Barack Obama is in Asia and happily so, I imagine, since his reception has been warm – fawning, really. Indeed, Singapore was abuzz over his arrival and the papers are full of positive coverage on the POTUS. I imagine that there might be no happier place for him these days than the world’s most populous continent (other than Oslo, perhaps – home of the Nobel Peace Prize).
Alas, the health care debate in the US is covered here, but not in an alarmist way, since Singaporeans are neither without coverage (it is universal) nor on the hook for future liabilities. There have been a few op-eds by Singaporeans patting themselves on the back for having such a good system (even The Wall Street Journal editorial pages has sung its praises). Evidence, perhaps, that this Lion City is better governed than the US. But all that has taken a back seat this weekend.
Asians are a commercial people and when they look at the US, they see what is still the world’s largest consumer economy. Therefore, maintaining stability in the relationship – and ensuring that trade continues to flow – is the foremost priority. On that front, Obama has given all the right messages on supporting free trade (traditionally, Republicans are preferred by Asians since they are seen as more mercantile-focused than those pesky Democrats with their focus on issues like human rights). Additionally, the POTUS seems to have walked the fine line of appeasing Japan without offending China, which is, after all, the best way of ensuring that regional tensions do not interfere with trade.
Furthermore, the current kerfuffle over Afghanistan is no issue here. The news is reported but the problem is seen as remote. If anything, people think the US is wasting its resources, leading to the potential premature demise of its empire. While people want the US to remain a customer, the depletion of its power is not lamented in most of Asia, Singapore being an exception because it so values US dominance of the seas as the best way to ensure continued flow of trade through the world’s busiest port.
As for the big news of postponing climate change action, I cannot think of a better place for Obama to have announced that action, since the reason for the postponement is largely on his back for not getting any legislation in place this year. Asian governments are generally not too keen on any sort of binding treaty, as they prefer to grow their economies unfettered. Had the announcement been made in Europe, I imagine the protests would have been fierce. Likewise, in Africa, which is trying to hold Western governments for a ransom over climate change, reaction would not have been positive. I think it was fortuitous that this announcement came from Asia, where the story will have the least impact.
So, all in all, a perfect time for Obama to escape all the criticism in Washington for adulation in Asia. I bet he will miss his honeymoon when he has to get back to the business of government and the hard issues of health care and Afghanistan.
Some of you might wonder why there hasn’t been much content lately on Obama Pundit.
Besides the obvious answers (laziness, life), there is another.
Ennui.
To put it plainly, Obama is boring. He has been a failure, to be sure, but he has been a boring failure. How many times can we come on here and post about Obama screwing something up? It gets old for reader and writer alike. Carter was boring and bumbling, but at least he was bold in his boringness.
Obama is the black Gray Davis. You remember the former governor of California, don’t you? Like Davis, Obama is an empty suit, a Democratic party apparatchik. They even have similiar builds. Both Davis and Obama appear to lack a sense of sturdiness or gravity. It appears you could knock them over with a slight nudge. But no one wants to come off feeling like a bully.
The only explanation for Obama being such an intense bore is that he hopes to lull sites like this into a coma. In that sense, I feel like Obama Pundit is under attack thanks to the steady, hypnotic ineptitude pulsating forth from the White House. Who wants to write about failure all the time?
I will say this: the latest fiasco with the Olympics is mildly interesting, but I’d have more to write about if Chicago had actually won. Instead, we get to choose between bad Olympic news and a bad job report. Aargh!
Something positive has to happen soon, right? Must we continue to be nattering nabobs? It can’t be like this for four years, can it?
With Obama plummeting in the polls, his agenda in danger and the center abandoning him, the Left has come up with an explanation: It’s all because of racism!
Jimmy Carter cites protesters calling Obama a Nazi as an example of racial politics. Of course, Obama isn’t the first President to be called such, nor will he be the last.
Didn’t we know this was all coming? The racism charge has been kept in the back pocket of the Left just in case Obama turned out to be a complete failure. Well, now that they have played that card, can there be any doubt that this is an indication that the Left is increasingly desperate and worried about his prospects?
In a recent conversation with a good friend and self-described liberal democrat, the discussion turned to economics. My economic position, well-known to my friend, is relatively straight-forward.
I tend to view income as labor and find appealing the idea of a flat tax for everyone beginning above some threshold. I don’t have a percentage in mind, but if that comes out to 20%, then everyone is contributing about 400 hours per year to our government even if one person’s 400 hours brings in more revenue than another person’s. For me, there is something intuitively fair about such a set up.
In my personal financial life, I avoid non-investment debt and I avoid borrowing money unless I have a clear plan to pay it back. Consequently, I don’t like deficit spending and I am nervous about the scale of recent borrowing on top of an already huge national debt.
I am neither socialist nor laissez-faire – and for the same reason: I see both as impractical and ineffective. If socialism could compete with capitalism in terms of productivity or innovation, I would not oppose it as strongly as I do. If complete deregulation provided sufficient guarantees against exploitation, I would not oppose it as strongly as I do.
In an economic sense, I see the nations of the world in a (hopefully friendly) competition for resources. To the extent that we fail to make wise fiscal decisions, we will fall behind other nations that make prudent economic choices.
The purpose of this article is not really to promote the aspects of my (current) economic philosophy or its application to any particular situation. I realize that honest, intelligent people can differ regarding optimal spending or monetary supply. I can oppose bailouts or the stimulus package while still appreciating the arguments from the other side. My point is actually much simpler: to many people (including my friend), a desire for a fiscal policy along the lines laid out above is not merely incorrect, unrealistic, or impractical… it is radical. It is viewed as extreme to the point of denigration and dismissal.
And therein lies the problem… a perspective based on understandable axioms that seeks a practical and sustainable solution to our national economic problems is designated (and honestly perceived) as “nutty” or “the fringe” by wide swaths of the American public and unworthy of further consideration. As if this were not bad enough, the same thing comes up with virtually any issue that is hotly debated today.
On July 17th, Senator Jim DeMint (R – South Carolina) famously said about Obamacare:
“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
Senator DeMint is wrong. Universal Health Care / Coverage will not be the end for Obama in the sense that Waterloo was the end for Napoleon. Tonight’s speech could go a long way to determining if Obamacare will be his Russian Winter, however. Failure on this issue… or worse, a tragic success… could weaken this administration leaving them ineffectual and ultimately doomed in the 2012 election. Tortured analogy aside….
In mid-June 1812, Napoleon crossed the Niemen, beginning his invasion of Russian Poland. In mid-June of this year, Obama gave his “ticking time bomb” speech to the AMA where he emphasized the need for a public option (while simultaneously ruling out tort reform). Next Monday is the 197th anniversary of Napoleon’s disastrous capture of Moscow. By the end of that year, the Grand Armee’ had been expelled from Russian territory. If history repeats itself on health care, we could see a disastrous success by the Democratic party which leads to a large-scale collapse of public support as early as Christmas. Napoleon’s Waterloo was still 3 years away and it’s 197th anniversary will be in the height of election season: June of 2012.
There are two fundamental issues with regard to universal health coverage: the practical issues involving costs and quality, and the moral issues involving who should be covered. For most supporters of universal health care, the moral issues trump the practical. Further, for many opponents of universal health coverage, moral issues are historically common and powerful motivations for their support (abortion, for example).
I understand and appreciate the moral argument for universal health coverage. What I struggle with is the asymmetry associated with Congress’ addressing of this particular moral imperative. Katrina’s devastation created just such a moral imperitive; a humanitarian need that honest, hard-working people from every walk of life rallied around and addressed. Taking the President at his word, why is this moral imperative different? Why does the burden, in terms of tax rate, fall disproportionately upon those with greater income? And by disproportionately, of course, I mean exclusively (at least for now)?
On complicated issues, I often try to reduce things to the simplest analogue I can find.
Consider a small town of 20 people. Three of these people are elderly, 5 are either infirmed or children and two others who are not providing for themselves something considered critical… say, clean water. The argument is raised that having clean water is a moral imperative and the town should provide it for everyone. Everyone agrees that clean water is important for everyone, but when the town begins to discuss who should carry the water to those who cannot (or chose to not) carry the water for themselves, different arguments arise. In one camp, people feel that those who are the strongest should carry the water. In the other camp, people feel that its ok to help the elderly, infirmed and children, but if the remaining two people above want water, they can contribute to the effort. Further, the work should generally be divied up so that everyone who is able, works the same amount even if the amount each person carries differs.
The current health care bills in Congress are from the first camp. As I said, I am sympathetic to the moral argument, but I can only see it from the second camp. Everyone works, everyone drinks.
It sounds as though the Public Option is no longer an indispensible piece of the Obama Administration’s health care plan. If this is true, to many observers of the health care debate, this represents a substantial shift in policy from only a month ago.
“Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family.” (from July 17)
“The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform,” Obama said at the town hall event in Colorado. “This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it. And by the way, it’s both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else.” (from August 15)
Whether or not a “good plan” (however that is defined) requires a public option is not the point here so much as the political fallout from such a change. Is this Obama’s “read my lips” moment? Hard to say, but even harder to dismiss. Is the Obama Administration in real trouble on health care and how did they get to this point?
I believe failure on health care reform would be a serious problem for any administration that made it a priority, though not necessarily insurmountable. What motivated opposition to his plan may be much more serious – both in 2010 and 2012. So why did he fail? In a single word: TRUST. There are two kinds of trust in American politics: (1) trust that you are trying to do the right thing, motivated by principle, in the best interests of the American people, and (2) trust that regardless of your motivations, you are competent to make the things you promise actually happen. The American people stopped trusting the Bush Administration on both counts over involvement in Iraq, the handling of aid following Katrina and ultimately the economic collapse of 2008. Whether or not it was deserved, the Bush Administration lost the trust of the public and this lead directly to the powerful performance of the Democratic party in the 2008 elections. The conveyed message to the voting public was: “If you don’t trust Bush and his cronies, put someone else in charge.” The public didn’t and so they did.
With their victories, the Democratic party held the Presidency with a popular, charismatic new leader, the House with a substantial majority, and (after Arlen Specter’s party switch and Al Franken’s seating) a “sort-of” fillibuster-proof hold on the Senate. There was talk of a permanent Democratic majority powered by a shift in public support (if you like the Democrats) or massive pandering to their political supporters (if you don’t). There is still a long time between now and the 2010 elections, but the invincibility of the Democratic Party is no longer a foregone conclusion.
During the campaign, Obama established himself as a uniter who would reach across party lines and lead in a bipartisan way. With the economy as the overwhelming issue, the Obama Administration claimed that by passing its stimulus package, unemployment would be capped at 8% while failure to do so could lead to 9% unemployment. This danger, the public was told, required fast approval of enormous funds which Congress passed in an essentially party-line vote – losing a small amount of trust in his sincerity about bipartisanship. When unemployment climbed past 9.5% and the President was forced to admit that it could cross 10% despite the stimulus package, he lost significant trust in his team’s competence.
Distrust in both his motivation and competence were fanned during the government bailouts of Chrysler and GM. By assuring the public that bailout funds provided the best chance of avoiding bankruptcy, the Administration built expectations from the public that would ultimately prove disappointing. At the same time accusations were made claiming he wanted (1) government running business to support his alleged socialist view of the world and (2) he intended to use this crisis to make large payoffs to his supporters – in this case the Unions. Among his detractors, either or both allegations “stuck” when the final deals came down, selling out those with senior claims on the car companies’ debt and granting large shares to both the government and the unions.
Other issues arose, as they always do, but in my opinion played only a confirming role in the distrust equation. Professor Gates, Justice Sotomayor, the Iranian elections, and even Cap and Trade had comparatively little effect on the public’s view of the administration.
Then came Health Care. As with the stimulus package, the Administration claimed that this was an emergency of such magnitude that it had to be done immediately regardles of pricetag or opportunity for debate. Despite claims of long-term savings, those suspicious of the President’s and the Congress’ competence (recalling the now-recanted unemployment claim) had only to look at the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers which seemed to disagree with his rosy projections. For those now inclined to be suspicious of Obama’s motivations, there was even more fuel for the distrust fire… If this plan were so good, why did Congress insist on exempting themselves? If this plan were so important, why had so few members of Congress actually read the details before being pressured to vote? Why does it look like the President is cutting backroom deals with Big Pharma in order to gain their support? Here, the flubs were substantive… claiming the AARP supported their plan only to be corrected… dramatically over-stating the contribution from the AMA only to be corrected… and prior to the backroom deal above, suggesting that Big Pharma would provide an $80B contribution and allow the government to negotiate down their drug costs only to be corrected.
Unfortunately for the Administration, this distrust – along with some help from those ideologically opposed to this brand of reform – manifested itself in increasingly vocal media events. The President, members of Congress, and independent commentators fundamentally missed (or ignored) the point of these protests – describing the participants as crazy, Nazis, racists, selfish, greedy, manipulated or simply ignorant – and couched their arguments accordingly, inflaming the opposition even more.
Ultimately, I believe, the issue for the majority of protesters was simple, if not always stated: “We’ve seen what you’ve done so far… even if we agree that there are some problems with our Health Care System, why should we trust you to fix it?” Answers that are limited to, “The Republicans don’t have a solution” or “We can’t keep going the way we are going” can never address this concern. I think this is a question the Obama Administration cannot accept as honest. When you want the support of someone who doesn’t trust you, the first thing you have to do is understand that they really don’t trust you and then establish yourself (or at least your process) as open and honest. To that end, in the interest of saving his health care reform and the Democratic party’s chances in the upcoming elections, I would advise the President and Democratic Congressional leadership to do the following:
Simplify the bill, make it public, and require every member of Congress to read it
Give the public and independent sources time to discuss its merits and alternatives
Remove any and all special interest perks or exceptions from the bill
Set objective standards for measuring success and provide a sunset clause should it fail
I don’t know if this would be enough to win back the trust of the opposition, but it would be a start. The Administration can’t afford to keep going down the path its on.
I just don’t get this new strategy by the Democrats to attack the health care protestors head on. If they are correct that the people showing up angry at these town hall meetings are just a fringe group organized by the Right, then this is hardly the kind of exciting information that’s going to inspire the rest of the electorate to suddenly say “Aha!” and decide to blindly support Obama’s plan. Rather, all this noise and back and forth just looks–at best–like bickering to most people.
But what if there really is a genuine grass roots element to all this? This seems to be reflected by the polls, which show Obama’s health care plan floundering. If the protestors were a fringe group, wouldn’t the polls show that?
So if the Democrats are going up against a legitimate populist wave, then they are, in effect, pouring gasoline on the fire by besmirching these people as ‘the mob’ or ‘the fringe.’ It’s an absolutely crazy strategy with very little upside. As Peggy Noonan writes, the Democrats look increasingly desperate.
Finally, I find it hilarious that the Obama White House is complaining about the other side organizing. Wasn’t Obama a community organizer? When I used to work for a labor union, all we did was turn out rank and file members to show up at protests with prepared chants, speeches and signs. It’s a process perfected by the Left and its allies.
I think the Democrats doth protest too much. And I think it’s because they are scared that they have backed themselves into a corner on this issue.
Clearly, the new strategy on the Left is to equate opposition to Obama to racism. Do you think it is a coincidence that there is suddenly a flurry of opinion pieces on Birthers and racists and how it relates to Obama’s policies?
First, we had the Yglesias piece, which I discussed below. Then Bill Maher weighed in. Now, there is this column by Harold Meyerson which hits upon the same irrelevant points–Birthers, racists, etc. It includes gems like this to explain the sudden lack of support for Obama’s wonderful health care reforms:
When future historians look back at this passage in our nation’s history, I suspect they’ll conclude that this Obama-isn’t-American nuttiness refracted the insecurities and, in some cases, the hatred that a portion of conservative white America felt about having a black president and about the transformation of what many thought of as their white nation into a genuinely multiracial republic. But whatever the reasons, a mobilized minority is making a very plausible play to thwart a demobilized majority.
Right. It’s the GOP’s fault. The Democrats can’t even bring a vote on health care to the House floor and it’s the fault of the Senate GOP and their filibuster, which, uh, they are one vote short to implement anyway. So, when that fails, just say they are all racist nuts who think Obama isn’t an American. How desperate are they getting? And what is the origin of all this?
Republicans and their allied groups – desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill – are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.
However, much like we saw at the McCain-Palin rallies last year where crowds were baited with cries of ’socialist,’ ‘communist,’ and where the birthers movement was born – these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues – but like some Republican leaders have said – they are interested in ‘breaking’ the President and destroying his Presidency.
Well, let’s get back to reality. The fact is that most Americans–not a noisy minority–are in some sort of opposition to Obama’s plans. From Gallup:
Although the majority of Americans believe the U.S. healthcare system has major problems, less than 20% perceive that the U.S. healthcare system is in a state of crisis. This has not shifted significantly in 15 years.
More Americans now mention healthcare as the nation’s most important problem than was the case a few months ago. It is unlikely that the quality of healthcare deteriorated in four months, but rather that its salience has increased for the average American with the increased focus on the topic from politicians and the news media. This follows the pattern seen in 1993 and 1994; concern about healthcare shot up as the problem was being addressed in Washington, D.C., but dropped thereafter. The current percentage of Americans naming healthcare as the country’s biggest problem is significantly lower than in 1994.
At this point, almost 7 out of 10 Americans say economic-related issues are the nation’s top problem; 16% say healthcare is the top problem.
One in 10 Americans say healthcare is the most important financial problem facing their family.
I think it’s worthwhile to highlight liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias’ rather extraordinary column today called ‘Here Come the Racists‘ as a great example of how the Left operates these days. Call it a ‘teachable moment’.
I hope that wasn’t too condescending. If so, I’m only repeating one of the President’s favorite phrases.
Let’s start with how Yglesias distorts what happened last week with the Gates Affair.
How else to explain the firestorm of controversy set off by the president of the United States offering the banal observation that there is “a long history” of “African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately,” and that a police department that arrests a man inside his own home and winds up dropping the charges has acted “stupidly”? But as soon as the president spoke, the right wing pounced, smelling blood.
This might work as a rhetorical question if it actually bore some relation to what actually happened. Indeed, there was zero controversey over his ‘banal’ statement about disproportionate treatment of blacks and latinos. The real controversey was over him saying that police acted ’stupidly’ while at the same time admitting he didn’t have all the facts about the case. The buzz was over the President of the United States inserting himself into a local matter during a press conference on health care. This was why there was a firestorm, not because Obama said anything about how minorities are treated.
And since when are the Cambridge Police the right wing? All of them–regardless of race or political affiliation–supported Officer Crowley.
But the reason for Yglesias’ distortion quickly becomes apparent in the next graph:
Since the campaign ended, we’ve been seeing the extreme racial paranoia that has characterized the American right for decades.
Got that? Making a fuss over the President of the United States blurting out a snap judgement when he admits he didn’t have the facts is a sign of rising racial paranoia by the right wing.
Well, he might be right that there is extreme racial paranoia out there, except it seems to be coming primarily from people like Yglesias. How else to explain the title of his column (Here Come the Racists!). Does that sound appropriate for a column claiming to decry paranoia?Yglesias clearly insinuates that the Grand Wizard himself, Britt Hume, is one of these racists for having the nerve to point out those occasions when non-whites make racially insensitive statements.
What’s Yglesias’ motivation here? Is he merely adhering to the old left-wing saw that minorities, by dint of their lack of political power, can’t be racist and therefore to accuse them of racism is itself a racist act? But if the President doesn’t have power, who does? Is it wrong to hold him accountable for the content of his statements? Should we have just laughed off Sonia Sotomayor’s racially-tinged words?
After glossing over that whole issue, Yglesias then goes on to hit all the Lefty talking points of late: something about Michael Savage (is he even on the radio?), the Birthers (naturally) and, in order to appear serious and high minded, he also voices a faux concern for the future of the GOP for associating with such bigots.
For good measure, he throws in a poll that says that 23 percent of the public is uncertain whether Obama was born in the U.S. (clearly because they are all racists). Of course, he rather approvingly assumes that this group is all right wing, too, except that at least one-fourth are either independents or Democrats.
Let’s not forget that 61 percent of Democrats are uncertain over whether Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand or not, so when it comes to kooky conspiracy-theorist types, neither party is clean.
But Yglesias won’t let all that stuff get in the way of his column’s ultimate goal: To bludgeon people he disagrees with politically with the ‘racist’ label.
Much more fun to do that than talk about how Obama’s health care plan might create more racists–er, Republicans–in 2010.
One of Barack Obama’s favorite methods for defending embarrassing or politically awkward statements he or others have made is to claim that they are merely ’snippets’ that were ‘taken out of context’.
Then, after pointing this out, he goes on to attack those who would dare hold him or others accountable for such statements. The result is that attention is temporarily diverted away from the statements, usually so they can be weakly disowned later when fewer people are paying attention.
Some examples:
—On his wife, Michelle, after her speech declaring herself to be proud of her country for the first time in her life:
“..to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class … and especially for people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable.”
And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
“There are, of course, some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record,” said Mr. Obama.
Those are just three examples. Of course, in each of the three cases, the statements or the subjects of the statements were all eventually disavowed, rendering much of the early criticism by Obama over ‘context’ moot.
And now we come to the latest example. Here is the President clearly advocating for a single-payer health care system that will eventually phase out private insurance:
The text reads thus:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
I’m not sure how this segment can be construed as anything other than a strong endorsement of a single-payer health care system.
“Well, nothing can be farther from the truth. You know the people who always try to SCARE people whenever you try to bring them health-insurance reform are at it again. And they’re taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they’re cobbling them together to leave a VERY false impression. The truth is that the president has been talking to the American people a LOT about health-insurance reform and what is at stake for them.
“So what happens is that because he’s talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there — they simply cherry-pick and put it together, and make it sound like he’s saying something that he didn’t really say.”
WHERE was anything ‘cobbled together?’ It’s a straightforward video of a statement. It’s not re-edited or re-looped or cut differently. It’s straight from a YouTube video originally made by a member of SEIU!
This disavowal is simply amazing and takes us for a bunch of fools. A perfectly acceptable response would be: “The President at one time favored a single-payer system but no longer does. Next issue.” I’m sure many people not on the Progressive side of the spectrum would have no problem with him changing his mind to a more moderate position.
But to claim that it is taken out of context does nothing but increase the suspicion of the President’s intentions when it comes to this bill. Which Obama are we supposed to believe and why? Is everything he said in the past now inoperable if it is politically inexpedient?
He once said that ‘words matter.’ Maybe it was just another cobbled-together snippet that we should all disregard.
Note how the markets dove in the early Obama presidency and have risen sharply since early March:
This trend closely aligns with Rasmussen’s approval ratings of Obama. In the early going, Obama garnered strong approval ratings and appeared to have control of the agenda in Washington. When his stimulus bill passed on Feb. 17, his net approval was +15 and his overall rating was a healthy 61 percent.
However, around late February and early March is when Obama starting charting below 60 percent approval rating in Rasmussen. That’s also exactly when the Dow started to climb. It took off when, on March 6, Obama plunged from a +15 approval gap to a +8. He hasn’t been above +10 for more than a day at a time since.
Even more revealing, the steepest climb in the Dow which occurred starting in early July also coincided with Obama sinking to a net negative approval rating on Rasmussen’s tracker. On June 30, Obama went into negative territory for the first time. The Dow began its steep climb right after the 4th of July weekend and went up sharply for the next two weeks, just as Obama’s negatives rose to a net -12 in Rasmussen.
What to make of all this? I think it’s pretty simple: The markets see the stimulus as a political failure, the budget deficits are scaring people (thus creating an impetus for future reduction in said deficits), the Climate Bill is dead on arrival and the proposed health care plan is wildly unpopular.
So the markets are rising because they see Obama turning into a weak President. They are betting that as Obama’s approval ratings go down, the prospects for the American economy will go up.
The U.S. has revoked diplomatic visas for four Honduran officials working for the interim government, which the Obama administration STILL has not recognized.
I guess it’s okay to meddle in a country’s affairs when it doesn’t hold some sort of strategic value and also makes your left-wing friends happy.
Right now it appears that Obama’s Presidency is mired in a descending spiral that could get much, much worse. Not only are his approval ratings steadily falling, but his oratory appears to be faltering, with gaffes and improperly calibrated statements the order of the day.
So, things look bleak. Unless, of course, something happens.
Past Presidential first years weren’t always smooth, but there was almost always some sort of galvanizing event that knocked the mis-steps and errors off the front page, while setting a tone for the rest of the term.
George W. Bush, of course, had 9/11, the ultimate game changer. Much of the acrimony of the 2000 election was temporarily buried. Bill Clinton had a rough first six months, but then got some good news when it was revealed that the economy was humming in the fourth quarter of 1993. While he lost Congress, he survived to win reelection because the GDP was growing rapidly. Bush I kicked Noriega out of power, making him appear strong and resolute. Ronald Reagan got shot, which provided tremendous impetus to pass his economic program.
The problem with Obama is that he has taken on so much, so soon, he is sucking the air out of the news cycle. Despite what he claims, it really is all about him ane his legislative agenda, which at this moment is sorely lacking in clear-cut victories. No one expects a booming economic report any time soon. Any news out of the foreign policy sphere is likely to be bad. That leaves all-Obama, all the time.
Or so we think. We don’t know yet if Obama is one of those Presidents–like Carter and both Bushes–who will be cursed by bad luck, or one of those–Reagan, Clinton–who will be constantly saved from themselves by unforeseen good fortune.
I think we’ll see Obama’s approval ratings hit 40 percent by November and it will be largely the result of the legislative morass he has created. Whether he can dig his way out is the great unknown.
Category: 
