Wednesday, June 4, 2014
It's Time to Circle the Wagons around the Obama White House
The Obama effort to re-establish his foreign policy credentials has not worked. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted May 29-June 1, 2014, shows Obama at 41% approval rating for handling international affairs - down by 6 points from early March, and down by 13 points since his re-election, to a career low. And 50% disapprove, a new high, with those who strongly disapprove outnumbering strong approvers by 2-1. In further criticism on the international front, 58% say the Obama administration has tried to cover up the facts about the attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, essentially the same as sentiment on the issue a year ago. Fewer, but still half - 51% - favor a fresh round of congressional hearings. While Obama gets an even 45-45% rating on handling one central element of US foreign policy, the situation in Afghanistan, at 77% support - including 57% “strong” support - specifically for his plan, announced last week, to remove most US forces there. Even among Republicans and strong conservatives, hardly Obama fans, six in 10 support the drawdown. ~~~~~ On domestic issues, the President thus far escapes substantial blame for the veterans’ hospitals scandal that forced a Cabinet resignation last week. But his weak ratings on domestic issues, notably the economy and the health care law, continue to damage Obama and his party, and now he has lost ground on international affairs. But, this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, shows broad support for proposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions, a new Obama initiative. And his job approval overall has moved up to 46%, from a career-low 41% in late April. But 51% disapprove. The President hasn’t seen a net positive approval rating since July 2013, nearly a year ago. According to the poll analysis, domestic issues dominate public concerns, and here the President’s performance remains more unpopular than popular - 53% disapprove of his handling of the economy, vs. 43% who approve. The poll shows that 56% disapprove of his handling of the implementation of the new health care law, vs. 39% approval. And 50% view his work on immigration negatively, up 9 points in the past year as the issue has bogged down in Congress. Just 38% approve. Across the poll, intensity of sentiment is sharply against the President, with strong disapproval exceeding strong approval by roughly 2-1 margins. ~~~~~ On the mid-term 2014 congressional elections, Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress are at an essentially even 47-45%, and it’s +2 Republican, 48-46%, among those who say they’ll vote for sure. So, when the poll focused on the likeliest midterm voters, the results favor the GOP. That means the Democrats, given their usual low mid-term turnout, need a substantial lead among registered voters to stave off midterm losses. But, they’ve been nowhere near it since the partial federal government shutdown in the fall of 2013. Specific issue results highlight the Democrats’ challenges and the Republicans’ opportunities. Obama’s ratings are weak both on the top issue that Americans say will guide their mid-term vote choices – the economy – and on one of the next-tier issues, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the federal budget deficit. The continuing disapproval with “the way Washington is working,” is negative for both parties. Other issues, some of them potentially more helpful to the Democrats, receive lower priorities, and so will have less influence on mid-term voters, including issues of special concern to women, immigration, global warming and gay marriage. Yet, all these provide room for the midterm battleground. For example, Obama’s approval rating for handling the economy, while still weak at 43%, is 8 points better than his career low, 35%, in October 2011, and strong disapproval of his economic performance is 12 points off its peak. Economic progress - or its absence - could be important for mid-term voters. ~~~~~ Divisions among groups of voters is also an issue. The gender gap is wider than it customarily winds up in midterms; among women, registered voters favor Democrats over Republicans for Congress by a 10-point margin, while among men, it’s Republicans +9. Whites favor GOP candidates by 16 points, with one exception - college-educated white women provide a continued toehold for Democratic candidates. Nonwhites prefer Democrats by 67-23%. There’s also the potential influence of the Tea Party political movement. Here, 39% of Americans support the Tea Party, about average in the past three years, including 11% who do so strongly. But more are opposed - 46% - including 24% strongly opposed. Key here has been the loss of Tea Party candidates in a number of high-profile primaries this season, where more traditional Republicans campaigned for victories to bolster their chances in the political center. That said, their Democratic opponents may have pushback in suggesting that the GOP’s mainstream has moved in the Tea Party’s direction. ~~~~~ On mid-term election day, despite Democrat efforts to deny this, the crucial and deciding central factor is likely to be Obama himself. Among registered voters who approve of his job performance, 81% currently favor the Democrat in their congressiona district. Among those who disapprove of the president, 72% back their local Republican candidate. As goes the President’s popularity, then, so, to a large degree, go his party’s fortunes. This is the often-discussed GOP advantage. Here, two specific issues remain political wildcards, with, at least so far, more heat than light in terms of their impact. One is a new congressional investigation focused on the attack that killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi. As noted, echoing Republican criticisms, 58% think the Obama administration has tried to cover up the facts rather than honestly disclosing what happened (it was 55% a year ago). Somewhat fewer, however, either support launching a new investigation, 51%, or disapprove of the way then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handled the issue, at 50%. The second issue is the scandal over the concealment of long patient wait times at Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals: Nearly all, 97%, call this a serious issue (82%, very serious), and 65% say Eric Shinseki, the secretary of veterans affairs, did the right thing by resigning. At the same time, 60% say Obama himself deserves at most only limited blame - “just some” or none - for these problems; 38% assign him more blame, but few - 19% - give him “a great deal” of it. One question that summarizes these competing issues asks Americans whom they trust more to handle the main problems the nation faces - Obama or the Republicans in Congress. A year and half ago, on a roll after his re-election, Obama led in this measure by 15 points. Six months ago that had contracted to an even split, 41-41%. Today it’s almost as close - 43% for Obama, 38% for the Republicans - close enough to leave control of the political high ground, up to the mid-terms and beyond, up for grabs. ~~~~~ Dear readers, the Washington Post/ABC poll is centrist and other polls will flesh out the liberal and conservative attitudes concerning the mid-term elections. And we must await later polls to understand the full impact of the Bergdahl exchange on President Obama and the Democrat Party. But, one key Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has already voiced her opinion on Obama's Bergdahl playbook. She told reporters yesterday that "they broke the law" in not notifying her Committee, which has oversight responsibility, before releasing Guantanamo detainees. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he's happy they've been freed and sent to Qatar : "Guantanamo has been there far too long, and I think that we should get them out of there as quickly as we can," he said of the remaining 150 prisoners still classified as "enemy combatants" and held without charges : "I'm glad to get rid of these five people, send them back to Qatar." Senator Lindsay Graham commented that Senator Reid is "disconnected from reality." His statement makes Harry Reid the No. 1 candidate to join the Susan Rice wing of those loyalists who still support Obama - Harry Reid can often be characterized a liar, and he is clearly Delusional. For the rest of America - Republicans, Democrats and Independents - it is time to circle the wagons around the White House and Barack Obama by returning a Republican majority to both the House and Senate in November. The survival of a recognizable America depends on being able to stop Obama's bizarre sense of what an American President should be and do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
President Obama is the quintessential example of what Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. in 1973 called The Imperial Presidency. Presidents are “plebiscitary presidents” ie: presidents who are only accountable during elections or his own impeachment proceedings. The Imperial President is not daily accountable to the Congress, press, or the public at any other time.
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time a president made the trip down Pennsylvania Ave. to answers questions offered up by the House and/or Senate members?
Obama will not be restrained from his battle to re-configure the American political system. He is predisposed to shift the power of our Constitutional government solely to the Oval Office
Obama is proceeding rapidly to consummate his wholesale destruction, fundamental transformation of America, and adding insult to injury, he’s doing it outside the scope of his constitutional authority. The last chance to stop his plans may be at the Mid-term election in November 2014.
We must surrounded power moguls in the White House with a veto proof, solid republican House and Senate that will take immediate action to grind to a terminate this left moving government.
Obama has proven he will not be denied. But he’s making sure America will be.
For most of our still young existences this country believed that our unmatched rights came from God. In that time there was liberty, freedom, minimum regulation, minimum taxation, people kept what they earned and were able to pass it on, parents educated their children, people were self-sufficient, they carried guns without needing permission, they were empowered, and they were as free as any people had ever been. John Locke believed that man has no right to destroy his own life as his life was created by God.
ReplyDeleteDuring the recent time of government given rights, government education of the masses has dumbed the population, taxation in all forms confiscates a ridiculous percentage of income, inheritance is stolen, individual rights are systematically denied, property is stolen routinely, deficits soar under the burden of giving people what they believe is their right, protest movements like Occupy Wall Street explode under government encouragement to take more from the producers to give to the duped unproductive voters, and the National Debt has risen to an unsustainable level because taxation cannot cover the burden of government given rights, and massive borrowing has to cover the difference.
Any bill you examine or any argument of rights is going to come down to two conflicting philosophies. One is where rights are God given, unalienable, and untouchable by government. The other is that all rights are government given, and with that comes the power to control and destroy life, remove liberty, regulate commerce, and distribute property in any fashion government chooses. Which view would you like to live under?
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Somewhere along the way, this got lost on the modern Liberals, Socialists and Communists that permeate every fabric of our society and government, because for them this simple, declarative sentence by Jefferson, that so totally encompasses the richness of the gift of defined rights from our Founders, has no meaning whatsoever. And this is where the whole concept of rights got screwed up. Here is how I think it happened.
The American public stopped trying to preserve what they had. Progressive administrations just keep passing out the freebie’s and soon the freebies became our “rights” from man – not God.
I liked it the old way personally – and you?
Where is Obama on this subject matter of Bergdahl? Doesn’t he owe us his explanation? Aren’t we entitled to hear his logic for making this trade rather than some underling that was not present while he was deciding which way to go with his story?
ReplyDeleteSusan Rice at mid-day Saturday gave 2 totally opposite answers concerning Bergdahl health. One to ABC news was that he was OK; another was that he was in serious condition? - one way or another Susan Rice has again lied to the American people. And she is making National Security decisions at the presidential level, wow!
I have watched the Taliban video of the transfer of Bergdahl into American custody many times … and Bergdahl does not look seriously ill or acts/walks as a serious person would. And I have seen many POW that have been incarcerated over 4 years. “Water Bug Soup” does not put weight on or gives the skin a nice tanned glow.
Bergdahl looked like he was shedding a tear to be leaving his "Captors" and his "Handler" patted him as a friend not an enemy.
Delete
ReplyDelete"...head 'em up, move 'em out Rawhide."
In former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s recent memoir said: “the President. . . doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war (Afghanistan) to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
ReplyDeleteThe challenge we face today is as great as any in our history. Our national security and the values we cherish, in addition to the future of democracy in the world, rest on our ability to rise to this occasion.
How do you attack or defend against a government that is built on lies and misconceptions. An administration that prior to putting out news/facts already has their “clarification” statements ready for release or plane ticket bought and bags packed to get out of town until the smoke clears.
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time Condi Rice EVER had to come back with an explanation as to what she said earlier? NEVER. She may have used words that everyone didn’t understand but they fit her statement precisely and unerringly.
When did President Bush ever have to explain anything during the time following 9/11, or for that matter any of his administrators!
It’s nearly impossible to deal with a prevaricator. There is always a cover story ready to go. And Obama does it so well. I just don’t believe a thing that he ever says anymore or ever did for that matter. The opposing forces in the House and Senate needs to bite the bullet and take the only recourse that Obama has left available – I M P E A C H M E N T!
So “circling the wagons” with impeachment in hand may take some cripplingly equipped forces that are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder, not be indecisive, and act as one for the good of the nation and the world.
Since when did the truth ever needed to be “clarified or explained”
Delete“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
"If ever you find yourself environed with difficulties and perplexing circumstances, out of which you are at a loss how to extricate yourself, do what is right, and be assured that that will extricate you the best out of the worst situations. Tho’ you cannot see when you fetch one step, what will be the next, yet follow truth, justice, and plain-dealing, and never fear their leading you out of the labyrinth in the easiest manner possible." - Jefferson to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
ReplyDeleteGood advice from one president to another.
Obama wants us all to part of his “groups” – white, black, voters, thinkers, government dependent, etc. And he wants this for two simple reason – groups can be controlled easier and he thinks in groups like votes are groups not individuals to him.
ReplyDeleteGroups do not have minds. They are composed of individuals with individual minds, individual likes and dislikes, individual morals, individual skills, individual wills, and individual views of the world.