Obama - Year 1 Review

My daughter recently texted me (that's how teenagers communicate these days) and told me that she had to do a report on President Obama's first year in office and needed my help. I texted her back that I would have it to her by Friday. She sent me back an "lol" (laugh out loud) and said it had to was not suppose bias. Now that would be a challenge!

I took this opportunity to actually review he President' first year and what it tells us. We can review each of his campaign promises and determine if he kept of broke the promise, why or the promise was broken or not and where credit can be assign for the successes or blame for the failures. An exercise like that would be too tedious and like my daughter said, would be too difficult without an extreme bias. After the recent State of the Union address, I would rather choose to look at some obvious characteristics of this President's administration which will give us more insight to his first year.

1. From his inauguration speech to his campaign to bring the Olympics to Chicago to the recent State of the Union address, this President has used the first person pronouns more than any President in modern history. The media fell in love with Obama from the first moment he stepped foot on the national stage and built him up to a point that the man has become a narcissist. Apparently, he has read his press clippings and heard guys like Chris Mathews proclaim physical reactions to hearing him speak and believes he is the only guy who can right the ship and lead this nation. In the State of the Union, he took the opportunity to not only scold the republicans but also the democrats and even the Supreme Court. He is the only one doing the right thing and everyone needs to shape up. In response to his falling popularity and failure at the polls since his election, the White House claimed they have not communicated the message as well as they should so the President will become more visible. The guy has made 411 speeches or interviews in his first year! Unless he makes his life a reality show I am not sure he can become any more visible. (I probably shouldn't give NBC any ideas.)

2. President Obama entered office with a popularity rarely seen in American politics. His party had a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. The media loved him and refused to vett him like any other politician. The American public was behind him and he had an aggressive agenda yet one year into his term one in ten Americans were now unemployed even after the massive stimulus bill, the health care bill was now on life support after the election Scott Brown to the Senate ending the super majority and other agenda items have failed to make progress. With everything going for him the lack of success shows lack of leadership. He can make Oprah cry after hearing him speak but he cannot even garner a consensus among his own party. If he can't get the choir to follow his lead how do we expect the congregation to be in tune?

3. Candidate Obama made many promises on the campaign trail but the one that resonated with most people was changing the way Washington worked. The American public feels that our government is for sale and that things are done in Washington when it benefits the ones making the laws. The fact that a bill cannot be passed without individual congressmen inserting a pork project having nothing to do with the bill's subject irritates Americans. Yet, the omnibus bill included over 9,000 earmarks and the stimulus plan was more about benefiting the lawmakers and their supporters than stimulating the economy showing that Obama is playing the same game and its politics as usual. If the stimulus was about stimulating the economy then most of the money would have been scheduled to be spent in the first year when the economy needed a jolt. People want to see the government run with principles, similar to the way businesses are run. If the government was a business they would have been bankrupt long ago as opposed to just the morals of the one running the government.

President Obama ran on a ticket of "Hope and Change" and after a year all we can hope for is that the American electorate will make a change as soon as possible. The experiment has failed!

THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE

I think if we take a look at the special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts to replace the seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy after 47 years, we can learn a lot about the American electorate. The outcome of this election can be explained many different ways and depending on your political position you will choose to interpret the results as you CHOOSE but there is something to be learned from this and the gubernatorial elections in November.

Explanations:
1. When the economy is down, the party in charge will lose. True or not, the party in charge gets the credit or blame for the performance of the economy. If their policies actually caused the problems can be debated but their promises can not. If the economy is booming the candidate will credit it's party's philosophical manner of governing as the reason. If the economy is struggling than the candidate's party is the only one that can fix the problem. Yes, the majority party gets too much credit or blame for a dynamic economy but that is self inflicted by the promises made in the campaign.

2. Each race is about individual candidates and not about parties. This definitely has some truth, especially in the case of Martha Coakley but it does not paint the whole picture. As little as a month or two ago the democrat candidate held a 30 point lead in a state where democrats outnumber republicans 3 to 1, so the candidate took the election for granted and stayed out of the public eye. In addition, she made a lot of stupid statements by saying the terrorists were out of Afghanistan where violent attacks are almost a daily occurrence and in calling Red Sox darling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan. But, you have to wonder why Scott Brown was even able to get back into the race. If the people of the state were so happy with the way the majority party was running Washington why would they even look at a candidate who promised to put a stop to the centerpiece of the democrat's agenda, health care reform?

3. The election in Massachusetts, just like the November elections for governors of New Jersey and Virginia, is a referendum on the President and the democratic party in Washington. After the complete domination of the 2008 federal elections the democrats felt that they had the political capital to pass anything and the American public would accept their decisions. The passed a $787 billion economic stimulus, a massive budget and were working on health care reform all within the first year. If they passed it quick enough the American public would forget about it by election time in 2010 or if the economy had turned around as they hoped no one would care. They could blame President Bush for a long time and not accept any of the blame for a faltering economy. What they did not expect is the backlash for the way they went about doing their business. Americans do not want to see massive deficits. They do not want to see individual states or certain interest groups receiving special benefits on the backs of the rest. Americans got tired of hearing that the previous administration is the cause for all that ails the country after they just allowed them to spend their children's future and have seen no benefit to the economy.

I think there is a bigger lesson that can be learned from all the elections and the polls. Although I am confident that my political philosophy will make the country better and stronger for years to come, I believe the American electorate does not want to be governed from the far right anymore than want to be governed from the far left. The fact that the liberal democrats in the congress shut out the conservatives all together left a bad taste in the people's mouth. They saw through the rhetoric and could see that the liberals would only allow them at the table if they supported their liberal ideals. Republicans were no better when they were in control. In both cases, its our way or you are labeled a obstructionist.

The United States has a two party system because we do not want to be dominated by one set of ideals. Socialist regimes are single party systems. We like the idea that two philosophies are merged into one governing plan. If we start to be governed too far one way or the other the electorate makes a correction. There is never a mandate for one party to go to the extreme. That is the recipe for losses at the polls. Anytime one party has control of all the branches of the federal government they had better invite the other party to the table and find a compromise of ideals or soon the table will be turned and they will be the uninvited guest.