Obama: One and Done

In the Washington Post, Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell call for Obama to declare that he will not run for reelection in 2012.

President Obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

In recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country's problems. At one point, he spoke of the need for "mid-course corrections." At another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. And before this month's midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve "hand-to-hand combat" with Republicans, whom he also referred to as "enemies."

It is clear that the president is still trying to reach a resolution in his own mind as to what he should do and how he should do it.

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.

The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment - or of the 2012 campaign.

This is just goofy.

It's true that Obama has been a miserable failure as president so far, but to suggest that he should announce immediately that he will not run for a second term in 2012 is nuts.

They can't be serious.

It's so short-sighted.

Schoen and Caddell write:

Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer: "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." He now has the chance to deliver on that idea.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama spoke repeatedly of his desire to end the red-state-blue-state divisions in America and to change the way Washington works. This was a central reason he was elected; such aspirations struck a deep chord with the polarized electorate.

Obama can restore the promise of the election by forging a government of national unity, welcoming business leaders, Republicans and independents into the fold. But if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. And yes, the United States will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control, to name but one issue.

What is this about? Why would Schoen and Caddell suggest something so odd?

Both are Democrats.

Patrick H. Caddell, who was a pollster and senior adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is a political commentator. Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster who worked for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System."

I don't believe that they've tossed aside politics.

Are they trying to come up with a way to assure that Obama be considered one of our greatest presidents and they think the only way for him to achieve that is by quitting?

If he would announce his intention not to run now, why bother serving out the rest of his term? Why not just step aside and resign? Let Obama start posing for his statue right away.

I think playing the legacy game just two years into a presidency is stupid. It's stupid at any time. It's incredibly self-centered.

Obama sold himself in 2008 as being post-partisan. That was campaign rhetoric. It was a crock.

2008 wasn't the first time an American politician managed to get elected by misleading the people. Nonetheless, Schoen and Caddell claim to be so disappointed and so concerned about the polarization in the country and the challenges ahead that they're calling for Obama to quit politics so he can focus solely on getting his face on Mt. Rushmore.

Every president has to balance being a political figure in his own party with being the leader of the entire nation. Obama's task is nothing new.

Although Obama's midterm "shellacking" was historic, it's not the first time the people have slapped down the president at the ballot box.

There's no question that the country is polarized but it's been polarized far worse than this. Do Schoen and Caddell recall the Civil War?

True, Obama has lost credibility at home and abroad.

That didn't stop the stunningly incompetent Jimmy Carter from running for a second term. Of course, it kept him from being reelected, but not from running.

It seems that Schoen and Caddell are getting a jump on laying the groundwork for Obama's loss in the 2012 election, attempting to frame his presidency as great in spite of the certain rejection by the American people, and the bitter defeat that he's sure to face.

That's ridiculous. So much can change in two years. Do they have so little faith in Obama's willingness to compromise?

It's also possible that via their lame column they want to open the door for another Democrat to run in 2012, thereby saving the Democrats. Perhaps Hillary Clinton.

(No, Russ Feingold, not you. Someone a bit more centrist than Obama, not more radical.)

Schoen and Caddell conclude:

Should the president [not be a candidate in 2012], he - and the country - would face virtually no bad outcomes. The worst-case scenario for Obama? In January 2013, he walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly - and so will the public.

It is no secret that we have been openly critical of the president in recent days, but we make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country.

We have both advised presidents facing great national crises and have seen challenges from inside the Oval Office. We are convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.

It's crazy for them to say that if Obama decided not to run he and the country would "face virtually no bad outcomes."

Obama and the Democrats have already seriously damaged the country and brought a tremendous amount of suffering to the American people.

"No bad outcomes"? Too late.

He has already "governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader," in the way that he has flipped off so many citizens and just plowed ahead without consideration for their concerns.

There's no way Obama can reconcile the nation unless he backs off his Leftist agenda and that's not going to happen.

Schoen and Caddell are naive to think that Obama would change his stripes if he declared that he's quitting after one term. And the move certainly wouldn't serve to "isolate the Republicans."

The people who voted for change two weeks ago want the Republicans to work for them. We want the country to change direction. We need them to act. Obama announcing his retirement after one term is irrelevant to that end.

In short, there's already too much bad blood for Obama to unite the country. He's not going to drop his extreme Leftist mindset. He had a chance to transform politics in Washington as we know it and he blew it.
________________

Here's the January 2010 video of Obama talking to Diane Sawyer about being a one-term president:



Transcript

DIANE SAWYER: Even in the middle of all that's coming did you think maybe one term is enough?

OBAMA: (Laughs heartily) You know, um, I, I would say that the one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. Uh, and I, and I believe that.

You know, um, there's a tendency in Washington to think that our job description, uh, of elected officials is to get reelected. That's not our job description.

When your poll numbers drop, you're an idiot. When your poll numbers are high, you're a genius. If, if my poll numbers are low, then I'm cool and cerebral and cold and detached. If my poll numbers are high, boy, he's calm and reasoned.

What a load!

A really good president by definition wouldn't be a one-term president.