Lest you think that only John Steele Gordon and I are summit-ed out, Jason Zengerle writes:
Indeed, in the age of Obama, the summit has replaced the vaunted bipartisan commission as the ultimate empty gesture. Where a president once kicked a nettlesome political problem down the road by assembling a panel of bipartisan worthies to produce a report on entitlement reform, say, or how we made the mistake of thinking Saddam had WMDs, Obama now holds a confab to jawbone the problem to death. Even better, unlike with a bipartisan commission, with a summit, there’s no final report to have to contend with.
But like Wiley E. Coyote, who only falls into the chasm when he looks down, summitry only stays afloat as long as everyone pretends it’s meaningful. Once even sympathetic supporters start guffawing and rolling their eyes, the summits become counterproductive and symbols of, well, “gasbaggery,” as Zengerle puts it. In Obama’s case, summits have taken the place of legislative proposals, which have been eschewed in favor of “let Nancy and Harry draft something.”
So if Obama seems smaller than before, and his presidency seems more cramped and unproductive, perhaps its because he’s not doing much of anything. And now many more of us are starting to notice.
“The risk for Obama is that he may give the lie to the conceit that his is a new style of politics.”
Aren’t we well past that point? Even if a majority of Dems refuse to listen to the groundswell of criticism, the rest of the electorate has been on to him for at least two months now. Obama has repeatedly shown that his new politics is completely phony, and that he’s as old school as it gets when it comes to distorting his own record and past, let alone his opponents’ statements. I’m beginning to buy into Victor Davis Hanson’s ’72 analogy: this could well be a blowout election.
The campaign may have become so tedious that 100 days seems like 100 years, but the McCain remark in question was “100 years”–the possible length of the deployment (not the war) there.
I’ll believe it’s a blowout when I see it. Maverick’s support is still luke warm: More of it is still anti-Messiah than pro-Straight Talker. And the cockier the talk, the more likely some conservatives will shrug and stay home or vote Libertarian. And suppose Bernanke falls down a well or something?
Ruffini via Hot Air reports that while we humans idle contentedly, Paulbots are mobbing GOP county caucuses hoping to dominate the convention delegate selection process: How’s it going to look when Mav gets heckled at his own coronation and has no grassroots operation to fall back on? Foolish earthlings.
he clearly misquoted mcain
If the speed and effectiveness of the McCain campaign deserve credit for this turnaround, they’re two reasons why anti-leftists should vote for the Arizona senator. Here’s a man who shares most beliefs with the right, and has an attentive staff that defends him. Placing the Bush administration, at its lowest point, in the same circumstance, I see the inaptly picked Scott McClellan — red-faced, triple-chinned — pleading with reporters five days after the untrue statement would have been made.
… and the economy HAS been incredible until last fall. I can understand why McCain doesn’t want to say that, since as a result of media distortion most people think the economy has been lousy since the tech bubble burst in 2000. (And they blame this on Bush who didn’t take office until the next January.) So if McCain said this everyone would roll their eyes. Also he has to respond with a soundbite and can’t say more than one idea at the time.
And it’s still not that bad, but you can’t say that either and have any credibility.
This post is Jennifer Rubin saying basically, “Obama has it wrong. McCain DOES believe the economy has been bad under Bush.” And Rubin approves of this “correction”? Do you also believe the economy has been bad under President Bush, Ms. Rubin?
Headline in the Washington Times on April 14: “McCain Blames ‘Greedy’ For Recession”. Do you agree with this assessment, Ms. Rubin, or does your commitment to accuracy only go one way?
“More of it is still anti-Messiah than pro-Straight Talker.”
And that may be enough! John McCain might be the guy who was in the right place at the right time. A very large percentage of the electorate simply do not like nor trust race hustler “Barry” Obama. It could also benefit McCain if the Ron Paul whack jobs are hostile toward him at the convention. This helps the Arizona senator appear more moderate.
Meanwhile wallets and purses remain firmly shut to McCain, hence the campaign’s decision to rely heavily on “free media.” This is not a good sign.
Yes, recessions are always caused by the greedy. Not greedy Republicans. Not greedy
Democrats.. Greedy people. That is what causes all booms. And the inevitable consequence is a bust to correct the excesses. As night follows day, every boom has been followed by a shake
out. And then we consolidate and move forward and then repeat the cycle.
“Yes, recessions are always caused by the greedy.”
That is simply false. Greed is a moral fault. Wanting to increase wealth is not a bad goal. Recessions may be entirely unavoidable. Some investments worked out and some did not. You are not normally immoral for betting on a failed project—merely mistaken. In many respects, the economy during a recession is taking a deep breath before starting anew.
Bush’s handling of the economy has been quite brilliant, especially given the unprecedented challeges he faced (the Clinton recession, the tech bust, 9/11), but even he can’t repeal the business cycle.
Wallets aren’t closed to McCain. He’s making money in a time where there’s no hurry for him to make money (he’s the GOP nom with nothing to do until August). Also, the RNC has been piling money up, and they’re sure to give McCain a large chunk of that during the general election.
Anyone notice the strong stock market lately? Stocks usually are a leading indicator, of the economy 5-6 months ahead. Looks like a bull market and a strengthening economy. Amazing resiliency for the US economy and bad news for Democrats, who require bad news and misery to win. Winning the war and a strengthening economy are rat poison for the Left. Obama is the new McGovern.
Tend to agree with VDH, and a 40+ state victory. Mc Cain may even have coattails. Who knows?
BTW, Lefties are all pessimists and Righties are all optimists. Why is that???
Of course, it’s entirely possible that the news today is describing the 13th of the last 4 actual recessions.
rubin: though your post is slight on thought, the expression you wanted is SLEIGHT of hand.
Seth Halpern Says:”I’ll believe it’s a blowout when I see it. Maverick’s support is still luke warm: More of it is still anti-Messiah than pro-Straight Talker.”
And even the ‘anti-Messiah’ swing isn’t strong. BHO’s favorable-unfavorable figures are currently 47-51 (Rasmussen). He’s been at this level before (in March) and rebounded
quickly. His teflon is still working.
Intrade odds for Obama becoming president are 49; McCain’s are 39.
Much as they have been for a long, long time.
Nothing serious has happened to Obama’s candidacy so far, he’s still a shoo-in
for nomination, and still the favorite for election.
Come on now, what is going to happen to Obama when he starts to run on actual policy issues? Some of his answers are all most comical!
“The risk for Obama is that he may give the lie to the conceit that his is a new style of politics.”
For the thousandth time.
*spit take* At the very same time that
McCain campaign fundraising letter ties Obama to HAMAS (despite his pledge to run a ‘respectful’ campaign, despite Obama’s stated opposition to Hamas and negotiating with Hamas)
and
Obama is called a ‘whiner’ for expressing contempt for ABC news’ character assassination debate (can a network ask John McCain whether he has PTSD? About abandoning his first wife? About his current wife’s income? Her battle with drug addiction? Go through the whole Keating 5 affair again in detail? and any other distracting, irrelevant issue that can be dredged up?)
The McCain campaign is complaining about HIS EXACT WORDS being quoted. It’s frankly hilarious.
“BHO’s favorable-unfavorable figures are currently 47-51 (Rasmussen). He’s been at this level before (in March) and rebounded
quickly. His teflon is still working.”
Are you kidding?
He caught fire in Iowa, great speech.
His concession speech in Nh was fantastic.
Since then it has been a bust.(The race speech at the time was a great intro to a topic that he was going to ‘own’, but lately his campaign has been about ‘dis’owning it.)
He is running neck and neck with a woman who is fighting the right and the liberal wing of her party. If this guy was so inevitable why hasn’t he put her away? 60% would be the icing on the cake in PA, unfortunately hrc might be the one at the end of the 60%.
Are people showing up to vote for her, or vote against him?
Rassmussen is a solid poll, but right now it has McCain beating Obama 48-41. Given their accuracy in 04, I’d be worried. and since favorability rating was one of your indicators, let’s take a peak at some of the numbers:
favorabilty?
April 19- McCain 56-40
BHO-47-51
Feb 11-McCain 47-50
BHO-52-45.
Mcain has had a 19 pt swing up, BHO has had an 11pt swing down.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
voting preferences?
since feb, mcain has gone from 43 to 49, while obama has gone from 46 to 41.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
Hypothetically, if you include the Bradley effect and it will come into play, obama doesn’t get 40% in the general.
He’s bleeding out on white voters…
He was getting 39% of the white vote in the primaries BEFORE wright.
Kerry drew 41% in 04 and lost.
The chances of him getting over the 40% threshold, when he hits the general population is nil.
When he praised Reagan, I really thought, ‘maybe’.
He quickly disavowed Reagan and has gone onto how the country has been falling apart since Reagan, even including Clinton. Do I really want a president who is going to tell me this country has been in the crapper for the past 28 years? Racial healing? My grandmother was a racist? Whose wasn’t?
paul Says: “He is running neck and neck with a woman who is fighting the right and the liberal wing of her party”
Neck and neck? Intrade odds of nomination are currently: Obama 85, Clinton 14.5.
Rasmussen. Also, “Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama an 84.0% chance of winning the Democratic nomination”. And she is not currently “fighting the right” OR the whole “liberal wing”. Wrt liberalism, there’s not a dime’s difference between HRS and BHO. She’s even trying to pass him on his left on some issues. But the issues are not the issue in that fight…
McCain-Obama national polls are IMO not _yet_ important: too much will change when
Obama wraps up the nomination and the national campaign starts.
Favorability _is_ relevant to our topic. But only _Obama’s_ favorability, not McCain’s.
McCain’s favorability ratings are nice – but _they_ reflect the
fact that he, for now, is running unopposed, except from an occasional
stinkbomb from Obama. Obama’s astronomical funds, Obama’s fanatical troops, the whole machine of the Democratic Party have not been deployed to disfigure McCain _yet_; the MSM have not really started to work against him _yet_. McCain has a valuable holiday – he is using it to build and prepare – and that’s all there is to _his_ ratings.
No: zoom to _Obama’s_ favorability – in particular since the damaging revelations about him began – and that was in mid-March. That is the real question: as the public is learning more about this mysterious stranger, does that make a _lasting_ damage? Maybe it will; but it hasn’t yet.
Look at the March – April trend – or rather _lack_ of a trend . Your conclusion “Since then it has been a bust” is _not_ supported by these _trendless_ statistics.
For simplicity’s sake, look only at his _unfavorability_, and step it _week by week_ from 3/1 through 4/19:
46 46 49 51 48 45 48 51.
Or, in 2-week steps: 46 51 45 51.
No trend.
The first peak of 51 (on March 22) reflects Pastorgate. You see the quick and complete rebound after that. The present peak reflects Bittergate and the debate debacle.
If the blows had a _cumulative_ effect, this peak would be higher than the previous one. But the numbers stay in range…
To test it again, step his _favorables_ with _5-day_ intervals, Mar 1 to Apr 29:
51 51 51 50 48 46 49 52 53 48 47
The lowest point of 46 (Mar 26), again, reflects Pastorgate; again, you see a quick and complete recovery; and again, the latest numbers stay in range.
No evidence that his teflon has been breached…
“…the conceit that his is a new style of politics.”
And every generation thinks it is the one that invented sex.
Still no MSM reports on Larry Sinclair, who alleges a relationship with Obama, (he seems to have passed his lie detector test, and no reports on Donald Young, the choir director who was found murdered before Christmas.
References to that are disappearing rapidly from the internet.
“distracting, irrelevant issue..”
What is distracting and irrelevant to you may not be to others.
“The lowest point of 46 (Mar 26), again, reflects Pastorgate; again, you see a quick and complete recovery; and again, the latest numbers stay in range.
No evidence that his teflon has been breached…”
why is at a ceiling, despite his inevitability and superiority to clinton?
“too much will change when
Obama wraps up the nomination and the national campaign starts.”
take a look at Rassmussen weekly tracking numbers from 2004…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2004/week_by_week_numbers
The change in lead, week to week from april 04 on?
Kerry +2.5, Bush +2.6.
I don’t see too much changing, and a 5 pt swing for a guy who is at 48-41won’t help much.
This agrees with the reality that 95% of people have already decided how they will vote, now, as in 2004.
Everytime you get a Wright/Ayers/ clinging moment, you lose people that won’t come back.
I despise Mccain, but already accept that I will be voting for him.
to put this in another historical context:
2006 CT dem primary:
Ned Lamont wins a better majority, than obama’s current tracking, of the democratic base in the primary, but gets trounced in the general election of a very blue state-06 was the year of the democrat too boot.
Obama’s strength is from the ‘black and blue’, but hrc is holding her own with the moderates.
Winning a democratic primary with African american vote and progressives does not lead one to believe that there is much that will appeal to the non-affiliated moderates or conservatives.
Another teeny factor is that hrc is constrained by how hard she can hit obama with negatives. GOP 527′s will savage the guy.
Bush increased his vote total by 23% from 2000(in the year of Reagan democrats, RR increased his 80 vote total by 24%), not becuase he was that good, but becuase the democrats were that bad. Yes, obama is a great representative of democratic ideals, but it isn’t enough to win a general election.
Paul: the Lamont 2006 precedent is important to remember – but how does it apply in 2008?
It showed that personal popularity (Lieberman’s in this case) can withstand a political
mood shift (on the war in this case).
This year, nationally, it is Obama who enjoys the most intense personal support: he holds huge rallies, he collects millions of small contributions. But he _also_ holds the
fashionable positions on all issues. There is no Lieberman-Lamont choice in this race.
I do not claim BHO will necessarily be elected.
People may finally get scared of him (I am, very).
So far, polls and direct observation suggest that they are _not_;
the teflon holds; his negatives are not at all like HRC’s quantitatively or qualitatively.
She’s detested, he’s merely distrusted.
And McCain is neither popular nor
unpopular, except with some conservatives
who still nurse a grudge against him. His support is lukewarm.
He _may_ win as non-Obama – _if_ people get scared of Obama.
You’re right IMO about the Bradley factor.
But there is so much on the other side: the huge money disparity, the Bush fatigue,
the economy, M’s age (what if he stumbles?), O’s oratorical talent, the MSM.
Weighing all together, the odds given by the traders seem about right:
Clinton is doomed, McCain has decent chances, Obama has more.
The republic is in great danger this year.
once again, it’s “sleight,” not “slight,” of hand that you’re trying to spell here. are only positive comments retained?