Thursday, November 12, 2009

Has Obama Peaked? Yes, He Has

By Steven Stark
To listen to some pundits, Barack Obama's public image began taking a serious beating when the off-year election returns came in a week ago. Or maybe it was the undeserved Nobel Prize, his approach to the war in Afghanistan, or when he revved up his pursuit of national health-care reform.
But the pundits, as usual, are wrong. In reality, Obama peaked the night he was elected.


Receive news alerts





That astonishing evening was both a blessing and a curse for our 44th president. As the first African-American elected to the Oval Office, Obama made the history books in indelible fashion, generating an uplifting sense of national pride and renewal along the way.
That alone is more than many presidents accomplish in a lifetime. But that achievement- if that's what you want to call it - came a very long year ago, before he was even president. The 10 months since he took the oath of office have been a letdown, even to most of his supporters.
Obama still doesn't seem to grasp that the collective Election Night reverie is over, and that now we are waiting for him to lead us in real time. Sure, a little bit of hubris was probably inevitable, but it led Obama to conclude, despite what he said back then, that the historic election had been about him. When in the end, as always, it was about us.
That night began to reveal an unfortunate truth: having reached a pinnacle on the day he was elected, Obama's popularity and relationship with the American people had nowhere to go but down. That's a difficult adjustment to make, and is reminiscent of the apocryphal story about the obsessed fan and her friends who worshipped and followed the Rolling Stones. One night, the fan finally got to spend the evening with Mick Jagger. After she emerged from the hotel the next morning, her friends asked her how it went.
"Well," she said, "he was alright. But he's no Mick Jagger."
Something similar was bound to happen with Obama. Some figures grow during their time in the presidency; others diminish. Obama's path was pre-ordained: unless he was able to achieve significant political victories immediately, he was destined to become - at least for a while - the incredible shrinking president.
It hasn't helped matters that Obama is the first president to serve in the post-Internet age. For a while, the mainstream media - what little of it is left, anyway - gave Obama a virtual free ride. Even as they have become more skeptical, however, they've been drowned out by the increasingly loud faithful on both sides who reflexively praise or trash him.
Who knows what to believe or how to figure out equilibrium anymore? The press used to be a check on presidents, but no longer. In the current Balkanized media environment, it's possible for Obama to read glowing reports from the adulatory left about his performance - regardless of how badly he screws up - while automatically discrediting the opposition press. As a logical result of this situation, he's become both overconfident and unable to figure out what the vast middle of the electorate really wants. In a nutshell, that's the quandary Obama has faced to this point - though he doesn't seem to know it.
Rookie mistakes
This isn't to say that Obama hasn't also made the understandable mistakes that rookies always commit. Like most who are new to the big leagues, Obama hasn't spent enough time in public life to befriend the right people. As a result, he relies too heavily on the folks who got him where he is - whether from the campaign or Chicago - when he really needs advisors who see the world differently than he does, and are willing tell him what he doesn't want to hear.
In terms of practical leadership, then, Obama has let Congress take the lead (which, if he were an effective leader, he wouldn't allow to happen), even though its approval ratings are some 30 points below his. Worse, when it comes to finding "experts" to solve our national crises, he has relied on all the usual, conventional suspects, such as Tim Geithner and Larry Summers - even though they're the sort of people who helped get us into this economic mess in the first place. Having bought into a solution to the financial crisis that centered around bailing out Wall Street - essentially a continuation of the Bush policy, despite what the Tea Partiers think - he's left himself open to a populist insurgency that poses the biggest threat to his political success. It's no surprise that Main Street no longer trusts Obama- it never will.
Another rookie mistake of Obama's is his belief that, in order to wrest control back from adversity, he must repeat what he did as a successful candidate. In his case, that means making endless public appearances, delivering the same speeches, and attacking his political enemies with the talking points of the day. But Obama isn't in Kansas or anymore. Or, more to the point, Illinois.
Put simply, Obama has misread his mandate. Perhaps he thought he was elevated to pass health care - they loved it in Iowa! - but in fact it was the economic crisis that got him elected, is now our national preoccupation, and will be the solution of which (or lack of one) that determines whether he's re-elected.
Obama seems to have forgotten all the stuff he proclaimed in the campaign about a new type of non-divisive presidency, even though that promise of bipartisanship was the facet of his candidacy that appealed the most to independents. Of course, the Republicans have made bipartisanship difficult. But he was the one in the campaign who claimed he could deal in a new way with those across the aisle - in contrast with his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, who once called that opposition "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
Obama further miscalculated what a president actually does and is expected to do in a constitutionally weak office. When it comes to the economy in an interdependent world, there's not a whole lot under his office's control.
Now that we, as a nation, have awakened from our post-election, post-racial dream state, we've begun to notice that our president may not be much interested in being a chief "executive," given that he's never run anything before or expressed the slightest inclination to do so. He has big ideas, to be sure, but that's only a small part of the job. The hard, nitty-gritty labor of figuring out how government can actually work better - the operative word is "governing" - seems to hold no appeal for him.
Put another way, where are our flu shots? It's worth recalling that, in what seems a lifetime ago, it was Clinton - not Obama - who promised to be ready on Day One.
Even giving speeches is overrated, especially in a media universe so oversaturated that the president can't get nearly the mass audience he could just a generation ago, when there were only three networks and no Internet. The bully pulpit has become a megaphone, and not a very large one at that.
The question now is whether Obama can learn and change. It's not an easy one to answer. Yes, all presidents have to grow in office to prosper. Many of the challenges Obama faces - to say goodbye to most of his old friends or recalibrate his political antenna - have been ably surmounted by others with less talent and far less brains. But brains are overrated in the presidency: just look at the politically successful Ronald Reagan and the unsuccessful Jimmy Carter.
Besides, what Obama needs to do requires more of a psychological transformation than an intellectual one. The milestone-minded, transformative nature of his candidacy can never be replicated or matched - you can only be elected the first African-American once. He needs to come down from his mountaintop because, in this country, only the faithful appreciate a president who consistently makes us listen to him, rather than the other way around.
So far, the signs aren't good. In his quest to surpass what he's done before and reprise his role as the nation's Moses, Obama appears to be on the verge of an "historic" remake of one-sixth of the American economy, namely health care - despite the fact that a solid majority of Americans oppose the change. Whatever the merits, pushing for major societal change without bringing society along is a guarantee of prolonged strife, and is as unprecedented in its own way as his election was. It is - dare we say it? - very George W. Bush-like in its disregard of the popular will; meaning that, in the ultimate irony, history may pair these two as mirror reflections of one another.
Obama was the ideal leader to help us reach a watershed moment and cross a racial threshold. Unexpectedly for him - and for us - that was the easy part.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends). Republicans have opened a six-point lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
Sixty percent (60%) say that the Fort Hood shootings should be investigated by the military as a terrorist act. Just 27% prefer a criminal investigation by civilian authorities.
This Veterans Day, 81% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the U.S. military. Thirty-six percent (36%) had a close friend or relative who gave their life for our country. A Rasmussen video report notes that 69% say that military service is good for young people.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of Americans oppose a law that would effectively ban the sale of big-screen televisions to save energy.
(More Below)

Seventeen percent (17%) say they’d like their children to grow up to be politicians. Just 4% believe those seeking office keep most of their campaign promises. Voters are divided, however, on the reasons that the promises are broken.
Most Americans continue to oppose the health care plan working its way through Congress.
Scott Rasmussen has recently had three analysis columns published in the Wall Street Journal. The most recent was on health care. Earlier columns were on the President's approval ratings and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.
(More Below)

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.”
Additionally, an analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race. That stability is one reason that Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.5% Democrats, 32.2% Republicans, and 30.3% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Prof busted in Columbia gal 'punch'

Last Updated: 1:17 PM, November 10, 2009
Posted: 2:57 AM, November 10, 2009

A prominent Columbia architecture professor punched a female university employee in the face at a Harlem bar during a heated argument about race relations, cops said yesterday.
Police busted Lionel McIntyre, 59, for assault yesterday after his bruised victim, Camille Davis, filed charges.
McIntyre and Davis, who works as a production manager in the school's theater department, are both regulars at Toast, a popular university bar on Broadway and 125th Street, sources said.
The professor, who is black, had been engaged in a fiery discussion about "white privilege" with Davis, who is white, and another male regular, who is also white, Friday night at 10:30 when fists started flying, patrons said.
LIONEL McINTYRE
LIONEL McINTYRE "Unfortunate event."
McIntyre, who is known as "Mac" at the bar, shoved Davis, and when the other patron and a bar employee tried to break it up, the prof slugged Davis in the face, witnesses said.
"The punch was so loud, the kitchen workers in the back heard it over all the noise," bar back Richie Velez, 28, told The Post. "I was on my way over when he punched Camille and she fell on top of me."
The other patron involved in the dispute said McIntyre then took a swing at him after he yelled, "You don't hit a woman!"
"He knocked the glasses right off my face," said the man, who would only give his first name as "Shannon." "The punch came out of nowhere. Mac was talking to us about white privilege and what I was doing about it -- apparently I wasn't doing enough."
McIntyre had squabbled with Davis several weeks earlier over issues involving race, witnesses said. As soon as the professor threw the punch Friday, server Rob Dalton and another employee tossed him out.
"It was a real sucker punch," Dalton said. "Camille's a great lady, always nice to everybody, and doesn't deserve anything like this."
Davis was spotted wearing sunglasses yesterday to conceal the black eye. Reached at her Columbia office, she declined to comment on the alleged attack.
McIntyre was released without bail at his arraignment last night.
"It was a very unfortunate event," he said afterwards. "I didn't mean for it to explode the way it did."
Additional reporting by Sarah Makuta

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/prof_busted_in_columbia_gal_punch_JmsXQ3NzaAt8uG6uUySGTN#ixzz0Wc08onlv

Man killed by VP's Secret Service vehicles

By: Scott McCabe
Examiner Staff Writer
November 12, 2009

Two U.S. Secret Service armored vehicles used to protect Vice President Biden struck and killed a pedestrian in Temple Hills early Wednesday morning, authorities said.
The vehicles were traveling together from Andrews Air Force Base at about 2:30 a.m. when the pedestrian was hit at the intersection of Suitland Parkway and Naylor Road in Temple Hills, U.S. Park Police said.
The drivers stayed on the scene and rendered first aid until police and rescue officials arrived, said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.
The pedestrian, an adult male, was transported to Prince George's Hospital Center in Cheverly with multiple critical injuries, police said. He was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.
The armored sport utility vehicle and limousine were occupied only by Secret Service employees and were not carrying the vice president or any other dignitaries, said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.
The vehicles, part of a fleet used to protect the vice president, were used to whisk Biden during his trip to Fort Lewis, Wash., and were heading back to a garage at the time of the incident. The armored cars were transported to and from Fort Lewis on military planes. The vice president was there to speak at a memorial service Tuesday for seven soldiers who were killed Oct. 27 in Afghanistan when their vehicle exploded after being struck by an improvised explosive device.
Biden returned to Andrews much earlier and was already at his residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Northwest Washington at the time of the incident, Donovan said.
Police have not released the pedestrian's identity pending notification of family. Park Police were still investigating the incident and had not determined a cause.
smccabe@washingtonexaminer.com

Hillary in 2012?


By Tony Blankley
I write this week from New Orleans, where I am participating in the Bipartisan Policy Center's Inaugural Political Summit, organized by Tom Daschle, Howard Baker and Bob Dole and hosted by Mary Matalin and James Carville.
The conference has assembled about 20 top Democratic and Republican political strategists and operatives and has asked us to assess how we might take the poison out of partisanship (which is, admittedly, rather like asking a convention of foxes how to advance the interests of chickens). In the process, we have been asked to consider how the next presidential campaign is shaping up. It's a little early, you might think, but in fact, in less than 18 months, both parties' presidential aspirants will be organizing their primary campaigns.


Receive news alerts







[+] More
The Republican primary field is obviously wide open, but it struck me that the Democratic Party's potential aspirants really are already down to two. Obviously, the president will be one of them, and if things aren't going so well for him by the spring of 2011, his only plausible challenger would be Hillary Clinton.
She made a recent obligatory denial of interest in running for president, but such denials are not taken seriously. After all, both the current president and the previous Democratic president flatly denied having any intention of running yet cheerfully turned up to take their oaths of office promptly thereafter.
Only God knows what will happen to America in the next year and a half (and he hasn't told me), but it is not implausible that by 2012, the Democratic Party will see Hillary Clinton's nomination as its best chance for keeping the White House.
Of course, if the economy comes booming back, unemployment is cut in half and there are no foreign policy disasters, President Barack Obama surely will get an unopposed nomination and probably his re-election. But if current estimates are right, that unemployment still may be close to double digits at the end of next year -- and particularly if foreign affairs go badly -- Hillary just might be the one.
It seems odd that a failed foreign policy might be the basis for a president's secretary of state to replace him on the presidential ticket, but it is beginning to set up that way.
Of course, as secretary of state, Hillary cannot plausibly be assigned any responsibility for a bad economy and high unemployment. Nor, perhaps ironically, would her fingerprints be on a stunningly unpopular health care plan that increases the national debt by trillions, increases the cost of health care premiums for the middle class and increases taxes on the middle class while also reducing the benefits to the middle class.
Nor, curiously, is she likely to be seen as responsible for the Obama administration's foreign policy. It has been reported repeatedly in major newspapers that she is one of the most marginalized secretaries of state in modern times. The White House has made little effort to disabuse the press and the public of that view. She was not even included in the president's Moscow summit. She is seen as the good soldier and team player with little voice in policy.
It isn't forgotten that foreign affairs were the major policy disputes between Clinton and Obama during the primary. She accused Obama of "being naive" about agreeing to unconditional meetings with leaders of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria and Cuba. She was -- and is -- a strong supporter of Israel and, during the campaign, was opposed to forcing Israel to freeze West Bank settlements unconditionally.
In April 2008, she was "deeply disturbed" by Russia's move to strengthen links to the separatist regions of Georgia -- Abkhazia and South Ossetia. At the time, she called on then-President George W. Bush to send a senior representative to Tbilisi to "show our support." She also condemned Russia for engaging in a "pressure campaign to prevent Ukraine from seeking deeper ties with NATO."
Regarding Iran, she favored immediate economic sanctions -- last year. She threatened military force if necessary to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. She threatened Iran with nuclear annihilation if it used nuclear weapons on Israel.
This year, as each of those issues emerged, President Obama took a different approach. He had to reverse himself on the unconditional settlement freeze. He let the Russians invade Georgia and was slow to condemn them for it. Iran is pushing the United States (and the world) into a corner on its nuclear development. Israeli/Palestinian "peace" talks are about 98 percent of the way to complete failure of administration objectives.
The worse things get in foreign affairs -- and those dark clouds are getting darker and closer -- the better Hillary Clinton's foreign policy will look compared with President Obama's. Even now, her Gallup Poll job approval rating of 62 percent beats her president's number by about 10 percent.
In the 2012 Democratic Party primary, we may once again hear Hillary's advertisement that asked Americans whom we want answering the red phone at 3 a.m.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Not enough about him? Barack Obama skips Berlin Wall ceremonies


There was one world leader absent for today’s commemorations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Surprisingly enough, it’s President Barack Obama, who found time last year to give a campaign speech there last year, which Der Spiegel summed up as “People of the World, Look at Me”.
The White House has cited a packed schedule, though looking at it he had nothing much on yesterday (brief chat to reporters about healthcare – by far his biggest priority) and just blah briefings and a bill signing today until a metting this evening with Benjamin Netanyahu. This time, Der Spiegel has reported it as “Barack Too Busy”.
But Obama is, of course, making time to trot over to Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in December. Didn’t seem to have too much of a problem clearing the diary for that – though his acceptance of the prize and decision to give a another soaring, historical, epoch-marking etc etc speech there will be looked back on as a colossal political mistake and sign of hubris.
Perhaps Obama felt that celebrating the role of the United States in bringing down the wall would be a bit triumphalist and not quite in keeping with his wish to present America as a declining world power anxious to apologise for sundry historic misdeeds. Maybe he didn’t really want to be associated with that warmonger Ronald Reagan:



Marty Peretz is gloomy about what his non-appearance says about Obama’s world view and his approach on Iran. Newt Gingrich calls the failure to go to Berlin “a tragedy”. Paul Rahe at Powerline wonders if Obama is signalling his administration’s intent to enact a “process of turning its back on our erstwhile allies in Europe”. Certainly, he seems to have a prickly relationship with Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Whatever the reasons, it’s another revealing mistake by Obama. This deserved to be marked by more than just  a proclamation penned by a staffer:

Monday, November 9, 2009

Lawmakers Detail Obama’s Pitch

In an odd coincidence, the House debate on Saturday to overhaul health care took place on the third anniversary of the 2006 election that gave Democrats majority control after 12 years of Republican dominance. It fell to President Obama and to Congressional leaders to persuade those Democrats still sweating the final vote that it would not prove the party’s undoing in next November’s midterm elections.

Both Mr. Obama and the House leaders showcased Democrats’ newest colleague, Representative Bill Owens, who last Tuesday won a special election in an upstate New York district that Republicans had held since 1872. In the campaign, Mr. Owens gave unabashed support to the pending House health care bill, despite the opposition of national conservative groups, including the new Tea Party Patriots, who backed Mr. Owens’s conservative rival.
Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens’s election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”
Another freshman Democrat from New Mexico, Representative Martin Heinrich, said the president’s comments overall were reassuring. “If you want to see a recipe for failure,” Mr. Heinrich said, “don’t do the things you talked about in your campaigns and turn your back on your base. All the independent voters in the world don’t matter if the Democrats don’t turn out.”
“This is an opportunity to do something as big as Social Security,” he added. “And me, personally, I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.”