Peter Baker and Julie Hirschfield Davis:
WASHINGTON — President Obama emerged from last week’s midterm election rejected by voters, hobbled politically and doomed to a final two years in office suffering from early lame-duck syndrome. That, at least, was the consensus in both parties. No one seems to have told Mr. Obama.
In the 10 days since “we got beat,” as he put it, by Republicans who captured the Senate and bolstered control over the House, Mr. Obama has flexed his muscles on immigration, climate change and the Internet, demonstrating that he still aspires to enact sweeping policies that could help define his legacy.
Jonathan Cohn:
The agreement with China, meanwhile, is part of Obama’s broader strategy to reduce U.S. emissions. It's a legacy that will last long after he leaves office, in the form of a planet that is heating more slowly. Policy success isn't the same as political success, of course. Last week's election showed that. And ultimately the two are related. On climate, like most issues, either Congress or Obama's White House successors could halt or even reverse progress in the future.
But the China agreement is something history will probably remember well, just as it does the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act—even if those two achievements, like Obama’s environmental accomplishments, get remarkably little love right now.
Much more below the fold.
John Cassidy:
During his first week of living in reduced circumstances after the midterms, Obama showed that he is capable of exceeding expectations, and he isn’t done yet. Sometime in the next month, he is expected to invoke his executive authority to prevent the deportation of countless undocumented immigrants. The Republicans won’t like that policy any more than they like net neutrality or tackling climate change, but it looks set to become the law of the land.
It’s too early for Democrats to cast off their mourning garb, crack open the bubbly, and toast their embattled President. But he’s already earned a few more pieces of gum.
Turning to some big news on the immigration front,
The New York Times applauds the president's plans:
President Obama is apparently ready to go big, as he promised, to fix immigration on his own — to use his law-enforcement discretion to spare perhaps five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. Aides speaking anonymously have told The Times that Mr. Obama is considering some options for executive action that would give parents of children who are citizens or legal residents, as well as people who were brought here illegally as children, temporary legal status and permission to work.
Details are lacking, and praise for presidential action will have to wait until it becomes clear whether the often-too-cautious Mr. Obama goes through with it, and how comprehensive his order is — whether it includes those who have been living here five years, for example, or 10 years and what other hurdles applicants may have to meet to qualify.
Our view on executive action is: the sooner the better, and the bigger the better, because so many have been waiting so long for the unjust immigration system to be repaired, while vast resources have been wasted on deporting needed workers and breaking up families instead of pursuing violent criminals and other security threats.
The Boston Globe:
There is, of course, an inherent political risk in acting unilaterally. Republicans will vilify Obama for acting on his own. Calls for impeachment will intensify, a concept that is as absurd as Republicans’ refusal to solve the immigration gridlock.
The GOP criticisms, though, are overblown. Every president since Eisenhower has taken executive action on immigration in one form or another. President Reagan, for instance, deferred deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans. The White House’s plan reportedly includes allowing parents of children who are citizens or legal residents to get work permits and protection from deportation, an action that would help millions of undocumented immigrants. It also will address the shortage of opportunities for high-skilled immigrants, allocate extra resources to enforce the border, and thoroughly review Secure Communities, the overreaching immigration enforcement program believed to be responsible for the record number of deportations during Obama’s tenure.
The best case against the president taking action independent of Congress relies on the premise that Republicans do plan to pass immigration reform eventually, and that easing up on deportations now would somehow undermine that plan. But, even with executive action, Republican leadership can and should still tackle immigration reform legislation.
David Firestone, meanwhile, examines Sen. Elizabeth Warren's new post:
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will now have a seat at the Democratic leadership table, which should make for some interesting lunch conversations. Ms. Warren cares passionately about economic policy, but she will be joining a group that’s far more passionate about politics and strategy and legislative maneuvering. [...]
A mere liaison is not what the Democrats need right now. The right wing is already talking about entitlement cutbacks, givebacks in corporate taxes, and undoing financial regulations. If Ms. Warren is allowed to become the voice of Democratic opposition to the worst Republican policies, she may just help lead the party out of the wilderness.
George Zornick has more:
Senate Democrats have a number of important decisions to make as the minority party in the coming two years: which Democratic proposals to highlight, which Republican bills to aggressively oppose and what amendments to propose to must-pass legislation. (Soon-to-be majority leader Mitch McConnell says he will embrace an open amendment process.) Senate Democrats will also be an important potential counterweight to any compromises that President Obama may try to work out with congressional Republicans if Democratic votes are needed.
The source close to Reid said Warren will be a “crucial” voice and vote at the leadership table when strategic decisions are being made. It’s hard not to conclude that progressives will thus have a stronger ability to steer the party’s strategic course going forward.
Russ Bernam looks at the story from another angle:
It remains to be seen whether Warren's new role will be more than symbolic. With the exception of the top spot and a couple of other specific jobs, there's not a whole lot that members of congressional leadership do besides sit in meetings and help the party hash out policy and strategy. And there's an argument to be made that Warren is getting short shrift, being given a nominal post at the bottom of the ladder while Reid and other leaders win reelection despite presiding over the loss of at least eight seats and the majority. (Recall Warren's experience with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, when President Obama named her to build the agency she championed, but wouldn't let her actually run it.) [...] As for whether Warren would have to become a saleswoman for policies she may not support, Green said he was unconcerned. "Elizabeth Warren has kept it real since entering the Senate," he said. Added influence, even in the unpopular halls of official Washington, remains important. "The whole point of pressuring from the outside is to change what happens on the inside," Green said.
On a final note,
John Nichols takes a look ahead at campaign finance reform:
While much is made of the impact that election spending has on particular contests and on the broader struggle for control of the Congress, there is far too little consideration given to the reality stated by Congressman John Sarbanes, the Maryland Democrat who says, “A lot of the moneyed impact. and in some ways, the most sinister is on the governing that happens after.”
Americans recognize this. An April 2014, national Reason-Rupe poll found that 75 percent of Americans believe all politicians are “corrupted” by campaign donations and lobbyists. Other surveys, asking the question in other ways, have found even higher levels of cynicism about arrangements between economic and political elites.
The American people also know that without the restoration of basic American ideals and standards with regard to elections—rooted in the premise that corporations are not people, money is not speech and votes must matter more than dollars—each new election cycle will be more expensive and more negative and much less likely to produce high turnouts and results that reflect the will of the great mass of citizens.