by Frank James
President-elect Barack Obama possibly a one-term president?
That's what our former fellow Swamper, Jeff Zeleny now of the New York Times, said at a panel discussion yesterday in New York.
Zeleny's point was that if the economy doesn't turn around by the time Obama has to run for re-election, then Obama may find himself joining one-termer Jimmy Carter and not two-termer Bill Clinton in the pantheon of Democratic presidents.
White House reporters for The New York Times predict that the market collapse will force President-elect Barack Obama to abandon for now many of his campaign promises.
If his stimulus plan "doesn't work out, he may very well be a one-term president," said Jeff Zeleny, who covered Obama's campaign. "It's hard to imagine that he could be reelected if the economy's in the exact same position four years from now."
"A lot of the things he said on the campaign trail you can now dispense with," said correspondent Peter Baker. "For the moment he has to focus on the economy."
The reporters, gathered at a Sunday afternoon panel at the New York Times Center in New York City, largely concurred with the assessment that turning around the economy now trumps the issues Obama focused on from the stump until the market meltdown in August.
Baker suggested Obama would tackle smaller-scale issues related to his major agenda items as a kind of political "down payment" on his promises, for now would retreat from even some of his firmest pledges.
"You're not going to see universal health care, I don't think, this year," Baker said. "You're not going to see a cap on carbon emissions, as he has promised, probably, this year."
The Times reporters points make sense. The state of the economy often correlates with the whether an incumbent remains in office.
But you can't beat something with nothing and whether Obama is a one-termer or not would also seem to have a lot to do with who Republicans nominate and what his or her platform is.
Obama is fortunate in that few people will be able to fairly blame him for the economic downturn which will have preceded his time in office.
And he's making sure to say that conditions will get worse before they get better in an attempt to inoculate himself when they do get worse as many economists expect.
So far as his not keeping his promises for universal-heath care and carbon emissions, he can always point to the state of the economy as a reason why those goals couldn't be accomplished. Again, many voters will likely not turn against him on this because they know how awful the nation's economic situation is.
For those reasons, Obama may actually be able to defy the conventional wisdom when it comes to running against the backdrop of a weak economy and broken promises.
Another interesting aspect of the Politico story: the NYT's assistant managing editor noted during the discussion that Obama, unlike President Bush, hasn't sat down with NYT journalists following his election.
Here's the relevant excerpt:
"When the current president was elected, one of the first things he did was sit down with The New York Times and a battery of reporters," Berke said. "This president has not sat down with our New York Times press corps in a very long time, as even Bush did."
One possible explanation for that: as we all remember, Bush's 2000 election was controversial. Since he barely eked out victory, his first move had to be conciliatory if he hoped to govern. Thus the sit-down with the NYT.
Obama's victory was different because of the magnitude of his win and how his support cut across almost all voting blocs.
If Obama reached out to anyone, it had to be to the conservatives he didn't win. So that may explain why sitting down with the NYT wasn't at the top of his agenda.
Comments
Just like increasing taxes, Obama realizes that his reforms would hurt the economy, so he is unable to push them through right now. But wait until things turn around. Then it will be okay to destroy the recovering economy with all the baggage of social programs. What the libs don't realize is that rather than taking care of more people, we will be able to take care of less people with increased government involvement. Just look at LBJ's war on poverty. Do we have less poverty now? No, and his programs will bankrupt the federal government in the next 20 years.
Posted by: drillforoilnow | January 12, 2009 1:05 PM
Just like increasing taxes, Obama realizes that his reforms would hurt the economy, so he is unable to push them through right now
Posted by: drillforoilnow | January 12, 2009 1:05 PM
That's a neat little Repuglican fantasy you've got going on there....except that Obama isn't the Prez yet.
Try again.....
Posted by: Teresa | January 12, 2009 1:37 PM
Anyone can end up as a one term president.
Right now there doesn't seem to be any credible challenger in sight.
How could there be with a hierarchical party run by the latest in the Bush dynasty?
There are a lot of things that can be accomplished without handing 700 billion to Wall St.
You could provide a lot of relief to those Hispanic voters by:
1. reinstating 245(i)
2. reinstating 212(c)
3. making more family based visa numbers available for Mexico.
That's virtually costless.
You could make the liberal base less apprehensive by just shutting down Gitmo.
You could shake a lot of revenue by auditing all high income taxpayers. There are plenty of those bogus tax shelters that haven't been cracked yet.
The jerks in the Congress are going to try to derail the Grand Policy Initiatives.
These are the guys who applauded Ted Stevens after all.
They really aren't ready for reform.
They would only go along with the Big Reforms if the economy were as bad as it was in 1933, with 25% unemployment & all.
So perhaps some small but effective commando raids might be in order.
Also, no speeches wearing a sweater, and no free passes like the one Ford gave Nixon.
(I guess there already has been an indication of amnesty on Iraq wrongdoing.)
Posted by: ornery | January 12, 2009 1:50 PM
What the libs don't realize is that rather than taking care of more people, we will be able to take care of less people with increased government involvement.
Posted by: drillforoilnow | January 12, 2009 1:05 PM
Absolutely....let's continue the myth of trickle down. Nobody cares more about the little people than those who can look down upon them.
Posted by: bill r. | January 12, 2009 2:22 PM
the president elect and his Chicago dream team of gangsters are already laying the ground work to blame Bush when Obama's socialist agenda fails and the economy gets worse....just like F.D.R. did to Hoover.
You can take that to the bank!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | January 12, 2009 2:23 PM
The corporate media is Desperate for Any Obama news. They are running features on the dog, clothes, memorabilia, the grandmother moving in... anything Obama. It obviously brings them ratings. They are also Desperate to "create" fake controversy. This behavior is reprehensible and plain stupid.
The corporate media sock puppets can't wait to criticize before Obama even takes the oath of office, but zero questions for Bush about, I don't know, going into Iraq for no clear reason? Now everyone grows a spine? I'm all for asking the right questions instead of blind loyalty -- but to assume that everything will fail before it's even passed?
Where were you people when Bush was leading us to ruin? And really, if Bush could get reelected without accomplishing anything, why couldn't Obama get reelected by trying to accomplish something?
Posted by: Big Orange Satan | January 12, 2009 2:26 PM
He will be a one term reviled prez if he:
1. lets gitmo stay open longer than 100 days after inauguration.
2. Goes into Afghanistan before bringing the troops home
3. Doesn't freeze all assets of the war profiteers and end the stupid war fror oil
4. Get a REAL energy and transportation system planned and building.
Posted by: Be Bold Obama or Lose it All | January 12, 2009 2:35 PM
There is one big Nobel Prize in Economics out there waiting for anyone who can perform the autopsy on the Bush Distopian Economy.
Apply all those right wing concepts to the conduct of Bush, Cheney & Co.
The rent-seeks. The Blackwaters. The Halliburtons.
The Lobbyists (you know who you are).
The principal-agent problem.
Purposeful distortion if not fabrication of "market information".
Not for nothing was Bush the most secretive of Presidents since Nixon.
If you want to know where American prosperity went, where the peace dividend and the former surplus went, the answer won't be found even in as large a single fraudster as Madoff.
It was sytemic and systematic.
Your social security and medical benefits have been transformed into all that ammo sspent in Iraq and Gaza.
All those mortgage funds disbursed through straw parties into some very deep pockets.
All those legal fees to the 500 lawyer law firms for "securitizing" fraud.
All those commissions and fees "earned".
OK, so some of it has been sketched at by Krugman if you bothered to read his columns over the past 8 years.
No one yet has systematically autopsied the Bush regime in regard to its facilitation of fraud.
Posted by: ornery | January 12, 2009 3:14 PM
Here's the thing if Obama doesn't decimate the military, like most previous Democrat Presidents, makes the tax cuts President Bush put into effect permanent and really reaches out and gets the Congress both sides
to start to be a little more civil maybe just maybed he can turn things around and we will have an AMERICA we all can be proud of and give him a second term.
Posted by: Paul | January 12, 2009 3:18 PM
Lets hope so as he has made so many CHANGES in his CHANGE already,andf he hasn't come clear on many controversies..
Posted by: Inky | January 12, 2009 3:18 PM
President Clinton cleaned up the last Republican economic mess by raising taxes on the rich, and it worked out just fine for him and the country. President Obama will be just fine, and so will our country.
Posted by: Paul | January 12, 2009 3:23 PM
I've always said, no matter who won (Obama or McCain), they would only be one term President unless they proved exceptional at turning around the mistakes of the past eight years.
Posted by: Mike | January 12, 2009 3:29 PM
Sounds like NYT sour grapes. I like the drillforoilnow guy comment, of course we';re in deep sh*t because of righties, but let's believe this nozzle! Go ahead and open up the PBR, its beer thirty somewhere ....
Posted by: drilloilinthatguyshead | January 12, 2009 3:33 PM
Yep, it's the fault of the Dems.
LBJ was last in office in 1969. Since then we've had.
Nixon (R - 69 - 74), Ford (R - 74 - 77), Carter (D - 77 - 81), Reagan (R - 81 - 89), Bush I (R - 89 - 93), Clinton (D - 93 - 2001) and Bush II (R - 2001 - 2009). So in 40 years the Democrats controlled the White House for 12 and the Republicans for 28.
Either the Republicans are VERY bad at changing things or the Democrats are extremely good at enacting permanent change.
Posted by: W OBrien | January 12, 2009 3:37 PM
My guess is Obama will be two term. I see three main reasons. First, he never pins himself down on anything. Take Iraq. The rhetoric is he wants to end the war. He says he will leave a residual force, but wont say what that is. He also has repeated rhetoric about being as careful getting out, etc. Finally, he has the built in excuse of blaming Bush for any extended troop stay. Thus, he really promised nothing, and will point to these statements when after a year he has done nothing different than the Bush team. That is just one example. You can look at any of his major policy stances, and find that he has really promised nothing. Another example is meeting with dictators. The early rhetoric was without preconditions. Then he said there would need to be preparations. He wont say what those preparations are, or indeed, how they differ from preconditions. Again, he has in reality promised nothing. Obama detractors claim he is naive. On specific issues, probably, but as for being a shrewd politician, he is anything but.
Being vague and not painting yourself into a corner would not be enough without a fawning media. Maybe I just never paid enough attention to this before, but I have never seen the media adore a politician like they do Obama. Every good thing that happens in the next four years will be attributed to him. Every negative thing will be residual from Bush. Frank James will continue to spin any Obama decision, no matter how silly, into wise policy (e.g., the selection of Joseph Stalin as Agricultural Secretary is controversial given the Ukraine famine, but Obama wants a diversity of opinion, as opposed to Bush having lackies surrounding him, etc., etc.) Mark Silva will follow up James' objective analysis with a hard hitting story on Obama's favorite color. You can’t put a price tag on media lap dogs.
Finally, Obama is a cash machine. The money he raised during the campaign was unheard of, and there is little doubt he can do it again. I like to think Americans are smart enough to distinguish candidates based on issues, but time and again we see that whoever floods the TV with more ads has a decided advantage.
As such, it doesn’t matter what happens with the economy or anything else over the next four years. All that matters is how it is spun and sold to the public, and the ability of Obama to claim he has had a consistent message all along.
Posted by: Herbie H. | January 12, 2009 3:37 PM
"What the libs don't realize is that rather than taking care of more people, we will be able to take care of less people with increased government involvement." care to try and explain?
p.s. people still want to drill off shore?
Posted by: cpepper | January 12, 2009 3:55 PM
As such, it doesn’t matter what happens with the economy or anything else over the next four years. All that matters is how it is spun and sold to the public, and the ability of Obama to claim he has had a consistent message all along.
Posted by: Herbie H. | January 12, 2009 3:37 P
Beginning to look like Obama shot the Nation with a line of CHANGE.
Posted by: Inky | January 12, 2009 4:35 PM
It's more than a little reckless for journalists to be predicting that Obama will only be a one-term president. Is this some bizarre attempt by the Times to come across as "fair and balanced" and appease the conservatives by unfairly holding Obama to account for actions he has yet to even take? This is beyond the pale for journalists...
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | January 12, 2009 4:36 PM
Barack Obama has been President for three months -- strike that -- Barack Obama will become President in 8 days and the Villager Beltway Press Corps have already declared his administration in trouble?
This is why I could never be a Democratic POTUS, because the urge to seek retribution when this weak press corps goes after pointless non-controversies would be overwhelming. Especially when these same idiots sang America the Beautiful as we marched toward Baghdad without asking one effing question about why we were going there.
Posted by: Blinky | January 12, 2009 4:44 PM
The only Presidents who are assured of not being one-termers are those who've won the election for their second term. Otherwise, it's pretty much up for grabs.
.
Specific to Obama, I'd say that if he can't make improvements to the economy, and if he can't be a big improvement over Bush somewhere in the next four years, he DESERVES to be a one-term President, and I'd be one of the ones voting against him. Lucky for Obama, improving over Bush is one of the lowest hurdles in recent history, so unless he falls into a coma on January 21st and fails to regain consciousness, he ought not have much problem with that. And if he DID spend his entire term comatose, there's still a good chance Obama would do no worse than a tie with Bush.
Posted by: Op109 | January 12, 2009 4:47 PM
This "stimulus" plan has no chance whatsover of sustaining
any positive effect through 2012, as there is no wealth created by moving money from one pocket to the other- but their will be plenty of inflation and debt by then.
The New Deal of the 1930s that Obama so proudly emulates was, in-fact, a colossal economic failure. FDR never achieved an unemployment level under 14%… and averaged 17% over his presidency.
FDR’s own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau stated in 1939:
“We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it DOES NOT WORK… We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”
Just contrast this with the Reagan Recovery of the 1980s, which brought us back from 11% unemployment (50% worse than today), plus double-digit inflation AND interest rates.He accomplished this with an adherence to Friedman's philosophy- with spending cuts and tax cuts, in addition to deregulation and incentives for small businesses and entrepreneurs.
Reagan created over 20M jobs…growing the country’s real GDP by almost 30% in the process. Those kind of results makes one wonder why Obama’s trillion-dollar spending plan would impress ANY-body, with his pledged 4M new and “saved” jobs (whatever those are)… a paltry figure 16M jobs shy of The Gipper’s towering accomplishment.
Apparently the irony is lost on Barack that a unemployed Silicon Valley engineer should be delighted to pour cement in "patriotic" make-work programs, instead of tax-incentives to help entrepeneurial enterprises leverage his skills a bit more effectively.
This country better wake-up, and fast- Obama's reckless and irresponsible print-money "stimulus" plan is a socialist trojan-horse
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2008/12/biden-runs-interferrence-for-big.html
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | January 12, 2009 4:51 PM
care to try and explain?
It's simple, really. Every other socialist attampt at health care has failed. People are waiting in lines at the ER and dying in the hallways in all the socialist contries. Survival stats are worse. Who do you think produces new pharmaceuticals? The only semi-free market system still standing. You want free health care for every one? You won't like it once you've got it.
The problem is that once you initiate a social program you can never take it away.
p.s. people still want to drill off shore?
Duh. How else are going to stop supporting terrorist states like the Saudis and Iran? And if you want to create jobs, what better way. Stimulate the economy? Increase GDP? Reduce trade deficits? Yes to all. Just because gas is $1.70 everyone thinks the crisis is over. It's going up again and we're just sitting on our hands.
Posted by: drillforoilnow | January 12, 2009 4:59 PM
This just shows Obama is in fact like any other politician...He said whatever he needed to get elected.
Read my lips, a broken promise is a broken promise; I don't care who it's from or their excuses.
Hope everyone is wearing seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Posted by: Prisha | January 12, 2009 5:13 PM
This is a joke, right? He isn't even in office and people are already writing about his demise.
Obama could be dead tomorrow when an asteroid bounces off his head.
If the economy doesn't turn around, if Israel bombs Iran, if Russia invades Europe, if Brittany Spears makes a comeback ...
Good god man, talking heads never know when to just shut up.
Posted by: BobC | January 12, 2009 5:15 PM
How else are going to stop supporting terrorist states like the Saudis and Iran? And if you want to create jobs, what better way. Stimulate the economy? Increase GDP? Reduce trade deficits? Yes to all. Just because gas is $1.70 everyone thinks the crisis is over. It's going up again and we're just sitting on our hands.
Posted by: drillforoilnow | January 12, 2009 4:59 PM
Say it with me:
1
2
3
ALL HAIL TRICKLEDOWN!....just because it has already proven to be a giant pile of failure doesn't mean it won't work again, right?
In·san·i·ty (n-sn-t)
1. Persistent mental disorder or derangement. No longer in scientific use.
2. Law
a. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
b. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.
3.
a. Extreme foolishness; folly.
b. Something that is extremely foolish.
OR and this applies specifically to Republicans:
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Posted by: Zappo | January 12, 2009 5:23 PM
What? No school today? All the kids are playing on daddy's computer. Drill, baby drill?? What a joke.
Posted by: mort | January 12, 2009 5:23 PM
p.s. people still want to drill off shore?
Duh. How else are going to stop supporting terrorist states like the Saudis and Iran? And if you want to create jobs, what better way. Stimulate the economy? Increase GDP? Reduce trade deficits? Yes to all. Just because gas is $1.70 everyone thinks the crisis is over. It's going up again and we're just sitting on our hands.
Posted by: drillforoilnow | January 12, 2009 4:59 PM
So your going to have the goverment drill for the oil themselves? The oil companies aren't interested. They're all cutting WAY back on drilling an exploration after the oil bubble burst. So who's going to drill for the oil? Are you going to force the oil companies to by government mandate?
Posted by: Lou | January 12, 2009 5:27 PM
@Prisha:
"This just shows Obama is in fact like any other politician...He said whatever he needed to get elected. "
Kinda like: "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Posted by: a blinikin | January 12, 2009 5:34 PM
He'll almost certainly be a one-term president. The devastation resulting from 8 years of W is far beyond anyone's ability to fix in the near term or, very likely, ever.
We've become a banana republic with nukes. Thanks, George.
Posted by: Doug | January 12, 2009 6:08 PM
"Every other socialist attampt at health care has failed. People are waiting in lines at the ER and dying in the hallways in all the socialist contries."
Been to the ER in the US lately? How about showing up at any hospital here without health insurance? How good do you think the healthcare system is going to be to the 2.4 million folks who lost their jobs last year?
As for dying in the hallways....
http://www.uchc.edu/ocomm/newsarchive/news06/apr06/patientwaiting.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/10/27/patients-who-dont-fit-in-er-hang-out-in-the-hallway/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5884487&page=1
Posted by: Liz | January 12, 2009 6:13 PM
First of all the economy will turn around in four years. Secondly, more important than how the economy is doing, the election will be on how the country is doing.
A discussion about 2012 in 2009 in concrete terms is blather, a mistake that is made by someone who is too young to know how little we all know. If there was a lesson from 2008, it is that smart people in general are not as smart as they think.
I will add though, that the economic ideas that Obama had at the start of 2008, on a whole still look pretty good in 2009. He has gotten good advice.
Posted by: Ron M | January 12, 2009 6:55 PM
Jeepers!!! Aren't we all getting a little ahead of ourselves? Barack Obama has yet to serve for one second as President of the United States. All things being equal, his chances for re-election depend entirely on his performance in office - which he hasn't even had a chance to begin yet. It's just a bit too early to tell whether he's cut out for the job or not. He could very well turn out to be a decent President.
.
For the sake of our Country, I sure hope he gets it right in spite of all the people who have his ear.
Posted by: John W. | January 13, 2009 12:31 AM
Is the NYT leaking classified Obama info? Is the MSM nervous? "Change" is changing so fast the spinner can't change the spin. Welcome to the Obama bus, watch out for the wheels. Gotta love, huh, Flo.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 13, 2009 1:36 AM
Curious to know how Obama's backer's wallets will fatten from the bail out money.
Posted by: Inky | January 13, 2009 6:32 AM
Curious to know how Obama's backer's wallets will fatten from the bail out money.
Posted by: Inky | January 13, 2009 6:32 AM
I'm sure your equally curious to know how Bush's backers wallets fattened from the bailout money, aren't you?
Posted by: Lou | January 13, 2009 9:03 AM
* * * * *
Posted by: Ron M | January 12, 2009 6:55 PM
.
I wish I was as optimistic as you are about the economy turning around in the next four years. We haven’t even seen the end of foreclosures or the housing market slide yet. There are many more hundreds of billions of dollars worth of mortgages that have yet to go belly up. When they do, that will make a lot of banks less stable and all that toxic paper even more toxic. That’s why banks are too scared to resume their function as lenders on a larger scale even after getting all that bailout money.
.
In the second place, the voting public’s view of how the country is doing will, in turn, depend on their view of the economy’s health. That, unfortunately, is a subjective call. For instance, unemployed people never think the economy or the country is doing well regardless of what statistics say. The statics are on the wrong side of them.
.
In the third place, time will tell whether Obama’s economic ideas pan out. Some people in his own party, both inside and outside of Congress, aren’t too sure that he’s doing enough. Even Krugman is skeptical with regard to whether the size of the stimulus is big enough to have any valuable effect. Republicans are skeptical as to whether many of the proposed projects will add to a long term positive impact on the economy. And, as my neighbors often say: “Tengo mis dudas también.”
Posted by: John W. | January 13, 2009 5:34 PM
Obama will be a dismal failure simply because the problems facing the nation cannot be legislated, regulated or wished away. Americans are too lazy, too selfish and too self-important to pull together to collectively make an impact.
Posted by: frank | January 15, 2009 12:09 AM
I believe most defenitely President Obama will be a one term president. In his first term he has already spent nearly a trillion dollars as president. This of course was a big mistake, and will ultimately hurt him by re-election period. He is an idealist not a realist. When the people fail to elect a president for political experiences and accomplishments and gamble based on the fact that he is a good speaker. When people allow a president to talk his way into the white house without earning it then you know there is trouble ahead. Nobody talks their way to success in the real world and there is no reason to believe that the highest position in the world would qualify someone with such a thin resume. Not to mention ideals and principles that our forefathers were against. Obama was a blunder of a mistake by the American people. This is not about party, or color, etc. This is about what is right for America and Obama never showed us anything in his careeer that he should have been President.
Thankfully, I did not vote on idealistic rhetoric or on principles that are just the American way.
John Calli
Posted by: John Calli | February 28, 2009 11:30 AM
I believe President Obama will be a one term president. In his first term he has already spent nearly a trillion dollars as president. When the people fail to elect a president based on political experiences and accomplishments & allow a president to talk his way into the white house instead of earning it then you know there is trouble ahead. Obama was a gamble by the people and he will dig his own grave with his principles and ideals that are not what our forefathers intended. He will also fail at foreign affairs. He is treating America as if it were a community and he was a community organizer. Very dangerous!
.
John Calli
Posted by: John Calli | February 28, 2009 11:38 AM
I believe President Obama will be a one term president. When the people fail to elect a president based on political experiences and accomplishments & allow a president to talk his way into the white house instead of earning it then you know there is trouble ahead. Obama was a gamble by the people. Obama will ultimately dig his own grave.
.
John Calli
Posted by: Jane Gardner | February 28, 2009 11:42 AM