Dumbest thing you'll read today...

... from Douglas Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell. 

It involves such gems as 

But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.

This, by the way, from a former Clinton (both Hillary and Bill) adviser. Now they I don't think Schoen [1] actually believe this. He was an adviser to Bill Clinton, who was also drubbed in the first midterms. It is also beyond ironic for Schoen to write

Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president's political prospects.

This, from the man who insisted that they shouldn't pass health care reform because it would negatively impact the Democrats at the polls. They suggest a national unity government, and claim that "if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus." Now this is standard 'third party' claptrap. Without actually changing the institutions of governance, this would result in a largely ineffective President who had few allies whose fates were tied to him and so could cut him loose at will. We have seen this movie before; Mr. Tyler I am thinking of you.

Schoen and Caddell claim that

Forgoing another term would not render Obama a lame duck. Paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with Republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president - to be uncooperative.

This is nonsense. They do their best to shuffle away from providing any mechanism by which this supposed increase in leverage would be accomplished. And they ignore the fact that if Obama were to announce that he was not seeking another term it would feed the Republican (and Schoen/Caddell) narrative that Obama's agenda has been repudiated. It is not a paradox that this would strengthen him; it is a lie.

Also, lines such as

Moreover, if the president were to demonstrate a clear degree of bipartisanship, it would force the Republicans to meet him halfway

might as well have been written in 2009. Oh wait, they were. But the Republicans stuck to their game plan of 'no' and were handsomely rewarded. Not to say that this will always work, but that it can, especially when the economic factors are favorable. All in all, this is the dumbest article I've read in weeks. There is an argument with shallow explanations and with no mechanism. It lunges across the line from ironic to hypocritical. And it has about as much likelihood of influencing the President as I do of being elected President. But that's not the point. The point is to feed the narrative to achieve policy (and political) objectives, namely, the repudiation of any progressive gains, hardline military stances against Iran, and possibly the re-ascendancy of the Schoens and Caddells of the world in the Democratic party.

[1] Did you know that Schoen wrote a biography of Enoch Powell? Presumably a PhD dissertation. Given my own interests, I am pretty sure that sooner or later I will be reading up on the old Ulsterman.