Commentary Magazine


Posts For: September 21, 2011

Obama’s Poll Numbers Hit All-Time Lows

The most recent McClatchy-Marist poll, which gives Democrats an eight point sampling advantage, shows the president’s approval rating is at 39 percent among registered voters nationally, an all-time low for Obama.  And for the first time a majority — 52 percent — disapproves of the job he is doing in office. In fact, the president’s job approval rating, his favorability, and his rating on the economy have hit all-time lows. This data, by the way, comes in the aftermath of the president’s latest jobs speech/plan.

Mr. Obama job approval rating among independents is now less than one in three (32 percent). His approval ratings numbers on the economy are 33 percent approve v. 61 percent disapprove, with the disapproval percentage among independents up to nearly 70 percent (69 percent). And the president’s personal favorability rating is now, for the first time, lower than his personal disapproval rating (46 percent v. 48 percent).

Read More

Christie May Help Rather Than Hurt Perry

Though Rick Perry’s initial surge to a huge lead over the rest of the Republican presidential field has been whittled down in the last week, his nearest competitor still trails him by several points in every poll. Given that Romney remains a difficult sell for most conservatives and therefore a dubious pick for the party’s nod, that leaves those Republicans who either dislike or distrust Perry or believe he is a weak general election candidate in something close to a state of panic.

That’s the reason behind the revival of an effort to get Chris Christie to run. But those thumping the tub for Christie should be careful about what they wish for. Dragging Christie into the race may have the opposite effect of what his backers want, because it would only make it even more certain it will be Rick Perry who ascends the podium next year at the Republican convention in Tampa to accept the nomination.

Read More

The Face of Palestinian Statehood

In its September 8 report entitled “Palestinians and UN – Statehood or Stalemate?” the U.S. government-funded Voice of America (VOA) informed readers the Palestinians were “poised” to submit their UN petition, but Congress was “demanding President Barack Obama veto” it; that Israel was “considering a nullification of the Oslo Accords” if the Palestinians pushed their “ambitious bid;” and that the U.S. “would be perceived as a superpower crushing the aspirations of the Palestinian people” if it used its veto.

The piece was deemed a news report, not an editorial. But the more striking aspect was the picture that accompanied it — an elderly Palestinian woman standing in front of UN headquarters in Ramallah, holding the Palestinian letter to the UN. The VOA caption described her only as “Palestinian activist Latifa Abu Hmeid.” Thanks to Palestinian Media Watch, we know what the VOA omitted: Abu Hmeid was chosen to launch the Palestinian bid, as Evelyn noted, as the mother of five sons who murdered Israeli civilians in operations by Fatah and Hamas units, one son dead and the others serving life sentences in Israeli prison.

Read More

Obama’s “Buffett Rule” Branding

Warren Buffett is quickly becoming the face of Obama’s new “millionaires’ tax” (aka the “Buffett Rule”) and will likely play a major role in the president’s campaign messaging. But there are some potential pitfalls to this branding strategy, and it starts with the actual substance of the “Buffett Rule” – there isn’t any. The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle writes:

At least in the White House document that I read, I saw no proposal to set some sort of AMT on millionaires.  Instead, it claims to do this, while rehashing a bunch of things that the administration has long proposed: allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000; changing the treatment of carried interest income accrued from capital gains; and altering the treatment of deductions for very high earners. If all of these things were passed, guess who would still pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary?  Hint:  his initials are WB, and he lives in Omaha, Nebraska.

Read More

Don’t Be Distracted by Ahmadinejad’s Stunt

Unlike his last visit to New York, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has struggled to get attention during his current junket to the annual opening session of the United Nations. Ahmadinejad, who is in the midst of a power struggle with his former patrons among the ayatollahs in Tehran, has been knocked off the front pages due to the showdown over Palestinian independence. Yet rather than doubling down on his old act, which centered on his denial of the Holocaust and threats to destroy Israel, the Iranian is trying to curry international sympathy by releasing the two Americans his government has held hostage for more than two years.

Ahmadinejad will attempt to use this act of mercy not only to boost his international profile but to lessen the pressure on his country to back off on their dangerous project of gaining nuclear weapons. Despite the general relief over the freedom of the prisoners, this must be recognized for what it is: a cynical ploy designed to weaken American resolve to deal harshly with Iran.

Read More

Good News For a Change

In a nation desperate for good news, here’s some. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,  during 2010, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced a double-digit drop (13 percent) in the rate of violent victimization. There were 3.8 million violent crimes last year, down from 4.3 million in 2009. (The rate of property victimization, which includes burglary, motor vehicle theft and household theft also declined by six percent during the year.)

The drop in violent victimization, from about 17 victimizations per 1,000 residents in 2009 to 15 per 1,000 in 2010, was three times the average annual rate of decline experienced during the last nine years. And during the 10-year period from 2001 to 2010, the overall violent victimization rate decreased by 40 percent, and the property victimization rate fell by 28 percent. This, in turn, was part of a larger trend. From 1993 to 2010, the violent crime victimization rate decreased 70 percent, while the property crime victimization rate fell 62 percent.

Read More

Are Congressional Supporters of Israel “Complicating” U.S. Middle East Policy?

For the American foreign policy establishment there is no more frustrating aspect of American politics than the steadfast support for Israel in the United States Congress. As the New York Times pointed out in a front page article, this “significantly complicated the administration’s diplomatic efforts to avert a confrontation at the United Nations this week over the Palestinian bid for full membership as a state, limiting President Obama’s ability to exert pressure on Mr. Netanyahu to make concessions that could restart negotiations with the Palestinians.”

The Times article is focused on the fact the congressional Republican caucus is ardently pro-Israel, and the GOP hopes to capitalize on disaffection from Obama to win votes as the results in the special election in the heavily Jewish New York 9th congressional district showed. This ignores the fact the affection for Israel on both sides of the congressional aisle is far from a recent development. It’s true Obama’s often less-than-friendly attitude toward Israel has created an opening for the Republicans. But dismissing the GOP Congress’ stand on Israel as mere politics misses the point. Rather than a superficial partisan approach to foreign policy, the congressional effort to act as a brake on Obama’s tilting of the diplomatic playing field toward the Palestinians reflects the deeply held convictions of most Americans.

Read More

Clinton Knocks Obama’s Debt Plan

Does anyone notice a pattern emerging from the Clinton camp? Last week, James Carville caused some commotion with his “Time to Panic” column, which evidently got under the White House’s skin. And today, Bill Clinton rejected the fundamental basis of Obama’s deficit-reduction plan – tax hikes – during an interview with Newsmax:

“I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending until we get this economy off the ground. If we cut government spending, which I normally would be very inclined to do when the deficit’s this big, with interest rates already near zero you can’t get the benefits out of it.

“So what I’d like to see them do is come up with a bipartisan approach, starting with the payroll tax cuts because they have the biggest return.”

Read More

How Will We Leave Afghanistan and Iraq?

One passage jumped out at me from President Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly. Much of the speech was filled by commendable expressions of support for the Arab Spring; I was cheered, in particular, to see him include condemnation, however brief, of Iranian human rights violations. But what jumped out at me was what he said about our own commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan:

At the end of this year, America’s military operation in Iraq will be over. We will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of the community of nations. That equal partnership will be strengthened by our support for Iraq– for its government and Security Forces; for its people and their aspirations.

Read More

Obama Offers Common Sense at UN; Journalists Complain

The most interesting facet of the Palestinian unilateral declaration drama has been to try and figure out who wants this to proceed. The Palestinians, as we have noted, do not want unilateral declaration. The Israelis don’t want it, especially since Palestinian negotiators have volunteered that the first act of their new state will be to remove the Jews from their midst.

The Americans don’t want it, for the obvious reason if you encourage one side in the conflict to take unilateral measures anytime they get frustrated, you’ll have to abide the other side doing the same. And the Europeans prefer negotiations to unilateral declaration, even if some of them will ultimately vote for it, because they understand one primary purpose of the gambit is to drive a wedge between Europe and the U.S., and, well, this is a bad time for that. So who really wants this, besides a Palestinian president whose term legally ended two years ago? Journalists, that’s who.

Read More

Obama Contradicts Supporters on May Speech

At the United Nations this morning, President Obama characteristically tried to have it both ways on the Arab-Israeli conflict while also defending his own record of support for peace. He made the now obligatory appeal for a Palestinian state while also speaking up for Israeli security. He particularly deserves credit for pointing out Israel remains under siege from terrorists, and Jewish children grow up knowing Arab children in surrounding nations are taught to hate them.

Much of Obama’s speech was familiar material and little of it was of great interest, especially his lengthy tribute to the world body as an institution and his defense of its generally awful record in responding to human rights abuses. But there was one point that should have been of great interest to the president’s supporters, especially those who have been ardent defenders of his stance on Israel. In the course of reciting his administration’s efforts to revive the moribund peace process, Obama claimed his May speech (in which he demanded the 1967 lines be the starting point for future negotiations) put forward a “new basis” for the talks. That’s funny, because at the time he claimed it was nothing new, and that has been a talking point for Jewish Democrats ever since. So who was telling the truth? The Obama of May 26 or the Obama of Sept. 20? The answer is the latter.

Read More

Questions Arise About Partisan Documents

During the 2008 election, former Representative Robert Wexler grandiously assured pro-Israel voters there was “no doubt” Obama and Netanyahu would “get along very well.” After the exact opposite happened, culminating in the president’s “past Israeli concessions don’t matter any more” 1967 borders speech, Wexler took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to insist Obama was being horribly misunderstood. His op-ed was co-written with Zvika Krieger, the senior vice president of the avowedly “non-partisan” S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace where Wexler is the president.

Fast forward to yesterday morning when, as part of the effort to make Israel supporters forget about Obama’s repeated diplomatic offensives against the Jewish State, the Obama 2012 campaign launched a “Jewish Americans for Obama” website. The campaign trotted out Wexler to introduce reporters to the site and then, after the 40-minute conference call, Wexler spent the rest of the day doing telephone interviews on Obama’s behalf. He accused Perry of having a “religious obsession” with Israel, a pointlessly venomous slam and something to remember the next time Democrats whine about dog-whistle politics. He unblinkingly insisted Obama isn’t responsible for the peace process having ground to a halt, analysis that will be news to Palestinian President Abbas. It was roughly what you’d expect.

Read More

Obama’s Last-Minute Jewish Outreach

Yes, we’ve heard this all before (and before that), but President Obama is once again taking up renewed outreach to Jewish voters. This time, his problems are much more palpable than during his clash with Prime Minister Netanyahu in May. NY-9 voters roundly rejected Obama’s Israel policy, his polling numbers have been sliding with Jewish voters, and he’s heading into a city where his face is plastered on billboards under the words “Not Pro-Israel.”

So he’s pushing back, both from the campaign and the White House, reports Lynn Sweet:

Read More

Republicans Not Allowed to Say Anything about the Fed

As the Federal Reserve Board gets ready to meet this afternoon—presumably to announce a new trick program to lower interest rates dubbed “the Twist”—pundits are expressing outrage that the four leading Republicans in the House and Senate would send Fed chair Ben Bernanke a letter hitting him on the notion of further easing: “It is our understanding that the Board Members of the Federal Reserve will meet later this week to consider additional monetary stimulus proposals. We write to express our reservations about any such measures.”

A representative item comes from Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, who essentially compares the Republicans to gangsters threatening a hit with an item called “Nice central bank you got here. Shame if something should happen to it.”

The Fed has now spent four years working hand-in-glove with the executive branch on policy questions, in a clear but understandable breach of its legal obligation to remain separate and aloof from political interference. So the executive branch is allowed to coordinate policy with the Fed, but it is illegitimate and gangsterish for elected members of Congress to express their opinions of Fed actions? Klein himself acknowledges that “it is not intrinsically illegitimate for congressional leadership to convey its preferences to the Federal Reserve. The Fed is protected from political interference, not from the opinions of politicians.” Still, members of Congress shouldn’t evidently express their views because, you know, well, Ezra Klein and others just don’t like it.

Read More

“Palestine” to Deny Citizenship to 45 Percent of its Palestinian Residents

It’s eminently fitting the woman the Palestinian Authority chose to formally launch its statehood bid is a proud mother of five murderers, of whom one is now dead while the other four are serving life sentences in Israel. After all, a woman who teaches her sons to kill Israelis even at the expense of their own welfare is the perfect emblem of a Palestinian state dedicated to destroying Israel even at the expense of its people’s welfare. And if that accusation seems far-fetched, just consider the shocking interview the PLO’s ambassador to Lebanon, Abdullah Abdullah, gave the Lebanese Daily Star last week:

The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state…

Read More

Abbas: No, Of Course We Won’t Ever Give Up Trying To Overrun Israel

These are now coming at a rate of once a month. Jonathan had an extended post on the topic at the end of August, but some in the media still seem to be under the impression that Mahmoud Abbas accepts Israel’s right to exist. On Monday the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler declared said acceptance to be nothing less than an absolute incontrovertible fact, worthy of mocking top-tier Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry as “stuck in a time warp” and “remarkably uninformed” for assuming otherwise.

So here is Abbas insisting three weeks ago the Palestinians will never give up on the right of return, which is the demand Israel open its borders so literally millions of the world’s most violently anti-Israel lunatics can overrun and destroy the Jewish State:

Read More

Children and the Future of the Book

Over at the Atlantic’s technology blog, Edward Tenner asks whether children will save printed books. A historian of technology (whose 1996 book Why Things Bite Back ought to be required reading for the uncritical cheerleaders of technological progress), Tenner points out that, despite the “consensus of many e-book enthusiasts and elegiac traditionalists alike” that the codex is doomed, responsible thought about the future requires “alternative scenarios.”

And one possibility is that a younger generation will reject the prized possessions, the revolutionary amazements, of an older generation. Your father could not believe the convenience of his Remington Lektronic shaver and your mother raved about her Touch-o-Matic electric can opener; you shave with a safety razor and crank your cans open. Tenner suggests that a “pro-book rebellion” is possible, though not inevitable. The success of Mad Men has cleared the closets of wide neckties.

Indeed, heeding the Baseball Crank’s warning that knowledge is not settled, one possibility is as good as another at this point. Many of the features that Kindle and iPad devotees brag about (what Ed Driscoll hails, for example, as “being able to read a book anywhere, and carry the digital equivalent of a massive stack of them onto an airplane”) may not seem all that remarkable or important in a few years.

Electronic reading devices are new devices for old readers. Younger readers do not come to books with the same personal history. In fact, their own history with books might lead them to prefer paper and binding. I’ve suggested as much before (here and here). Children first encounter books as physical things. Board books, lift-the-flap books, touch-and-feel books, pop-up books — their first books are three-dimensional objects that encourage children to explore them in all three dimensions. When they acquire their own books, the books they have selected for themselves, children are proud of them. They like to display them on their shelves and carry them everywhere. They may even begin to develop a love for good paper and fine binding.

I’m not saying that printed books will triumph in the end. I’m no better than anyone else at predicting the future. What I am suggesting is that older readers, excited about their Kindles and iPads, have become strangers to their first experience with books and reading. The newfangled devices are exciting because they appear to solve longstanding problems — the problems of older readers, who have spent a lifetime with books. Younger readers, who do not share that excitement and are not yet estranged from their own literary history, may not prefer ebooks to printed books after all.
____________________

Many thanks to Daniel Bloom for getting this whole discussion started.