“I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” President Obama told Diane Sawyer of ABC News in an interview yesterday.
But Charles Krauthammer offered up a third option on Special Report with Bret Baier:
Well, there is a third option he didn’t consider, which is that he could be a mediocre one- term president, and that’s what he has been thus far in his first year. And because mediocrity does not usually encourage the electorate to reelect you, that might account for being a one-termer.
I think what’s even more astonishing than the result in Massachusetts last week was the Democrats’ response over the weekend and how they understood the election. It was a marvel of obliviousness, obtuseness, and unbelievably condescending arrogance.
We heard the president say that the reason they suffered in Massachusetts is because he has been so busy doing all this good stuff for the American people he hasn’t had a chance to go out there and to communicate the shared values.
This guy has been on the tube more than Regis. This is a guy who has given more interviews, press conferences, and speeches than any president’s first year in history. The guy gave 29 speeches on health care.
Then Gibbs is asked on “Fox News Sunday” about the agenda that Brown had laid out in winning the Massachusetts race, very specific, including — he didn’t say I’m uneasy about the healthcare proposal, I’m going to reform it or improve it. He said I’m going to oppose it and I’m going to kill it.
Gibbs says, well, that’s not the reason that people voted as they did in Massachusetts. They are angry against the banks.
I mean, this is unbelievable. Explain to me how anger against the banks translates into a vote against Obama-care, particularly since if anybody had the bank issue, it was Coakley, who was for the bank tax. Brown actually opposed it.