Many have gone giddy that Obama is pulling in the "independent vote".
He's going to start thinking that he has a mandate from "independents" and refugee "conservatives" to make compromises on things like health care, for instance. (Is he the next Joe Lieberman?)
Three problems.1. There is no landslide coming in the Congress
Unless it translates into a governing super-majority in the Congress, it wouldn't matter if all the country voted for Obama, right?
In fact, there are plenty of signs to the contrary. "Independent" minded folks, like those in Maine, will probably send a Republican back, Senator Collins, based on the recent polls. "Independents" in Connecticut had no problem sending Joe Lieberman to Washington - how's that working out for progressive politics? The chances that "independents" pick a Democratic Senator to replace Idaho's Criag? 20%. Florida has put a constitutional 'gay marriage' ban on the ballot. Are 'independents' going to help stop it? The list goes on.
2. Playing to weakness, not strength.
Obama has adopted a mantle of sweeping change, but his policies are arguably the farthest to the right, or the least ambitious. His existence as an embodiment of change will wear out very, very fast (although, I admit it is quite exciting, right now). What happens the next 3.9 years of his Presidency? Are we really so naive that we think the GOP are going to help the next Democratic President along, just because David Brooks says he's a nice guy?
So far, these 'independents' look intent to pull the Democrats to the Right. No reason to support that, that I can see. Who else are they going to vote for? John "Perpetual-Deployment-at-any-Cost" McCain? Huckabee, who will eliminate the income tax, a huge boon to the wealthy? Reagan-Devolution-Man Romney? Rudy "Bush-II" Giuliani?
3. Getting self and others high.
Obama risks getting himself drunk on his own rhetoric.
He's going to start thinking that he has a mandate from "independents" and refugee "conservatives" to make compromises on things like health care, for instance. (Is he the next Joe Lieberman?)
His plan is already one of the weakest: he proposes that people buy a money-losing financial product (insurance), if they want and mostly from their Nanny Corporation (if your Nanny Corporation has it, you cannot opt out).
THAT is "change to believe in"? Pffft.
Seriously, on the key change issue, Obama is ... more or less big-picture AWOL.
The only reason the GOPers may not attack his plan, e.g. "big government" schemes like Goolsbee's 'national buying cooperatives' that Obama will never get implemented in a single term, is because they like it so much (not only because it will be easy to drag out the details ...).
Basically, it amounts to a quasi block-grant to the insurance industry. What's more his econ adviser wants the government to underwrite the 'catastrophic liabilities' of the insurance firms. No wonder they love him: millions of new enrollees (equals big bonus for the firm executives) subsidized by the government and a cap on your liabilities that guarantees your profitability at almost whatever level you choose. SOMEONE believes in that kind of change - now we know why he's the "bi-partisan candidate", maybe.
