In the Rasmussen poll, Obama’s numbers are plummeting again. Might it have something to do with his pathetically weak response to Iran? Or maybe he’s returned from vacation only to remind voters how much they dislike ObamaCare.
And they really do dislike ObamaCare: “Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.” And even worse for Obama: “Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.”
John McCain sounds frustrated with Obama: “A half measure does not do justice and time is important because there is 68,000 Americans already there and casualties will go up.”
This verges on the absurd: Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe that the Iranians can convince us of their peaceful intentions but we’re going to let them try. At some point, Americans are going to wonder why the Obama team treats this whole matter like a high-school debating match.
Is Obama being flexible or indecisive on Afghanistan? Sen. Kit Bond: “I’m afraid it’s being indecisive. I supported President Obama very strongly when he came out six months ago and when he gave General McChrystal the charge to launch a full-blown counterinsurgency strategy like the one we launched — finally launched successfully under General Petraeus in Iraq. It brought us to the progress we have seen. Dithering right now and delaying troops, as General McChrystal — and I spent a wonderful Saturday afternoon reading his assessment, which is very thorough, and he lays out the fact that we need resources, troops, now, because the next nine to 12 months will be decisive. We are not going to get the Afghan national security forces built up in that time. We need to move their training forward. But we have to have troops.”
Charles Krauthammer on what Obama’s foreign-policy approach has achieved: “Right up until now, he has nothing to show. I think he indulged himself in his speech at the General Assembly, which started out as sort of adolescent utopianism and then it went downhill. . . . What do our allies think when they hear that and when they hear . . . Obama denigrating his own country and presenting himself as the man who will redeem America from its wickedness? And he said that those of you who doubt the character of America should look at what we, meaning I, have done in the last eight months, including a bunch of gestures — including joining the Human Rights Council at the U.N., which is a body which we should take no pride in being on. I thought it was a sorry performance. It did not advance our interest in the least.”
Walter Russell Mead: “President Obama, the latest charismatic neophyte we have installed in the White House, is now grappling with a tricky and often hostile world. He’s made a few rookie mistakes already — such as telling the world that he was going to make Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu freeze all settlement construction and then having to climb down, humiliated, when Netanyahu refused. No doubt he’ll make more. . . . Two years from now, President Obama will be a much smarter and cannier foreign policy president than he is today. Let’s hope so: he will likely need all of that experience and cunning to deal with the consequences of decisions that he makes in the next three months.” Remember the promise that great judgment would substitute for experience? We got neither, it seems.
Larry J. Sabato on the potential Obama backlash vote in Virginia: “Voters of the president’s party are less satisfied and motivated. Voters of the opposition party are energized, concerned and sometimes outraged by the president’s actions. . . . The people who show up on Election Day are disproportionately members of the opposition party and they want to send Washington and especially the White House a message.”
Mary Anastasia O’Grady on American opposition to Honduran elections without the reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya: “The Obama administration’s position on the Honduran election is embarrassing. Can anyone imagine that if Fidel Castro declared tomorrow that he would hold free elections and invite the whole world to come as observers, the U.S. would reject the idea because Cuba is a military dictatorship? It would be absurd.”