Barack Obama/George Bush 'Co-Presidency' a Bad Precedent

There has been a lot of loose talk lately about the notion of an Obama/Bush "co-presidency," as the President-Elect prepares to take over from a deeply unpopular George W. Bush. Our own David Knowles wonders who the boss is. One writer, New York Times Op Ed columnist Gail Collins, even suggests an early baton-pass:

Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn't impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We're desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she'd defer to her party's incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.

The notion was pushed by Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolfe toward the end of this segment, from last night's Countdown:



Let's ignore, for the moment, the effects of all of those PUMA heads exploding at the sound of the words "President Pelosi." This kind of talk, from a bored-shitless news media, borders on dangerous.

First, and foremost, I want to credit the Bush administration, to the extent they deserve it, for whatever cooperation they extend to Barack Obama. If they can make it easier for Barack to hit the ground running, and if they see the natural advantage to the country in beginning to shift policy in Obama's direction, more's the better.

But the idea that Barack Obama is the straw that stirs the drink, to paraphrase Reggie Jackson, is fraught with peril.

Best Case Scenario

I know that the American people, even a great many conservatives, are excited by the possibilities of an Obama presidency. No matter the reason, we can't wait for him to get started. This is doubly true of the news media, who have seen interest in Bush wane to a mere blip in the face of the supernova that is Barack Obama.

Let's forget the liberal resignation fantasies for the moment (that's its own story). If Bush stands aside, to the extent he is able, and defers to Barack Obama, and everything works out like peaches and cream, what could be the harm in that?

It creates a precedent, an expectation, on future lame-duck presidents that might not work out quite as well, that's what. When President Obama transitions, in 2016, to President-Elect Jindal, he will want to do so free from the expectation that he hand the reins over early.

Blowback

Even if unintentional, any perception by Bush that he is being unduly usurped could backfire on Obama. Bush could start swinging a wrecking ball in his lame-duck last few months, stepping up the passage of regulations and issuing reams of pardons.

He could also give up on repairing his legacy. There were some notable absences from his first round of exit pardons, and I think he may end up surprising people here. If nothing else, care for his legacy will keep him from doing anything drastic in these last few weeks of his presidency.

Other-Case Scenarios

The press is all too happy to credit Barack Obama's selection of Tim Geithner for the rallying stock market. Once this figurative "tag-out" has occurred, though, it's not like Obama can pull Bush back into the cage when things get dicey. I'm saying, you don't want to own a car that another guy is still driving.

Obama has paid the proper lip-service to "one POTUS at a time" (does that mean Bush is Valerie Bertinelli?), but he needs to continue to draw the distinction between securing Bush's cooperation, and running right past him.

Tommy Christopher co-hosts "Unusable Signal" , on BlogTalkRadio Tues - Thur at 10pm, and Fri, & Sat at 11pm. Click here for the Unusable Signal homepage.