President-elect Obama on Mumbai was cautious in his responses, sticking to his “one President at a time” position. He nevertheless did stress “unequivocably” his team’s commitment to “eliminating terrorists” and declared we could not tolerate attacks motivated by “twisted ideology.” This statement could have been delivered by John McCain.
In responding to a query on his team’s strong viewpoints and personalities, he again emphasized his commitment to military strength. His emphasis was on strengthening our capabilities “in all dimensions.” (This would seem to mesh with my take that he’s not going to be abandoning “hard” power, but rather attempting to supplement it.)
On the right of India to move militarily against Pakistan, he said that sovereign nations have a right to protect themselves but declined to comment further. He reiterated his support for India.
Twice in response to questions he noted that disagreement among his team was expected and welcomed. In response to a very pointed question about his past belittling of Hillary Clinton, he declined to rise to the bait. Outside the “heat of the campaign,” he confirmed that they shared a world view. Again in a subsequent question he expressed his admiration and sung her praises.
On the 16-month withdrawal date, Obama said he had promised to remove combat troops but to keep a “residual force.” He continued that the Status of Forces Agreements ”points us in the right direction.” (Clearly, firm deadlines are out and “listening to the commanders” is in, with a high priority for protecting the safety of American troops. The responsibility of power has a sobering effect, indeed.)
All in all, an entirely sober, responsible national security kickoff. The Left may be grinding its teeth. But those hoping for a robust, clear-eyed national security approach had much to be heartened by.
Socialized health care, universal pre-school, subsidized government university, while gutting “cold war” defense initiatives, and refusing to acknowledge right from wrong in the world…are we sure this is the President of the United States, and not the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada?
In case you didn’t catch the press conference when he was up here in Canada last week, he waxed poetically about his love for Canada like he’s NEVER spoken about his own country! Good luck, folks. Enjoy your Republic, if you can keep it.
For the last several months, I’ve been surprised that many conservatives have hoped and expected Obama to be other than he is showing himself to be: a rookie administrator with strong left-wing views and a basic disinterest in and detachment from foreign policy; all being done with political and personal aplomb that enables him to rise above criticism and bureaucratic contretemps. If by now reality is beginning to set in among conservatives, our goals should be to focus sharply on the left-wing agenda, his foreign policy goals, particularly in relation to terrorism, and to offer a vision that relies upon markets and lower taxes. The American public will listen to alternatives, but they have to be proposed and articulated. Unfortunately Jindl bombed, but this effort cannot succeed with just one good performance. It must be a steady drumbeat from all conservative voices. And when the disasterous consequences of this insane spending appear–as they have been in the market’s reaction–conservative credibility will have been established and electoral victories should follow.
Not “disinterested.” “Uninterested.”
There’s a reason he’s president and your party is dropping like a rock. Obama spoke to the American people about their top-of-mind concerns. Obama’s power emanates from the people. As long as he has their support, he will defeat foes both foreign and domestic.
“our goals should be to focus sharply on the left-wing agenda, his foreign policy goals, particularly in relation to terrorism, and to offer a vision that relies upon markets and lower taxes.” paul z
Didn’t we just have an election about this? Are you telling me the American people don’t know where you stand — on terror, trade and taxes?
More than 80% of those who listened to Obama last night agreed with him. About that same proportion prefers that he put achieving his policy aims ahead of working with Republicans.
The last month has been a disaster for Republicans. As far as 7 in 10 of the American people are concerned, you’ve opposed the president for political reasons. They blame the GOP for not being willing to compromise. Just yesterday the GOP governor of Utah — probably the reddest state in the land — called Congressional Republicans irrelevant and out of touch. It’s a losing strategy.
#4. The first problem with your comment is that the GOP is not dropping like a rock but is almost back to parity in party identification. The second is, ironically, that you’re right about where The One’s power comes from and it’s going to disappear awfully, awfully fast. Enjoy it while you can.
Steve: I’m surprised you even bother to blog. Afterall, Nirvana has arrived in America. Why raise your bloodpressure over the dwindling handful of conservatives who, in your view, foolishly continue to believe in their positions? You’ve won the election. Obama and the D’s have unbridled power to do all the good that you’ve yearned for. You keep reminding us that “everyone” supports Obama and, since he has all the answers, presumably they will continue to do so, at least through his lifetime (don’t forget the Chavez Amendment that you’ll soon be having Congress pass). In every day, in every way, things get better and better . . . .
But, Steve, I suspect your rantings here on this blog are due to that feeling that you sometimes get inside — repress it, my boy — that Obama and the D’s have erected a gigantic house of cards. So your real purpose here is to get us to go along with the idiocy that passes for wisdom among the Democrats. That way, you think, perhaps that uneasy feeling will go away. And, anyway, when it all comes tumbling down, you can blame us for letting you be taken in by the man behind the curtain.
Good luck, Steve, to you and to us. We’re all going to need it. And, when your day of disillusionment comes, we’ll welcome you to the dark side. We’ve very inclusive.
Steve, I’m comforted when the opposition bases its hopes upon what the current polling data is showing(although as Mike Davidson notes, party ID and the generic Congressional ballot are near parity). From a strategic point of view, I’m saying that focusing upon policy is what will win out for “my side.” Of course, underlining my position is the assumption that, ultimately, liberal policies will fail, and fail as big as they are in dollars. Moreover, as suggested, I don’t care where the conservative opposition comes from, but, preferably, everwhere; even from a Utah governor who believes Congressional Republicans are irrelevant. If he talks policy, that’s fine. You and I obviously disagree on policy. We’ll have fun arguing in the future as the consequences appear.
6
Fact, Mike, facts. Your info is past its freshness date.
The polls show that the majority of people see the GOP as unprincipled, and they prefer the policies of Obama.
If you are referring to Rasmussen’s generic congressional matchup, well, your information is old. At the height of GOP criticism of the stimulus plan, before Obama took the bully pulpit, it had narrowed to a point. It’s since rebounded. More important, the GOP and Dem party have been rangebound in that poll. Only when the Dem party ebbs to its low and the GOP surges to its secular high do the numbers come close.
Latest Rasmussen:
“Democrats have pulled slightly further ahead this week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.
R”asmussen Reports national telephone surveys found that 41% of voters said they would vote for their district’s Democratic candidate while 37% said they would choose the Republican (see crosstabs).
“While support for the Democrats has not changed since last week, support for the GOP dropped two points since the last release.
“Over the past year, Democratic support has ranged from a low of 40% to a high of 50%. In that same time period, Republicans have been preferred by 34% to 41% of voters nationwide. “
I don’t know where Obama supporters are getting their facts. He won the election by about 6 to 7 points with around 53-54% of the vote. His current approval rating is low 60s, very normal for a president in his first month of office. However, his disapprove numbers are growing rapidly, almost double what might be normally seen at this point. His stimulus was not popular (although the public wants action) and most people do not think it will help. The generic GOP vs Dem congressional matchup is about even (dems slightly ahead) and historically this overstates dem support. I believe dems have more seats to defend in the Senate this time around. Reading and believing the one outlier poll from the NYT/CBS that no one gives any validity is dangereous. Believe away.
The mortgage bailout is very unpopular as is the auto bailout. The people do want him to succeed, but they don’t care much for his policies. He is losing middle class support quickly and the GOP which had a fair amount of crossover votes for him in November (or suppressed turnout for McCain), is now pretty much united in there disapproval of his performance. When the GOP won everything (House, Senate, House) the GOP faithful thought the end of the democrats was here. You can see how long that lasted. The GOP ran on issues and produced something totally different when they got control in Washington; and their base punished them. Now the democrats have almost complete governmental control. If an Obama follower thinks somehow Obama can say one thing and govern in a different manner, he will find that in 2010 and 2012 it doesn’t work that way.
“his disapprove numbers are growing rapidly”
Sure, they’re up. But among conservatives. Please tell me how you effect progressive change without losing conservative support? Not possible.
“The generic GOP vs Dem congressional matchup … historically this overstates dem support”
Bull. Prove it. Rasmussen did a great job predicting the final outcome of the election, but a Pollster.com analysis of “house effects” (systematic bias) found Rasmussen had the largest rightward lean of any major pollster over the course of the election. Google it.
“I believe dems have more seats to defend in the Senate this time around.”
Rightwing expert Larry Sabato did a race-by-race overview here:
Senate 2010: A Three Peat for Democrats?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/senate_2010_a_three_peat_for_democrats_or_comeback_for_the_gop
His conclusion: Unless Republicans can find some candidates with names big enough to shake things up, Democrats will pick up seats for a third straight election.
“He is losing middle class support quickly.”
Show me one poll that suggests this. Obama has held the support of every cohort that voted for him. His approval is materially down only among those who didn’t vote for him, primarily conservative Republicans.
Let me get this straight, Steve. So, Obama takes the extraordinary step of giving this speech, to explain and drum up support for his plan of governance, because everything’s going so swimmingly for him?
12
“Let me get this straight, Steve. So, Obama takes the extraordinary step of giving this speech, to explain and drum up support for his plan of governance, because everything’s going so swimmingly for him?”– dfg
I’m not sure how long you’ve been in America, but Obama’s speech is anything but an “extraordinary step.” In America, the president gives an annual report to Congress, called the State of the Union, every January. The exception is for new presidents, who, since 1934, have given their first address to the joint session of Congress in February. During these speeches, Presidents lay out their legislative priorities for the year.
Good luck on your citizenship test.
Steve: Your logic is that, since our views are in the minority, they are wrong.
Presumably this means that, as soon as 51% of polled Americans are opposed to Obama’s and the D’s programs and policies, then you will join the switch with the thundering herd and you too will be against those programs and policies.
With that said, you really have nothing to contribute to this blog. We can read the polls as well as you can. But feel free to continue to give us updates on the polls — we’ll want to see how you’re doing (perhaps give you a toll free number for a suicide watch service), once the polls go against your guys.
It must be strange to have a polls-driven, as opposed to a values-driven, life.
Steve, what has he done that they like? His transparency pledge which excited all sorts of people was jetisoned completely in the stimulus bill process. Ok, what else? The public doesn’t like any of the bailout/stimulus bills, in some cases they feel something must be done but don’t think what was done will work, in other cases they think the government shouldn’t be doing anything (auto bailout, deadbeat mortgage support).
What policies of his do they like? Is this like the people in NY I think who were given McCain’s policies identified as Obama’s and they liked them?
People like Obama, they want him to succeed. But when you ask them specifics about his actions they don’t like the actions. The one poll number you need to track – his favoribility spread. It is shrinking in every poll I have seen faster than would normally be expected. People are waking up to the detachment between rhetoric and action. When enough people put that connection together, watch out – even the MSM will be hard pressed to save him.
The latest was Gallup on the spread. And the generic dem vs. GOP tracking I saw from Barone, who also called the race pretty correct (he is not a pollster) and he says the GOP now is leading on the generic dem/GOP matchup in congress based upon the polls over sampling for democrats.
Believe what you want – and I will do the same – but your polling data is generic we love Obama stuff – when you start putting questions to people on specifics, he doesns’t come out so well. As to the concern about despite the generic polling data, can you actually get an attractive candidate from the GOP that could win? That is an excellent question worthy of debate. My experience however is this; when the candidate in office looks dominant, quality opponents stay away, when he looks to be bleeding, the sharks come in. Congress’ little January favorable boost disappeared and they are back in the teens – Obama isn’t in the 2010 election and he no longer looks like he has conservatve/GOP belief in his message. You even mentioned that in your last post. Are the conditions ripe for some candidates to arise we have never heard of to begin the counter to the 2008 elections? We will see.
#14
“Steve: Your logic is that, since our views are in the minority, they are wrong.”
You say you can read polls, but can you read anything else?
Where did I say this exactly?
If your tactics are hurting your side, or you stick to the same failed arguments that the public rejects, they are not necessarily wrong, just self defeating. On the other hand, if your ideas are rejected by a majority, the odds that they are wrong should be greater, assuming you actually believe in democracy and market theory.
I guess if you can make up your own argument, you might have a chance of winning. Enjoy your shadow boxing.
16
Barone wrote a blurb in US News Feb. 11 and he was quoting Rasmussen, not Gallup. Dems were up by 1 at the time. His spin has since been disproven by the several polls that show that approval for Congressional Dems substantially outstrips approval for Congressional Republicans, who have dropped significantly since the election.
Obama was right to focus on the economy. Right now, it’s what matters to the American people. There’s nothing happening in Iraq/Afghanistan that is of greater importance than a collapsing economy.
I’ll bet that had Obama talked more about national security most posters here would be griping that he was ignoring what’s on the minds of average Americans.
Obama could end man’s inhumanity to man and Commentary would still find somehting to carp about.
Billy Kristol called to complain? I’m POSITIVE that Obama is just SHAKING in his boots…
The wishful thinking – and willful amnesia – among conservatives on this site never ceases to amaze me. It’s quite clear Obama is a popular executive at this point, and the morning-after reactions to his speech have made him even more so. And by the way, just how much time did Jindal spend on foreign policy last night? Very, very little. But that’s not the main point. You are all trying to demonstrate that the polls don’t really mean what they say. Well, compare them to George Bush’s over the last FOUR years of his administration. That should be the comparison that concentrates the conservative mind. Brooks – no liberal he – finds current conservative talking points “insane.” Reading the posts here, who can doubt him?
STEVE: I cancelled my cable TV and print media. I refuse to be brainwashed. If I could filter out on-line rants like yours, I would do so. You are not worth the time to read or reply to.
If enough conservatives cancel their subscriptions to propaganda put out by MSM, we will hasten their already accelerating demise. We don’t let emotions control our lives, nor will we succumb to tyranny.
WE HAVE A VOICE TOO, and a highly functioning brain to go with it. Get used to pushback.
Well, Charles Krauthammer already pegged Barack Obama as not even caring about foreign policy. You had a preview of this during the last months of the Bush Administration. Whenever something monumental happened on the world stage Barack Obama would defer to the sitting President saying, “We only have one president at a time.” But, whenever the economy would hurt more and more and more, Barack Obama was always quick to interject himself into the conversation, sitting President be damned. I wonder how long Obama thinks he can ignore what’s going on on the world stage before it begins to catch up with him.
Steve said, “There’s a reason he’s president and your party is dropping like a rock. ”
Because the media is more in the tank for him than Pravda was in the Soviet Union? Nah its because he’s so awesome why he’s done so much like um… uhhh… umm… hold on let me get back to you.
#s 13, 19, 20, 21
Mugabe gets great poll numbers in Zimbabwe.
“I wonder how long Obama thinks he can ignore what’s going on on the world stage before it begins to catch up with him.”
Right – it’s not like Hillary Clinton just got back from Asia and George Mitchell is out in the ME and Obama just sent 17,000 troops to Afghanistan – right? – I mean the guy has NO interest at all in foreign affairs…
“Mugabe gets great poll numbers in Zimbabwe.”
BBbbbut, the right wing kkkkeeeps ttttelling us that Obbbbama is ssssinking in the pppolls….
“Because the media is more in the tank for him than Pravda was in the Soviet Union? Nah its because he’s so awesome why he’s done so much like um… uhhh… umm… hold on let me get back to you.”
it’s because he’s so awesome and has done quite a bit in his first month – the most important being that he’s shown the republicans for what they really are: defeatist obstructionists.
So in the two party system, to belong to the minority party and to advocate the principles that define you as a party, makes you a “defeatist obstructionist”. You teenagers and your “awesome” analysis is what’s making me want to lobby for more condom giveaways.
I´m amazed how angry Obama looks at times. This guy couldn´t take a few open words. He gets everything he wants and he is still petulant. Looks as if someone just stole his lunch pail.
#28 – chuck, that was, ahem, “awesome”. They don´t call you the hammer for nothing.
“Insular” means “doesn’t listen to liberals.” Just a translation problem.
I don’t say that lightly, BTW. It took a long time for me to admit that. It sounds like a shallow insult. Unfortunately, if you pay attention, you’ll find it’s true.
Point 2. Gotta love this fascination on the left with poll numbers as a measure of worth and competence. It reinforces my idea that liberalism is primarily a social, not intellectual phenomenon.