Obama’s 2014 Zealous Goal Will Ensure His “Legacy” Failure
The headline of the top story in “The Washington Post” on Sunday was: “Stymied by a GOP House, Obama looks ahead to 2014 to cement his legacy.” What that means, in plain English, is that America will be in gridlock for at least the next two years. When the Republicans took over control of the House of Representatives in 2010, Barack Obama’s left-wing agenda was stopped in its tracks. However, like most two-term presidents, Obama is concerned about his legacy.
Obama can claim only one major achievement for his legacy. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress with no Republican votes in the Senate or the House -- also a first for a major new entitlement program -- and is deeply unpopular with the American people and it is only going to get worse.
Obama desperately wanted to continue his radical agenda in the last Congress, but was stopped cold after the historic Republican victory in 2010. He did, however, force the Republicans to vote for his $620 billion tax increase legislation after his reelection which also had some $330 billion in spending increases. Even so, a minority of Republicans in the House voted for the gigantic Obama tax increase which had virtually unanimous Democrat support.
Obama is determined to force the Republicans in Congress into many party-dividing votes, such as the passage of his tax increase bill, before the 2014 election which -- right now, and historically -- favors Republicans. The article in “The Washington Post” stated that Obama is now facing the consequences of the automatic spending cuts ($1.2 trillion over a 10-year period) and “the complications they raise for his broader domestic agenda.” Obama “is taking the most specific steps of his administration in an attempt to ensure the election of a Democratic-controlled Congress in two years.”
“The Washington Post” article reports: “Obama has committed to raising money for fellow Democrats, agreed to help recruit viable candidates, and launched a political nonprofit group dedicated to furthering his agenda and that of his congressional allies.”
Barack Obama’s non-stop presidential campaign -- six years and running -- will only accelerate with the change of status of his political action committee, the inanely-named “Organizing for America” to a so-called non-profit group now called “Organizing for Action.” It will be run by his 2012 campaign manager, Jim Messina.
Their goal is to get billionaires and multi-millionaires to give them millions of dollars in donations so they can educate the American people on how they say the Republicans have become obstructionists in Congress to the detriment of Obama’s radical policy goals. Indeed, Organizing for Action promises that if Obama’s billionaires and millionaires give his new group at least $500,000 each, their reward will be to have quarterly meetings with Obama. It’s hard to believe people still fall for offers like that.
Obama’s group, Organizing for Action, is one of those steps “The Washington Post” article reports about to ensure he wipes out the Republican majority in the House of Representatives next year. Even a reporter for the hyper-liberal MSNBC, Chuck Todd, is criticizing Obama and his campaign operatives. Todd stated that Obama’s Organizing for Action is a scheme for high donors to meet regularly with Obama and that it is “the definition of selling access.”
Just to mingle with Organizing for Action Chairman Jim Messina at a “founders summit,” Obama’s big donors will have to pay $50,000. Chuck Todd continued: “This just looks bad -- it looks like the White House is selling access…. If you believe money has a stranglehold over the entire political system this is ceding the moral high ground.”
Continuing along those lines, according to “The New York Times” article, another leftist, former Congressman Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause, which advocates tighter regulation of campaign money, says: “It just smells. The president is setting a very bad model setting up this organization.” You have to give Todd and Edgar some credit for these remarks.
“The New York Times” which broke the story (February 22, 2013) about Organizing for Action reported that if Obama’s new “non-profit” group “continues its emphasis on pressing lawmakers on delicate issues like immigration and guns,” then “the distinction between campaigning and issue advocacy may be hard for Organizing for Action to maintain in the prelude to the 2014 elections.”
Even “The New York Times” makes it seem that Obama has established a pretty shady organization dedicated only to winning back the House of Representatives next year. The writer continues, “But the rebooted campaign, known as Organizing for Action, has plunged the president and his aides into a campaign finance limbo with few clear rules, ample potential for influence-peddling, and no real precedent in national politics. In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the ‘super PACs’ whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored.”
Do the names Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, James Riady, Maria Hsia, and John Huang ring a bell? They were all major Clinton donors during the Bill Clinton campaign finance scandal including the selling of the Lincoln Bedroom to major Clinton donors. A Justice Department task force won criminal convictions against 22 people by 2001 in the Clinton scandal. Does America, and indeed the news media, really want to go through with all of that again?
“The New York Times” continues, “Robert K. Kelner, a Republican election lawyer who works with other outside groups, said the arrangement ‘presents a rather simple loophole in the otherwise incredibly complex web of government ethics regulations that are intended to insulate government officials from outside influence.’”
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday, Congressman Raul Labrador, R-ID, quoted Obama’s National Economic Council Director, Gene Sperling -- who basically threatened “The Washington Post” reporter Bob Woodward for reporting in his book that the idea for the sequestration came from Obama and his new Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew -- who said, “Republicans will feel the pain in their districts.” Obama had lied about the origin of the sequestration idea in the third presidential debate last October against Mitt Romney and the debate moderator did not challenge him.
Obama advisors Gene Sperling and Jim Messina, like their boss, cut their teeth in Chicago-style bully tactics and they will do everything possible to win back the House of Representatives next year by pointing out Republicans’ opposition to more tax increases; a major 2nd term goal for Obama. Speaker John Boehner reiterated to “Meet the Press” host David Gregory on Friday that tax increases are absolutely off the table. So the war is on.
Let there be no mistake -- as evidenced by threats from the likes of Messina and Sperling -- Obama is going to battle with Republicans in order to wrest control of the House of Representatives from them. Ironically, instead of trying to build a lasting legacy by accomplishing tax reform and entitlement reforms, Obama has chosen, for political purposes, to continue the gridlock which has gripped Washington D.C. during the past few years. And because Obama has chosen to continue his endless campaign for the next two years, he has ensured his legacy failure.