Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » To Get Re-elected, It’s Not The Republicans Obama Has To Worry About

To Get Re-elected, It’s Not The Republicans Obama Has To Worry About

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Every American president’s worst re-election nightmare isn’t an economy that’s tanking as November approaches, or even having to face a popular opponent of the other party.

No, what presidents fear most is having to face a challenge to renomination from his own party. That’s because having to defeat a primary opponent splits a president’s base and certainly dooms his chances in the general election.

Ronald Reagan’s 1976 challenge from the Right certainly sealed Jerry Ford’s fate that November, while just four years later Democrat Ted Kennedy’s campaign against Jimmy Carter assured Carter’s miserable 1980 loss. Even conservative Pat Buchanan’s 1992 GOP campaign mortally wounded President George H.W. Bush’s chances for a second term.

Bill Clinton took this particular bit of history to heart leading up to his 1996 re-election, and assiduously discouraged any Democrat from challenging him on his way to a second term.

But, for Barack Obama, it already may be too late if Ed Rendell has anything to say about it.

The always-outspoken Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Rendell raised the threat of a 2012 primary challenge against the president on the “Morning Joe” television program.

Specifically, Rendell warned of a Democratic challenge over Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan, a policy which is unpopular with much of the Democratic base.

Rendell also poked Obama over the president’s recent appearance on the daytime program, “The View,” calling it undignified for the office.

It bears recalling that Rendell was one of the staunchest supporters of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign against Obama, and that the governor only endorsed Obama after Clinton tossed in her towel.

And Rendell’s no local politician unexperienced in national politics. He’s a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and he understands how Washington politics works. That means he knows full well what he’s doing by taking these kinds of shots at a president of his own party.

Is Rendell laying the groundwork to be the Democrat who stands in the way of Obama’s renomination? Rendell is at the end of his second term in Harrisburg, and soon will have plenty of time on his hands. Is he looking for his next job?

The governor, of course, didn’t come right out at this point and declare against Obama, sounding more coy by speculating whether fellow former DNC chairman Howard Dean might choose to challenge the president.

To be fair, Rendell’s criticism of Obama could amount to nothing. Rendell’s talkative and sometimes too-candid nature makes him gaffe-prone. (He famously remarked in 2008 that Janet Napolitano was a perfect choice for homeland security secretary because she had no family and could “devote, literally, 19, 20 hours a day” to the job.)

If Rendell’s criticisms of Obama amount to just more idle talk, the president will have dodged a dangerous bullet indeed. But it ought to serve as a warning to the president and his political operatives in the months ahead.

Obama could either follow Bill Clinton’s example of quashing any threat of a lethal challenge from the Left now, or leave it all up to change and go the way of Jimmy Carter.

Powered by

About Scott Nance

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Scott, I’m afraid you’re confusing the chicken and the egg here.

    The in-party primary challenge isn’t what doomed the presidencies you mention, it’s just a symptom that they have already doomed themselves.

    Carter, Ford and GHW Bush would not have had challengers at all if they had come out of their second term looking as good as a Reagan or a Clinton.

    The same hold true for Obama. It’s his failures which make other Democrats want to challenge him and which will make him a one-termer.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    At this point in his first term, Reagan looked like a loser too, and for similar reasons: the hangover from a nasty recession. It all depends on the unemployment rate. It improved in 1983-84, and could well do the same in 2011-12. Anyone who claims now to know what’s going to happen then is assuming too much.

    I like Ed Rendell. I think he’s really a loyal supporter of the president, and certainly not a likely intra-party challenger for the nomination.

  • http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com Scott Nance

    Dave,

    You seem to forget, though, that the “failures” of Obama that would animate a 2012 Democratic primary challenger from the Left are mirror opposite of those that you probably regard as failures.

    For instance, most Democrats oppose Obama’s Afghanistan policy and would advocate for even stronger federal spending on the economy.

  • http://www.magnaveritas.com Dave Nalle

    Scott, I oppose the war in Afghanistan and have since the Bush administration. And a hell of a lot of Republicans are with me. As for spending on the economy, I just want it to be efficient rather than just giving money to megacorps and federal agencies which use it as inefficiently as possible.

    DAve