Pelosi's Loss Could Be Obama's Gain - Pivot to the center (and re-election) would be easier without

[Divine Discontent]

Pelosi.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703704575276931429180508.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

In Washington these days, President Obama is rumored to be hoping Republicans capture the House of Representatives in the midterm election in November. There's no evidence for this speculation, so far as I know, but it's hardly far-fetched. If Mr. Obama wants to avert a fiscal crisis and win re-election in 2012, he needs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be removed from her powerful post. A GOP takeover may be the only way.

Given the deficit-and-debt mess that Mr. Obama has on his hands, a Republican House would be a godsend. A Republican Senate would help, too. A Republican majority, should it materialize, could be counted on to pass significant cuts in domestic spending next year—cuts that Mrs. Pelosi and her allies in the House Democratic hierarchy would never countenance.

Though Mr. Obama's preferred solution to his fiscal predicament would probably be a very large tax increase, it's a nonstarter. He needs spending cuts to assuage both markets and voters. It was the surge in spending—the stimulus, omnibus budget and the health-care legislation—that prompted the tea party protests, alienated independent voters, and caused the rapid decline in his popularity.

The test is whether Mr. Obama can restrain nondefense discretionary spending. That's the spending over which Washington exerts the greatest control. Even small cuts in entitlement spending are difficult to enact, but the president and Republicans might reach agreement there as well. That would be a political bonus for Mr. Obama, softening his image as a tax-and-spend liberal. Again, this would be impossible if Ms. Pelosi still runs the House.


<snip>




Okay, I have to admit, I read the first line and thought - "does this guy seriously believe Obama wants a GOP Congress, and also, does he seriously not get it that he's already a bit too centrist for most Dems already and moving any further right is what jeopardizes re-election - not keeping a Pelosi-led House!"

Seriously, Barnes... get a clue.

[ericinne]

1. That's some good shit

I want some of what Barnes is smoking.

[David__77]

2. Hilarious. This guy has no clue.

He's been far off the mark for some time... Obama is not Clinton. And even Clinton didn't want that in 1994.

[Divine Discontent]

4. wonderful point. I thought that too (Clinton & 94 & capitulation). Barnes is a GOP-FANBOY, he is

dreaming up a fantasy House & Senate, where Obama refuses to use the veto on their deconstructing what he just spent 18 months assisting in constructing! These repuke fanboys have no clue about reality. I ain't high on Obama, but there's no way he wants the GOP to take over Congress - what a horrible horrible horrible disaster that'd be for America.

[vaberella]

3. What kind of article is this?! This article is crap.

We've established that Bush spent like they were given the Black card. He had no will to stop spending and it was the Republican crack heads who got us in this position. Why does he think that Obama would want these spend-without-limit freaks under his authority and derailing every progress he's made.

[JHB]

9. It's an opinion piece by Fred Barnes (executive editor of the Weekly Standard)...

...published on the (infamously right-wing) editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
(and it was infamous for that BEFORE Rupert Murdoch bought it. Now?....)

Now this is what "pony wishing" looks like.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Opinions are like AssHoles

[rpannier]

6. The Wall Street Journal

Kind of like getting advise from the driver of the drive-by shooting

[napi21]

7. What ile of BS! nt

[Lasher]

8. What a ration of shit.

I come here for news and editorials so I won't have to read bullshit like this.

[unhappycamper]

10. Looking for some bucks?

Cut the military budget by 2/3. That will give you another $6,600,000,000 to play with.

[RC]

11. Why doesn't anyone in government get the obvious?

Why do we need such a large military? To defend this country? Then why is our military everywhere but here?
The "Need" for a large military would collapse in a few years if we would stop interfering in the governments of other countries.
Can you imagine what would happen if some other country, defending their freedom, tried to take out our own terrorists over here, the way we do elsewhere? Declare Xe, (re Blackwater) a terrorist organization and send in a few missiles and such.

[zipplewrath]

15. Actually, Gates hinted at exactly that

It's going to be difficult for the democrats to make siginficant cuts in the overall size of the military. But even Gates suggested that maybe we didn't need 11 carrier battle groups. Dem's be fightin' words in the Navy. But cuts are coming, probably mostly in the form of "reduced rate of growth". The one area probably not being cut anytime soon is the size of the Army. But real reductions will probably only come from a GOP administration. Daddy Bush was the last guy to try it. Newt was actually quite willing as well. But it will be hard. Our military has been the primary agent of our diplomacy and our economic expansion for the better part of 200 years. It's been a huge part of our politics for as long as well. Heck, it drives our culture. We wear wrist watches, have zippers, and use safety razors because of the cultural effect our military has had.

[karynnj]

12. Gee, the Murdock owned RW WSJ REALLY cares about Obama succeeding

What did they miss about Pelosi getting the stimulus, the budget, the healthcare bill and everything else through the House. It is impressive that she has not lost a vote on any major issue.

The fact is the WSJ does not want Obama's agenda to pass. They would prefer Obama be handed legislation they want. I doubt any Democratic President really wants a Republican House and Senate. (As to the tea party - I don't recall the WSJ saying a Democratic takeover of the House and an increased majority of Democrats in the Senate was the answer to angry Democrats in 2002 - and even in 2002, there were some larger than the tea party rallies.)

[WeDidIt]

13. OMFG, I never thought I'd say this

but somebody is more stoned than Tweety!

[Robbins]

14. Reality

It may not get attention but reports say obama spends less money than Bush and does look for ways to reduce defecit.

A republican Congress would mean gridlock.Anything Obama wants Is stopped.His nominees stalled In the senate.Investigations
Into anything that Is accused of.Efforts to Impeach him.Attempts to repeal health care reform and undo stimulas and middle class
tax cuts In favor of more tax cuts for the wealthy.

Clinton won In 1996 In part because the public say what Gingrich wanted and realized they were better off with Clinton.A Republican
Congress guarantees Obama's reelection.He would not have to change at all.Seeing Republicans In charge of the congress would remind
voters why they elected Democrats In the first place.

[Bitwit1234]

16. Any body in this country except the tea bags and radical

republicans who vote for republicans to seats in congress should be shipped to a desert island and let they govern them selves. How can anybody want to go back to the actions of Bush and Company.

I think this oil spill is terrible. I feel sorry for the animals and wild life it is destroying. I also hate it because people are loosing their livelihood. But remember this. Who was up in arms in the Media when Bush's policies outsourced all those manufacturing jobs over seas. All the dot com over seas to India and such. That is why we have all this unemployment now, because we lost all those good benefit, good paying jobs. And no outrage at Bush and the republican congress. But the MSM is picking up the cry of the republicans in congress who are blaming Obama for the spill when it was a republican, corporate, big business foul up. A company that cost by not providing safe guards, a company that had NO IDEA how to fix the mess they made, and still doesn't know how to fix it. But with the help of the media they are turning this into the Democrats and Obamas fault. And the Democrats as per usual are sitting on their collective asses and letting them. Just once I would like to see the Democrats get fired up, get them to come out one by one and make the Media cover their messages. But no, so afraid they might loose all that money to help them get re-elected they prefer to sit back and do nothing. IF WE HAD TERM LIMITS THEY WOULDN'T BE SITTING STILL BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T NEED ALL THAT CORPORATE MONEY TO GET RE-ELECTED.

[Robbins]

17. Remember

ALl the people crying about big government,Socialism,and government takeover of Helath Care.Now they are screaming for the
government to come In and handle things.Can we say complet hyprcsy here.

[Enrique]

18. it might make sense if Pelosi ever stood up to him

but she's gone along with him on nearly everything. The exception I can think of is the detainee photos, and even with those, they haven't been released.

[KingFlorez]

19. Republicans don't cut spending

Most of the deficit is from their mismanagement. Besides that, they wouldn't do anything to help Obama, they'd purposely raise the deficit just to use it against him. This stupid bird has no clue what he's talking about.

[Politics_Guy27]

20. Gallup is 46-46 today

Dem/Rep 2010 Generic vote.

I don't see evidence of a GOP tidal wave at all in the non-Rasmussen polling yet.

That said, I do agree that a GOP wingnut congress would be a godsend to President Obama.

[Divine Discontent]

22. how would that help progressive issues at all?

[dflprincess]

25. It won't. That's the beauty of it.

Losing the House would give the executive branch and the Senate Democrats an excuse for not getting anything done and making more "compromises" with Republicans that protect corporate interests and sell out the working & middle classe.

And, they'll have a campaign rallying cry for 2012 about how "we" need to get the House back because that's the only way they can get anything done and really, they'll mean it the next time they try to sell us that on that line.

[Robbins]

24. Gallup

Well I see again I was proven right.So aany were goign the sky Is falling In the last Generic ballet poll.Obama may have taken a hit
again In their polling but sooner or later he will raise again too.

[tledford]

21. Wow, an utterly clueless imbecile. eom

[PBS Poll-435]

23. Crack: Awesome for Acne and ADHD

:shrug:

[johnaries]

26. I agree: "Seriously, Barnes... get a clue."

:tinfoilhat:

Some people see conspiracies everywhere.