Dobbs Has Fire.
There is a very good chance that resigned CNN anchor Lou Dobbs may run for president in 2012, says at least one major source I have talked to at CNN. Anyone who has read Dobbs’ book “Independents Day” has had vague forewarning that what is in the back of the mind of this 64-year-old is a race that doesn’t fit either party…and would resemble that of Pat Buchanan’s with some twinges of Ross Perot’s. In issues it would come very closely to Buchanan’s pitchfork crusades with some adaptations. While Buchanan has become a wistful neo-isolationist, Dobbs is more fiercely aggressive on the Manifest Destiny aspect of America’s international reach. Both are together on protectionism and immigration. Both Dobbs and Buchanan are in synch on social issues—unlike Perot who stood for abortion rights.
There’s no doubt that Dobbs is far and away a better communicator with vastly more charisma than either Buchanan or Perot. But it’s hard to believe that he could get elected as a 3rd party candidate—but could wreak great damage to the Republican party’s chances of unseating Obama…in the same way Perot did to the GHW Bush chances in 1992. My own guess is that the Dobbs “boom” will have fizzled out long before 2012.
The bigger mystery than what Dobbs is going to do is what CNN is going to do in the long-range. This nonsense that its president says…that CNN and Fox are pursuing different goals…is strictly for the muddle-minded. CNN is at the bottom of all the ratings for one reason alone: it is a pale facsimile of left-of-center network news. Klein, CNN president, is startlingly singular in his wish to continue to plow unfertile ground. Not unlike some Hollywood executives, he would rather please his liberal buddies than take after Fox’s ratings with aggressive adversarial thrust. CNN’s mantra: we’d rather be dead in the water than embrace conservatism. All of which proves that Lou Dobbs is smart to get out of there no matter what he does. Sticking with CNN is akin to clinging to a corpse.
ObamaCare May be Doomed.
Rising deficit figures and fearful timidity of Democrats over the party’s fortunes in 2010 could well doom ObamaCare. That means that the drive for revolutionary health care “reform” will symbolize: a mountain groaned and a mouse ran forth. Obama has to have something that is called a health care bill but as of now under no circumstances will Democrats agree to walk the plank for him with the economy in dire shape.
In a very real sense…with some alterations since no analogy is perfect…2010 may resemble the 1930 congressional. The Depression hit in 1929 and continued for several years. Hoover tried to put on a brave face and use federal government leverage to rescue the situation with creation of the RFC and other U. S. helps. Nothing worked.
In a desperate move to win his popularity back, he backed the Smoot-Hawley tariff and signed it into law in June, 1930—the act raising tariffs on more than 22,000 imported items. Smoot-Hawley was seen as his chance to save the Republicans in 1930 and win reelection in 1932. As we know now it did not: it worsened the Depression.
It’s clear now that Obama’s Smoot-Hawley is his health care bill. He argues falsely that it will not increase the deficit and will be a salvation for the poor…creating a wave of popularity for him to keep or marginally add to the Democratic majorities in House and Senate…and ride that popularity to reelection in 2012.
Frankly no realist believes this can happen. Commonsense tells Americans that with huge deficits in the trillions, adding a middle-class entitlement will be disastrous. In fact the view here is far clearer than it was with Smoot-Hawley for Americans of 1930 were willing—even eager---to use their “patriotism” to back a falsely-drawn bill.
Obama, Emanuel and Axelrod had no use for history and they see health care as rallying Democratic fortunes. What’s likely to happen is that health care will not pass in any way, shape or form which vaguely resembles ObamaCare. They will likely pass a charade bill without teeth, call it health care and run for the hills.
In fact, history may almost duplicate itself in 2010 as resembling 1930. In the 1930 off-year runs, Republicans lost 52 House seats (while retaining control of the House by a sliver). They held on by their fingertips—218 to 216 with the Minnesota Farmer-Labor party winning one seat which helped the Democrats. So on voting, the division was really 217 Democrats and 218 Republicans. Subsequent special elections during the next year saw Democrats trounce Republicans and the House swiftly passed to Democratic control. In the Senate a once heavy Republican majority plummeted in 1930 to a majority vote of one. Soon thereafter another series of special elections for vacancies gave the Senate to the Democrats.
In summary: ObamaCare will be the Democrats’ version of Smoot-Hawley with this exception: Unlike Smoot-Hawley, ObamaCare will fail because it is so self-evidently wrong for these times…and unlike the Republicans of 1930 who went to the people touting Smoot-Hawley, the Dems will go to the people without meaningful health care to tout. The results of the off-year election of 2010 will be roughly the same as the off-year election of 1930…with Republicans coming very close to capturing the House if not entirely capturing it (my guess is that the GOP will win the House)…setting the stage for the crushing defeat of the 44th president in 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment