White House Hoping For GOP Takeover?

[SkinsHokieFan]

This is just some fun political talk. And makes tons of sense (to me at least)

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhi...r-gop-takeover

Buried in a story in the Politico today on the growing friction between the House Democrats and the White House is an intriguing bit of news from an unnamed insider: House Democrats are beginning to wonder if the White House is intentionally throwing them under the bus:

One Democratic official ... (said) some Democratic House members actually believe that the White House “wouldn’t mind having a foil, and that foil is a Republican (House) majority — that would serve their political purposes going into 2012.”
These House Democrats say privately that veterans of Bill Clinton’s administration working in Obama’s White House may think having a Republican majority in Congress will help Obama win re-election, as it did Clinton in 1996. House Democrats know that Obama will do whatever it takes to win re-election, whether or not it helps members keep their seats this year.

The story goes on to quote White House adviser David Axelrod saying that such theories are “not based in reality.”

Nevertheless, political experts have long noted that presidents tend to do best when the opposition party holds Congress and struggle when their parties have the majority. Jimmy Carter struggled despite Democratic domination of Congress, while Ronald Reagan thrived in the same environment. Bill Clinton stumbled when his party controlled Congress but regained his footing after the GOP takeover of 1994. George W. Bush’s having a GOP-led Congress for most of his term did not help him pass social security or immigration reform, etc.

The problem appears to be that one-party control creates unrealistically high expectations from supporters that anything can be done. In reality, even a small minority can often block action in Congress. The Founding Fathers intended the system to work this way. It also makes the victories by the minority party in stymieing the president’s agenda seem like an even bigger deal. To put things in perspective, today’s frustrated Democrats were yesterday’s proud gridlockers stopping Bush’s Social Security reform.

On the other hand, having the opposition party in control of Congress not only gives the president a foil to play against, but it eases the pressure on him to pass anything big for his own base. They know not to expect as much.

So it’s not surprising that some Democrats may be wondering if the White House wants to get back to its campaign days, when they were struggling against the odds. That’s a lot more than its first year actually governing when fans wanted a radical shift in health care, energy, labor and foreign policy.

[ACW]

Cliff's Notes please?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Cliff's Notes please?

Formatting is fixed

[zoony]

I'm not even going to read that before I comment- and just throw it out there that a GOP Congress would at least give the Obama Administration an excuse as to why they can't get anything done.

Because right now they don't have one.

Now- let me read the article

[ABQCOWBOY]

I tend to agree with this.

[mjah]

I'm not even going to read that before I comment- and just throw it out there that a GOP Congress would at least give the Obama Administration an excuse as to why they can't get anything done.

Because right now they don't have one.

Pretty sure the Democratic Congress is a legitimate excuse in the eyes of anyone who's paying attention.

And dropping the affiliation, simply blaming "Congress" without qualifying the majority, will work on those who aren't paying attention.

In politics there's always a serviceable excuse.

[Rdskns2000]

Maybe Obama could then become the guy he campaigned to be.

[Burgold]

The Democratic Congress has behaved very poorly and is deserving of scorn. They act so much like the Delay led Republican Congress which was ugly, divisive and destructive, except Delay was able to get everyone to line up and get what he wanted done.

The Dems majority Congress has to be a disappointment to the White House. After all, they're a disappointment to practically everyone else.

[twa]

Ah yes... the Hammer had his faults,but incompetence was not one of them

[Burgold]

Ah yes... the Hammer had his faults,but incompetence was not one of them

Yup. I though he was a rat and how he ruled Congress was terrible and ugly, but one can not argue that the bum was effective. He did create long lasting animosity and his legacy is one of divisiveness and failure, but for a short window he sure made his party march to his tune while intimidating, silencing, and locking out the other guys.

[AsburySkinsFan]

A GOP win in 2010 will quickly turn the favor back to Obama because we'll all get a nice reminder as to why we voted them out in the first place.

[Chopper Dave]

I'm going to follow zoony's lead and merely skim the article before I comment.

Okay, skimmed.

I like it. Pelosi and Reid are incapable of getting anything done. The Republicans can't get one or both of the houses and still simply just say no to everything. It's a commonly accepted notion that more gets done in when you have different parties in Congress and the White House.

I really do like this. As the map plays out, Obama will probably win no matter what in 2012. Let's shake things up for 2 years, see if we can get something done with the Republicans in Congress, show the Democratic leadership that the White House will **** THEIR DAY UP if they **** with them, and take Congress back in 2012 for the start of Obama's second term. I like it.

[twa]

Hmm
intimidating, silencing, and locking out the other guys.

Sounds familiar, yet with no results

Perhaps because declaring "I won" is easier than actually accomplishing something.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Perhaps because declaring "I won" is easier than actually accomplishing something.

Much in the same what that saying "No" is as seen in the GOP obstructionism.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'm going to follow zoony's lead and merely skim the article before I comment.

Okay, skimmed.

I like it. Pelosi and Reid are incapable of getting anything done. The Republicans can't get one or both of the houses and still simply just say no to everything. It's a commonly accepted notion that more gets done in when you have different parties in Congress and the White House.

.

I don't think its an "accepted" notion. The fact is, its probably better because nothing gets done then.

From 1994-2000, what major piece of legislation can you think of that passed? Welfare reform. Telecom act of 1996. Repeal of glass steagel

Thats probably it over a 6 year period