Stale Tactics

Barack Obama, during his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, Colorado:

"If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.  If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

You can expect to see this quote again during the general election campaign, and not without good reason. President Obama's own words could become a potent weapon against him.

Opposition Leader Obama

"We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonise their opponents instead of coming together.  It's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it's one you never agreed with.  That kind of politics is bad for our party, it's bad for our country."

Candidate Barack Obama said a lot of sensible things.  His rhetoric stressed the importance of a unified America - not red states and blue states, but united states.  His speeches decried the hyper-partisanship that had come to typify American politics.

Four years, it would seem, can make all the difference in the world.

President Barack Obama will soon seek re-election, and the most striking aspect of his second term agenda thus far is that it does not exist.

Mr. Obama, a sitting executive with a full term of experience, is not travelling the length and breadth of the nation spruiking the successes of his tenure thus far.  Nor is he providing an uplifting vision for the future.

No, the President seems to think that his time would be better spent savaging his political opponents.

Most recently, Mr. Obama launched a blistering attack on the House Republican budget, which was crafted in an effort to address the nation's snowballing debt crisis.

The national debt, which has expanded at an unprecedented rate under the current President, is driven in large part by an increasingly steep growth in entitlement spending.  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that by the middle of the century entitlements will consume all tax revenue, leaving aside no funds to provide other essential government services.

Mr. Obama has offered no comprehensive plan to address the national debt.  He has made no contribution to the debate over entitlement spending, beyond excoriating any plan put forward by Republicans.

This is not leadership.  It is not even 'leading from behind'.

Say what you will about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, they have at least displayed enough political courage to address the looming debt crisis in a meaningful way.  They are prepared to take potentially unpopular proposals to the American people and argue their case.

Meanwhile, the man who was elected in 2008 to lead the nation through the most troubled of times seems content merely to stand back and criticise.  To engage in the very hyper-partisan attacks that, not so long ago, he decried.

"Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we would not be able to afford to launch new satellites.  That means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane."

Is this really what we want from the President?  For him to travel across the country, spreading the generationally important message that his political opponents threaten the accuracy of weather forecasts?

No, Mr. Obama was elected to lead.  If the President truly believes that Republicans will take America down a path of 'social Darwinism', then he should present us with an alternative vision. Tell us how he will address the national debt without reforming entitlements.  How he will drive economic growth while raising the tax burden on business.

For President Obama to prove that he deserves a second term, he must cast aside the invective of recent weeks and meet Republican policies with his own, better ideas.

He can either claim the mantle of leadership, or he can shrink into a sad caricature of the partisanship he promised to sweep away four years ago.

Obama's Mandate

President Barack Obama has two major domestic policy initiatives to his name after his first three years in office:  the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus), and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Neither of these policies are particularly popular, and this presents a significant obstacle to Mr. Obama's re-election.  Polls have consistently shown lukewarm support at best for the stimulus package, with a clear minority of Americans believing that Mr. Obama's policies have actually helped the job situation.

Similarly, Americans have consistently favoured the repeal of Obamacare by a significant majority. The individual mandate in particular is dangerously unpopular from a political perspective:

Americans overwhelmingly believe the "individual mandate", as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20%.

Even a majority of Democrats, and a majority of those who think the healthcare law is a good thing, believe that provision is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the health care law, with a decision to be handed down by the nine justices prior to the presidential election in November.

Day two of arguments was concerned solely with the individual mandate, and by all accounts proceedings went horribly wrong for the law's defenders.  Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was peppered with questions by the justices, and he often lacked satisfactory answers.

Importantly, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the so called 'swing voter' of the court, seemed to be disposed against the government's arguments.

It is almost certain that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan will rule that the mandate is constitutional.

Meanwhile, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and John Roberts are equally likely to side with the challengers.  This leaves Justice Kennedy with the deciding vote.

Thus there does seem to be a tangible risk that the individual mandate, if not the entire law, will be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  What would this mean for the President and his chances of re-election?

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan captures what the sentiments of the American people would likely be, given a hostile decision by the court:

The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centrepiece of his agenda was not constitutional?  How did that happen?

Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks:  We were in crisis in 2009 - we still are - and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history's time.

With Americans largely believing that his stimulus package was ineffective, President Obama needs his healthcare law to be upheld, even if it remains unpopular.  Otherwise he will be left broken, embarrassed, and without any record of significance after a full term in office.

The Shackles of Re-election

The President of the United States participates in many international meetings, and chances are that throughout a term in office he will be caught out by an open mic at least once or twice.  President Obama was in open mic strife once again several days ago, during a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:

In comments that were not intended to be broadcast publicly, Mr. Obama candidly assures the Russian President (and by proxy his successor, Vladimir Putin) that he will be able to negotiate over the issue of missile defense with more flexibility following his 'last election' in November.

The President's assurances are certainly correct.  But they are also problematic from a political perspective, because the implications set forth in that statement are unlikely to be well received back in the United States.

Mr. Obama is essentially saying this:  'After the November elections, I will never have to face the American people again.  It will no longer matter whether or not my decisions have popular support. So I will be able to make a deal with you then.'

These implications are clear because the President explicitly mentions that November is his last election.  George W. Bush was phenomenally unpopular throughout much of his second term - but it mattered very little, because he was not anchored by the political accountability that comes with the spectre of re-election.

Republicans will argue that the same applies for President Obama.  They will assert that unfettered by any accountability to the American public, Mr. Obama will be free to do as he likes, no matter how radical or unpopular his policies may be.

You can expect this argument to be completely overblown by Mr. Obama's political opposition, but there is an incontrovertible truth at its heart.

Of course, this would be the case for any two term President - one could argue that it is a glaring flaw in the case for term limits.  But Mr. Obama needs to be more discreet in front of microphones from now on - because that 'flexibility' of which he spoke will apply to much more than missile defence, and Republicans will make sure that every single voter knows it.

Rick's Rage

Rick Santorum's early forays in the Republican primary season went largely unnoticed, save for several somewhat petulant moments during the debates.  Mr. Santorum was displeased with a perceived lack of attention - he did not receive as much time to answer questions as the frontrunners.

Now, one could argue that Mr. Santorum had every right to feel aggrieved during the debates, as he really was treated quite peripherally at times.  But his campaign has since been characterised by an almost permanent sense of aggrievement - particularly towards the media.

Here is the latest example:

There are several points to make here.  Firstly, someone like Mr. Santorum, who spends much of his political life talking about family values, should not be caught on camera swearing at reporters.

Secondly, Mr. Santorum has a habit of attacking the media for asking perfectly valid questions.  He makes social issues a central theme of his campaign, and then complains when interviewers focus on social issues.  In this instance, he attacks a NY Times reporter merely for asking him about a comment that he had made earlier.

In a wider sense, the above altercation calls Mr. Santorum's temperament into question.  Can you imagine President Obama reacting to a question in this manner?  How about Mitt Romney?  

A presidential figure maintains his calm, no matter how unreasonable any given line of questioning may be.

Many Republicans appreciate attacks on the 'mainstream' media, and would interpret Mr. Santorum's performance as a display of passion and conviction.  It is, in actual fact, a display of petulance and resentment.  It is unbecoming, and it is certainly not presidential.

Santorum's Lack of Respect

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has made two particularly eye-catching comments in recent days.  It is important not to blow them out of proportion, but they do reveal a little about the man, his focus and his strategy.

The first quote comes from an answer Mr. Santorum gave when challenged as to why he has consistently lost the Catholic vote to Mitt Romney (Mr. Santorum himself is a Catholic):

"The bottom line is that we do well among people who take their faith seriously, and as you know, just like some Protestants are not churchgoing, they are folks who identify with a particular religion but don't necessarily practice that from the standpoint of going to church and the like."

Then, while on the campaign trail yesterday, Mr. Santorum said the following:

"You win by giving people a choice.  You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there.  If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the etch a sketch candidate of the future."

Both of these quotes say something about the way in which Mr. Santorum perceives his own candidacy - he is the man for people who 'take their faith seriously' and 'take their conservatism seriously'.  Fair enough.

But the above comments actively portray other candidates, and also the millions of (avidly Republican) individuals who have cast votes for them, as being unserious about both faith and conservatism.  If you vote for Mitt Romney, you must not be serious about your faith.  If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are not a proper conservative.

This is disrespectful.  If Mr. Santorum truly thinks that Mr. Romney is only 'a little different' than the current occupant of the White House, then he had better take a much closer look at the former Governor's policies.  As Republican blogger Jennifer Rubin points out here, Mr. Romney's proposals mirror quite closely those of Rep. Paul Ryan, that unquestionable bastion of fiscal conservatism.

As Politico correspondent Jonathan Martin reports, conservative darling Sen. Jim DeMint yesterday only just stopped short of endorsing the frontrunner, and widely respected former Florida Governor Jeb Bush threw his weight behind Mr. Romney the day before.  If Mr. Romney is truly just 'a little different' than President Obama, it is certainly curious that such a legion of solidly conservative figures is continuing to coalesce in his camp.

It has been said that Mr. Santorum's 'holier-than-thou' attitude would turn off a huge number of voters in the general election, were he to become the nominee.  We have seen several exhibitions of this attitude in recent days.  By even going so far as to suggest that voters would be better off 'staying with what we have' instead of voting for a Republican other than himself, Mr. Santorum has progressed a step too far in his argument.

This merely demonstrates the desperation which now pervades his campaign.