’84 is night and day compared to the trajectory we are on now. Just saying

    • RetiredSpook August 22, 2011 / 11:59 pm


      It all stems from the fact the Liberals generally believe that the purpose of business is to provide jobs, and that businesses that have extra money have a moral obligation to use that money to hire people. Although they haven’t yet run off with John Galt, a lot of American business owners are pulling a modified Atlas Shrugged, and I, for one, think it’s about time.

Comments are closed.