What Obama has learned from Reagan and Clinton

Last night I went to a reception near the Capitol for GA lawmakers hosted by the Georgia Restaurant Association.

(As a side note, it is obvious this industry is really hurting. In years past large fine dining groups like Buckhead Life, Here to Serve, Fifth Group, et. al. were there. This year it was Taco Mac and Willy's Burritos.)

A small group of us were discussing the stimulus bill and how it was loaded with all sorts of non-stimulative pork and Democratic wish list projects.

A good executive lets his underlings hammer out the faremwork of a plan, and then has them present it to him as a finished package which he can fine tune to his liking, thereby avoiding the petty fights and allowing him to take credit for its success. Or if they cannot agree on a proposal, he can be the final arbitor of its parts, influencing it to reflect his true desires.

I think Obama is what Obama is doing on the stimulus bill. He is also following a two tiered strategy. One part of this strategy was a Reagan staple, the other a Clinton staple. If he succeeds, he could be creating conditions that will give him a strong historical legacy.

Obama has steadfastly refused to comment on the specific parts of the bill that have come under fire from the GOP. In fact, the silence on the specifics of the bill from the White House (even not-for- attribution comments) has been deafening. Obama is allowing Pelosi and Reid to pack the stimulus bill full of pork and non-critical projects, knowing that it will be just too much for Republican in the Senate to stomach. He is letting the Democratic leadership get way out on the plank and then will saw it off behind them by cutting deals with the Senate GOP.

Obama seems to be counting on a Senate GOP filibuster. If Republicans can stay united, the bill will fail in the Senate. Obama then can call the two sides together, and by using his personal charm on the Republicans, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's hammer on the Democrats, he can forge a compromise that both sides will support. Although the talk radio hosts and some conservatives columnists may scream, GOP Senators (especially those facing re-election in two years) will crumble rather than be seen as obstructionists. And Democrats will certainly not oppose their new president's first significant piece of legislation.

This will only strengthen Obama at the expense of both parties congressional delegations. It will weaken the Democratic congressional leadership by showing that they continue to be little more than masters of pork barrel spending, and will neuter Republicans efforts to stay united against the President. It will put Obama firmly in the driver's seat.

Obama recognizes that Pelosi (as a Georgia Congressman said to me last year) is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Remember that Pelosi gained her speakership by raising a ton of money for her collegaues (the mother's milk of politics...pun intended) and by playing the gender card, which almost always works in the Democratic causus.) Steny Hoyer of Maryland would have been a far more effectice Speaker, both in terms of leadership and in media skills, but he couldn't overcome Nancy's money or her sex.

And Obama has seen Harry Reid in in action, or in-action. Reid has been rolled by GOP leader Mitch McConnell at every turn since the Republicans lost their Senate majority. He knows that neither Pelosi or Read is a well loved or respected leader at the Capitol or in the country at large. He knows he has to seize the power on the Hill or risk having these two underperformers jeopardize his legislative program. And he does not want to have a permanantly obscrictnist GOP gain electoral credence by foiling his plans.

This ploy combines one of aspect of Reagan's presidency (which Obama has studied closely) and one of Clinton's.

Reagan was about Reagan. He didn't worry too much about party building or strengthening the GOP in the House or Senate. In 1984 he even made a last minute campaign trip to Minnesota in an attempt to win all fifty states rather than campaigning for endangered Republican Senate or House members. He spent as much (or more) time with House Speaker Tip O'Neill than with then House Republican leader Bob Michel.

And Obama is about Obama. Obama was elected because he was Obama...not because he had a "D" after his name. Obama's greatest margins came among younger voters who have the lowest level of party identification. Obama's percentage of the vote from this same group was 10% higher than Democratic House and Senate candidates on the same ballot. He didn't come to Georgia to campaign for Jim Martin, and he will not spend his hard political capital trying to save the Democratic leadership from itself.

The Clinton tactic is the old triangulation ploy. It worked for Clinton on welfare reform and NAFTA and it will work for Obama.

Obama knows that to go down in history as a successful president you just need to have successful presidency...and you can have that whether or not your fellow party members succeed in the House or Senate.