Monday, August 24, 2009

Would Obama settle for one term?

Back in March, I wrote a post questioning whether or not President Barack Obama cares about winning a second term.

From that post:

The goal is not the presidency - that's merely a tool with which to achieve the agenda: the European-style socialism of America and the total consolidation of power within the hands of radical leftists. Sacrificing his re-election would be a small price to pay for accomplishing this nefarious feat.

Yesterday, I saw this headline on

Obama ‘Quite Comfortable’ As One-Term President, White House Spokesman Says

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was "addressing a question about a comment made by Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), who said the president told him he is willing to risk a second term to get a health care overhaul bill approved."

I've also seen several articles and opinion pieces which ask if Democrats would be willing to 'sacrifice' majority control in the House and Senate in order to usher in some of their policy agenda items.

While I think most politicians are more concerned with maintaining control via constant re-election, I believe there may be some who would trade a temporary loss of the majority in order to obtain a massive change to a type of socialism for our country.

What do you think? Is the loss of an election is too big a price to pay for the goal of socializing our nation?


Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...


"What do you think? Is the loss of an election is too big a price to pay for the goal of socializing our nation?"

Not to a zealot/kamikaze, who would gladly die (politically) to carry out his mission.

The total destruction of the American economy, some would perceive, is an accomplishment worthy of political suicide...

SM Kovalinsky said...

I do not think it would be deemed to high a price to pay. But at the rate things are going, I doubt much would be accomplished in the venue of a radical agenda.

Mad Jack said...

'Sacrifice' is the wrong word to use here. Let us try 'exchange'. Would The Anointed One exchange four years at the Golden Hog Trough for an ideal? Given the man's hubris, the obvious answer is, Not on your life. The real answer might be: It depends. What would Obama get out of the deal?

I don't like Obama, nor do I care for his ideas about government. However, do not underestimate him. Obama is bright, well-educated and has a lot of physical and mental endurance. He fulfills the requirements of a TV personality. His family tends to stay out of the spotlight (contrast this with Hitlery Klinton). Obama's ego matches or exceeds the size of the Office of the President. The Anointed One has four years as POTUS, and during those four years Himself is able to enjoy all the royal perquisites of that office. After that, Himself must win the race again. Certainly Obama knows this, but he may not truly realize just how much Himself will miss the old place until it's time to more out and the silver gets counted. When that happens, Obama will be willing to trade anything for another term.

I would say then that the only way Obama would trade that last four years for anything, then that something he's trading for must provide him with a better office and a longer term than the term he's trading in. Moreover, the trade must be for a sure bet.

President Obama is not altruistic; in fact he is egotistic. Himself is studiously unaware of The Great Unwashed who cling so pathetically to their guns and religion. If Obama can exchange the second four year term for a stronger office, then his unscrupulous character will be revealed.

Kadim said...

Backing up this question a bit, and making it more general...would any politician be willing to sacrifice re-election for the achievement of a particular goal?

I should think that some politicians would. Others may view the goal, and therefore measure their success politically, on the day to day wheeling and dealing, so for them, re-election isn't a goal but a means to an end. And certainly some politicians just like the perks and fame of office and the goal is the job.

I suspect many politicians have all three in mind, in some way.

The presidency is an odd office, because people often attribute successes which are undeserved, as well as failures, which are undeserved, to the president.

Re-election, unfortunately, doesn't seem to imply much about the president's competence as much as his luck.

George Bush Sr. is an underrated president who got a terrible set of cards. (Some of that is due to his predecessor, a severely overrated president, who got lucky.)

Obama might simply be admitting that his performance or his goals may be irrelevant to whether he gets re-elected or not.

Timothy W Higgins said...


The assumption in your question is that Obama's career would be over if he was not re-elected. History has proven that nothing could be further than the truth.

Our presidents now retire from office, but not from public life.Carter holds influence in spite of being possibly the worst president of the 20th century, Clinton gives expensive policy speeches and has now become a special envoy and hostage negotiator. I have little doubt that if our current POTUS were not to win a second term, he would still manage both influence and profit.

Should Obama achieve the goals that he apparently seeks in a single term, I believe that his rewards could be much more than the presidential retirement.

(Can you say George Soros?)

Google Analytics Alternative