Moe Lane tells us that Al Gore will be appearing Friday in Virginia to campaign for Creigh Deeds in the governor's race in that state.
We'll leave the politics of the appearance of the appearance of politicos to Moe (the post is titled "Booby Prize for Creigh Deeds" afterall).
Us? We're issuing a winter storm warning for the greater Northern Virginia area as a Gore Effect front moves into the region. Let's go to the telestrator!
Bundle up out there.
It was, I believe, Dan Collins at POWIP who first coined the term paraphrasing the famous Seinfeld line.
But it was this post by Mary Katherine Ham that brought me to do this:
Ham's post concludes:
If the Washington Post wants to lecture us on civility it should stick to instances of incivility that are a) actually incivil and b) actually documented, and stop making excuses for incivility, as long as it comes from Dems.
Or they could just continue yelling, "Civility NOW!" which of course they will.
We could call them Frank, but really they should remember what befell ...Kramer... in that episode.
Because the signs already exist that they're well on their way down that path.
Sportswriter Jason Whitlock is having none of this business of Rush Limbaugh becoming part owner of the St. Louis Rams. He takes Rush Limbaugh to task for past comments he deems as racist, even though the quotes are fabricated and unsourced.
In Whitlock's defense, though, he does not rest his opposition to Limbaugh's ownership on those quotes alone. But his article does present a rather large target for critics of his current position.
He writes in his Fox News article on the subject:
And here come the Left Brothers — Al "747" Sharpton and Jesse "DC 10" Jackson — barreling in for a landing on top of Goodell's dome. And this time every black person with an ounce of common sense and self-respect is riding shotgun with Jesse and Al, who have justifiably voiced their displeasure with Limbaugh's ownership bid.
But Whitlock is being called out for "throwing his lot in with the terrorists":
"Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are domestic terrorists lighting fires and picking everyone's pocket on the way out of town."
That was Jason Whitlock, in 2007 (covering the Don Imus “nappy headed ho” controversy, which I touched on at American Thinker at the time, here).
Next, Jason Whitlock puts up a pre-emptive offense against the anticipated defense that Limbaugh is no less controversial than rapper Jay-Z who is part owner of the New Jersey Nets:
I'd say we're less than 24 hours from Limbaugh playing the Jay-Z card. Brother Jay owns a piece of the New Jersey Nets and has a library of rap tunes spewing the same kind of black-degrading lyrics, phrases and stereotypes that have made Limbaugh rich enough to buy a chunk of the St. Louis Rams.[...]
This is the major difference between Rush and Jay-Z. Beyonce's boyfriend raps a bunch of dumb, racist, sexist (spit) but serious people don't take Jay-Z or his music seriously. Jay's expression of self-hatred does not bother NBA players, NBA fans or remotely overshadow what transpires on the court.
But Whitlock is being called out for ignorantly downplaying the significance of the pernicious and destructive effects of the hip hop/gangsta culture on American blacks:
Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem. […]
While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.
I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.
It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.
Again, Whitlock in 2007 (the original Kansas City Star article is now behind an archives pay-wall).
With that strong of a condemnation of the embrace of hip hop culture in 2007, Whitlock strongly called out the sell-outs willing to sit out because of the almighty dollar:
We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.
But this past righteous anger met a cruel fate this past July when Whitlock raised his personal white flag:
I’ve reluctantly made peace with the fact that black comedians and rappers can make millions of dollars shouting the N-word and lampooning/promoting negative black stereotypes.
If Barack Obama made use of the N-word a death-penalty offense, commercial rap music would disappear and nearly every black comedian would have to rewrite their material. My point is I understand the economic impact of outlawing our (black) self-hate.
Give him his due, though: Whitlock still speaks forthrightly about many issues facing the black community. But he's gone backwards, not forward in this effort.
Why was Whitlock so much more courageously post-racial in 2007 vs 2009?
Even though Limbaugh's bid to become part-owner in an NFL franchise is a political issue invading the sports world, and the election of Barack Obama as the first African-American president is by far the biggest political development over that time, it would be unfair to blame Obama.
But give it a couple of years, based on the trajectory, and Whitlock may reluctantly make peace with the fact that Obama is culpable for his retreat.
So, Obama has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
We've done most of our commentary on this at either JustOneMinute or at twitter.
But this John Kass article is definitely worth a quote and link here:
It's a 12-day miracle! Praise Obama and pass the Hopium
Isn't it great that President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize?
He'd been in office only 12 days when the Nobel nominations were due. That's a mere 288 hours for Obama to have been credentialed as President Peace.
It's not every day that a Chicago politician with City Hall guys running the White House goes and wins the Nobel Prize. So when the news broke last week, a bold decree was read across the land:
Henceforth, the 12 glorious days shall be known as Barack's Golden Almost-Fortnight; or Barack's Amazing Days of Peace, Harmony, and Universal Love!
We've seen that statement around and about regarding the nominations for the peace prize being due only 12 days into Obama's first term.
Which got us to thinking, what did he do during that almost-fortnight?
So we took a look at the WhiteHouse.gov Statements and Releases page, picking out the most memorable entry for each day. We'll start on Day 2, just noting that the inauguration, obviously, was a big, impactful and yes, an inspiring day for all Americans.
1/21/2009
Statement from the Press Secretary on the President's signing of two Executive Orders and three MemorandaThe President today signed two Executive Orders and three Presidential Memoranda. These five documents represent a bold first step to fulfill his campaign promises to make government more responsible and accountable, to launch sweeping ethics reform, and to begin a new era of transparent and open government
[VIMH: Obama, responsible, accountable, reform, transparent, open. One of those words is not like the other. One of those words just doesn't belong]
1/22/2009
BACKGROUND: President Obama signs Executive Orders on Detention and Interrogation PolicyExecutive Order requires closure of the Guantanamo detention center no later than one year from the date of the Order. Closure of the facility is the ultimate goal but not the first step. The Order establishes a review process with the goal of disposing of the detainees before closing the facility.
[VIMH: I'm sure the Executive Order about Guantanamo was very, very impressive at the time and curried great favor with the Nobel Committee. Of course, it was meaningless, as we have been learning recently that Team Obama won't meet their deadline. Not any more meaningless than the Nobel Peace Prize itself. Oh and not any less meaningless, either.]
1/23/2009
Statement of President Barack Obama on Rescinding the Mexico City PolicyIt is clear that the provisions of the Mexico City Policy are unnecessarily broad and unwarranted under current law, and for the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries. For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.
[VIMH: In an ironic twist (of the knife), Obama made this move one day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.]
1/25/2009
Statement from the Press Secretary on Executive Office BuildingEarly this afternoon, the D.C. Fire Department was called to the Executive Office Building in response to reports of smoke on the 4th floor. A limited number of staff were temporarily evacuated and have now returned to their offices. There were no injuries and no apparent damage to the building.
[VIMH: From the statement: "There were no injuries and no apparent damage to the building." Just for the record, we on the right are less concerned with damage to the building than the damage Obama is doing to the office.]
1/26/2009
No Statements or Releases
[VIMH: And on the sixth day, Obama rested (kidding, I'm sure Obama did something. It just wasn't something worth mentioning).]
1/27/2009
Dr. Jill Biden Announces Plans to Continue TeachingContinuing her 28-year career as an educator, Dr. Jill Biden returned to teaching today at a DC-area community college. Dr. Biden will work as an adjunct professor at Northern Virginia Community College this semester, teaching two English courses.
[VIMH: FWIW, Even Dr! Jill Biden gets mentioned on the WH.gov website before VP Joe.]
1/28/2009
Statement of the President on the House Passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment ActI am grateful to the House of Representatives for moving the American Recovery and Reinvestment plan forward today. There are many numbers in this plan. It will double our capacity to generate renewable energy. It will lower the cost of health care by billions and improve its quality. It will modernize thousands of classrooms and send more kids to college. And it will put billions of dollars in immediate tax relief into the pockets of working families.
[VIMH: Just for the record, ARRA made it out of Congress on Feb 13, the same night Obama and the First Lady hosted a concert honoring Stevie Wonder at the White House and one day before Obama and the First Lady had a wonderful Valentine's Day dinner in Chicago. It was four days before Obama signed the act into law.]
1/29/2009
Statement from President Obama on Rod BlagojevichToday ends a painful episode for Illinois. For months, the state had been crippled by a crisis of leadership. Now that cloud has lifted. I wish Governor Quinn the best and pledge my full cooperation as he undertakes his new responsibilities.
[VIMH: To paraphrase former Governor Blago, "A Nobel Peace Prize is a f**king valuable thing!"]
1/30/2009
Obama Announces Middle Class Task ForcePresident Barack Obama today announced the creation of a White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families to be chaired by Vice President Joe Biden. The Task Force is a major initiative targeted at raising the living standards of middle-class, working families in America.
[VIMH: Finally, Joe Biden gets a mention on an effort that has surely become a household phrase across America. Not a day goes by that someone in every corner of this great land thanks their lucky stars that the Middle Class Task Force is on the job, headed by Joe]
1/31/2009
Obama On Iraqi Provincial ElectionsI congratulate the people of Iraq on holding significant provincial elections today. Millions of Iraqi citizens from every ethnic and religious group went peacefully to the polls across the country to choose new provincial councils. It is important that the councils get seated, select new governors, and begin work on behalf of the Iraqi people who elected them.
[VIMH: Now here is something that is genuinely and completely related to the concept of peace. Of course, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it, and in fact did everything in his power to undermine efforts to stabilize Iraq. In other words, he inherited this situation from the previous administration.]
2/1/2009
No Statements or Releases
[VIMH: Fitting.]
You know who's *REALLY* excited by Rio de Janeiro getting the 2016 Olypmic bid and Obama's humiliation in failing to secure it for Chicago?
A young woman who President Obama made famous this past July. Rio de Janeiro resident Mayara Taveres, that's who:
The leader of the free world and his French counterpart were caught sneaking a peek at a the pink-satin-draped booty of a 17-year-old junior G-8 delegate just moments before the summit's official group photo was snapped in Italy yesterday. [...]
The beauty who prompted the president to channel his inner Bill Clinton was identified as Rio de Janeiro resident Mayara Tavares. The girl from Ipanema had been selected to attend a meeting of young people held in conjunction with the summit.
H/T Elliott at JOM
All things being equal, I like the idea of the Olympics being hosted by a US city as a matter of national pride.
I do however think it is a monumentally politically tone-deaf move for President Obama to jet off to Copenhagen to make the big close on Chicago's bid to win the 2016 nod, not to mention Michelle Obama's contention that going to Eurpoe to make the pitch is a...sacrifice.
It's for the (fat and lazy) children, of course (thanks Michelle, for all you do!).
But let's just note that a large portion of the city of Chicago itself is not so excited.
And now at Commentary's John Steele Gordon (surely that's a well-chosen pseudonym of a superhero, isn't it?) makes a comment about Chicago's main rival for the Games:
Brazil’s government is pushing hard for the 2016 summer games to be held in Rio de Janeiro and they have a very good case.
I'll say.
I mean, the governor of Tokyo has told us:
Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016 Olympics could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to mankind.
Well, if global warming is threatening then the most logical answer is to ... give the Games to the city in the Southern hemisphere, where it is their winter, ameliorating the concern about high temperatures, with average Aug/Sep highs in Rio in the upper 70s (mid 20s celsius), and not Northern hemispherical cities Chicago or Tokyo (the third city in the running) who would be in the dog days of global warming enhanced summers.
Because if global warming is so bad and its effects so immediate, then a Chicago heat wave could be dangerous for athletes and spectators alike and potentially deadly on a massive scale.
And don't get me started on Tokyo:
In the summer of 2004, temperature went record high up to 42.7°C (109°F) in the middle of Tokyo (Adachi ward)...It was hotter in Tokyo than in the subtropical islands of Okinawa.
It was caused not only by the "global warming" going on everywhere around the world, but also by "urban heat island syndrome". Grounds covered with concrete and asphalt keep the sun's heat even during night times, and continuously working air-conditioners and millions of cars produce artificial heat 24 hours a day.
OK, to sum up: because of Global Warming:
Sorry, Chicago.
Sayonara, Tokyo.
Annnnd...
Olá, Rio!
As famous late 20th century philosopher Simon Le Bon has said of Rio:
"You know you're something special and you look like you're the best."
HMMMMM: Since Moe Lane points to Chicagoans for Rio! perhaps this post should be subtitled "Al Gorians for Rio!"
But thinking out loud here, that provides the easy solution for Chicago: promise to have Al Gore hold a Global Warming Summit in the city during the Olympics, guaranteeing unseasonably cooler temperatures during the Games through the mystical power of the "Gore Effect".
Jim Geraghty tweeted this morning:
According to NBC/WSJ poll, 9% of Americans say they have seen or heard too little from Obama so far in his presidency.
You may not have guessed this, but I am in that group!
A very exclusive group, I might add.
But why?Well, sure, because I oppose Obama, think he's on the verge of becoming greatly overexposed (don't worry, I've already identified saying "Obama's overexposed" as racist, so you don't have to) in the eyes of many voters.
But even more than that obviously politically partisan reason?
There exists a very selfishly personal reason.
You see, every time Obama gives a speech, my blog traffic goes up nearly five-fold because as of this moment I am the third [update: now second!, but I won't keep updating, it may change at various points over time] highest result for the Google search "Obama speech summary" (the search points to this very old post on Obama's Big Speech on Race from the campaign).
More Speeches!
I don't want this to come across as ungrateful. Really, you enrich my life in so many ways, that a complaint like this seems almost petty.
But please, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you stop sending my reimbursement for opposing ObamaCare in giant checks. The banks won't cash them.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Anyone paying attention to the current health care/insurance reform debate knows about Obama's appearance before a joint session of Congress September 9th. I figured it wouldn't hurt to do a word cloud from the event (transcript here).
Note that unlike most word clouds, this one measures not just word count, but also guages the impact of contextual elements outside of Obama's words themselves -- such as the positive (applause) and, uh, negative feedback he receive.
This is how it looks:
Impact.
He made quite a splash at the 9/12 rally. And last we saw him, George Washington was indicating his disapproval of Obama's entire cabinet.
Now he's singling Obama out.
He just won't let it go.
President Barack Obama speaks about the U.S. missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, that had deeply angered Russia, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009, in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington, and gets instant feedback. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak/minor edit, TheVIMH)
Nor should he.
What. You wanna argue with George Washington? He's flippin' George Washington, man. Absolute Moral Authority.
_____________
Photo "on loan" from Outside the Beltway. Yes, yes the scare quotes are there to indicate that I did not "ask permission". Ok, fine, I stole it.)
You saw the poster at the 9/12 rally.
Washington wasn't content just to leave it there. Now he's going after Obama and his entire cabinet:
(h/t RWSparkle for the original photo)
Tragically, the events in Honduras have proved as fleeting as summer as far as our national attention span goes. Even more tragically, the way the Obama adminstration has handled the US response is nothing short of, well, tragic.
Via Jay Nordlinger at the Corner we have this report from Reuters:
TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Honduran de facto ruler Roberto Micheletti said on Saturday the United States has revoked his visa to pressure him to step down and reinstate exiled President Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted in a June military coup.
Micheletti, however, was defiant of the latest move by Washington, which said earlier this month it was cutting more than $30 million in aid to the poor Central American country.
"We will not back down. Dignity does not have a price in our country," Micheletti told Honduran radio.
That word, "dignity". Interesting, that.
During last year's campaign, The American Prospect produced a long and detailed piece on The Obama Doctrine. In it author Spencer Ackerman posits:
Obama is offering the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades.
And getting to the heart of The Obama Doctrine the piece states:
I spoke at length with Obama's foreign-policy brain trust, the advisers who will craft and implement a new global strategy if he wins the nomination and the general election. They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda...
Well. If anything, the Obama administration is certainly not promoting Democracy in Honduras, so mission accomplished of a sort on that front. In fact, in trying to pressure Honduras to accept the return of former president Zelaya, they are working against the very nature of Honduran democracy.
So, they are against "democracy promotion" because it is hollow sloganeering, and in its place they are:
...in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root.
There's that word, "dignity".
However, in its efforts to remove the dignity of Honduras and its current President Roberto Micheletti, the Obama administration has indeed shown that is is moving beyond hollow sloganeering.
As I predicted at the time this American Prospect article came out, the Obama administration has descended into utterly vapid sloganeering.
MICRO: Funemployment!
MACRO: Funrecovery!
The president’s chief economic adviser warned Friday that the nation’s unemployment rate could stay “unacceptably high” for years to come — a situation that would seriously complicate Barack Obama’s ability to convince Americans that he’s beating back the recession.
“The level of unemployment is unacceptably high,” National Economic Council Director Larry Summers said Friday. “And will, by all forecasts, remain unacceptably high for a number of years.”
Well. Nobody is calling an "L-shaped" lack of recovery "fun". Yet. But somebody, somewhere, soon will. Obama is President and Democrats do control congress, afterall.
By the way...
# of Google hits for "funemployment": "Results 1 - 10 of about 384,000 for funemployment"
# of Google hits for "funrecovery": "Results 1 - 10 of about 67 for "funrecovery"
(all of which appear to be various sites offering to register funrecovery.com, none as a reference to the economy)
I believe that I am first.
I've largely abandoned the whole blogging thing. Yes, I still am roused now and again by polls and possibilities for photoshops. Otherwise, I do a lot of reading about politics, but have little to say about it.
Yet every once in awhile, I come across something that catches my eye. In this case, reading Peter Wehner at Contentions, I am compelled to drag my old hobby horse back up onto my old soap box and revisit that which most motivated and irked me about last year's campaign.
Wehner writes in reaction to Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress:
It is not enough for Obama to repeat his false claims, day after day, speech after speech. No, he must also portray himself as America’s Socrates, our voice of reason amidst the angry mob, an intrepid truth teller, a singularly unifying and visionary figure, and a man astonishingly free from the ideological baggage that defines his critics. He views himself as the adult in a world of children.
This is all quite silly. Obama is, in almost every respect, the opposite of what he portrays himself to be. He is a divisive, polarizing figure, among the most divisive and polarizing we have ever seen. He has shown no interest at all in reaching across the aisle and working with the opposition party. He is an orthodox liberal through and through. He denigrates his critics and questions their motives. He has made the health-care debate more muddled, more confused, and less honest. He has hardened the disdain many Americans have toward their government. And he is increasing cynicism among the polity.
Ah yes, cynicism. I may never be able to let that one go. In what I think echoes Wehner's observation from yesterday, I will repost an observation of mine from yester(last)year:
I don't believe for one second that Obama is just an ordinary political opportunist.
Take everything that Obama lays out in his grandiose verbiage...hope, change, end of cynicism, heal racial division, reach across the aisle, end corruption, end special interests, new politics in Washington, etc, etc, etdamncetera.
And then match it up to his record, his actions, and the lack thereof. He believes and acts in the exact opposite manner of what he is selling.
It is no ordinary political opportunist that could cast such a spell over so many people for so long while doing this.
And to reiterate, it is no accident that he has done this. It is a carefully constructed strategy in an attempt to delegitimize any and all criticism:
Listen, I will leave it to [others] to go into the details of the whole Obama as Alinsky-ite thing.
I am just a poor small town BS sniffer.
And as lefty Oliver Willis quipped about Obama, Smells Like a Movement. Oh, yeah a big movement. A toilet-stopping, get-the-plunger, why-didn't-you-courtesy-flush, where-the-hell are-the-matches movement.
Obama's "fight against cynicism" is BS (yes, a movement). I've played with the whole thing for a year now. Being cute, hit and runnish with pointing out Obama cynicism in the name of ending it.
Enough.
Obama's fight against cynicism is not just mere rhetoric. It is an attempt to create for himself and aura of infallibility.
He is above the normal cynical attempt to gain power -- or cynical attempt to retain power. ::cough::bullshit::cough::
He is all about the change/hope/unity/on our way to yeswecanville.
Do you disagree with Obama?You are cynical.
And cynicism is a threat as great as terrorists -- and is a rival greater than any Dem/Repub or Red/Blue or Lib/Conservative divide. ::cough::bullshit::cough::
The man isn't spouting platitudes because he wants everyone all lovey dovey, Oprahfied and empowered.
He wants everyone powerless.
Michelle: "[Obama] is going to demand that you shed your cyncism".
Obama wants unity. To disagree with Obama is a lack of unity. Any lack of unity is cynicism. And cynicism is as big an enemy as terrorists.
Shed your cynicism (agree with Obama) or you are a terrorist.
When Barack Obama says he wants to end the divisiveness in politics, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to bring about unity, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to work for a new politics free from bitter partisanship, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to have vigorous debate, a robust discussion or a national dialogue to bring this about, I believe him -- to be lying.
...
[I]f Obama's strategy continues to be successful, the media will shield him from the tough questions and criticism. Because there is no bitter partisanship where there is no discussion of the issues, and there is no divisiveness without debate. Obama is not seeking a dialogue in this campaign to bring about unity; rather, a monologue. Obama wants you silent - unless you agree with him, or until enough people do that your voice is no longer heard.
Unfortunately, Obama rode his strategy all the way to the White House. Fortunately, the veil has been lifted and he has encountered and is encountering resistance that is no longer able to be delegitimized by his word alone. And that resistance is becoming increasingly effective in opposing his efforts. May it continue to grow and succeed.
So we read in the Wall Street Journal:
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama, seeking to rally his base, accused Republican leaders Thursday of trying to block a health-care overhaul from the start and again threw his weight behind a government-run insurance plan. ...
On the Michael Smerconish radio show Thursday, the president said: "Early on a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, 'Look, let's not give them a victory and maybe we can have a replay of 1993-94 when Clinton came in. He failed on health care, and then we won in the midterm elections, and we got the majority.'"
Obama having made the comparison, and we having been stuck on polls lately, let's run with this. So far we've used approval polls from the Real Clear Politics average and Rasmussen.
Onward to Gallup. Let's compare Obama and Clinton from each president's inauguration through mid-August. Only this time, let's look how each one performed compared to his numbers in the first Gallup poll after his inauguration. What kind of movement did each experience in his approval and disapproval numbers in those first seven months.
In their first seven months in office:
Being change he can't believe in, Obama wants to blame it on the VRWC, Republicans in Congress and concerned citizens evil mongers at Congressional townhalls.
Whatevs. Even if true, he is admitting that his hindsight is nowhere near 20/20 (the Clinton experience isn't exactly a secret, is it?), his ability to drive a national debate is nowhere near presidential (he's passed many more bucks than bills so far, and the pace will only likely accelerate) and his skin is nowhere near thick enough (he's getting more wee wee'd up than anyone else in this whole process) to take the rigors of the job from what we've seen so far.
It's time for a "gird your loins" pep talk from VP Biden. And that's a pretty sad state of affairs.
If you're Obama, that is, which I'm not. Or if you support Obama, which I don't. So it's a state of affairs that is not sad. If you're me, that is, which I am.
In our last post, we drew this conclusion:
Obama: Much more unpopular than Bush
And that was based on each President's Real Clear Politics approval rating for the July of their first terms. Obama's disapproval rating was at 37.8% and Bush's was at 31%.
OK, let's cut to Rasmussen, who reports today:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9 (see trends).
Today’s update marks the highest level of Strong Disapproval for President Obama.
Here's the graph:
That's an alarmingly upwardly sloping red line there, isn't it? And 41%? That's sounds alarmingly high.
Well. Consider this, from Rasmussen last January, as Bush was on his way out of the White House:
In the final full month of his Presidency, just 13% of American adults said they Strongly Approved of the way that George W. Bush performed his job as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapproved.
At the end of eight years, Bush's Strongly Disapprove number was just 2% worse than Obama's is right now, at the beginning of just his eighth month in office.
Yikes! Obama is operating with ruthless efficiency.
So while our statement above is correct, insofar as when comparing Obama and Bush at the same point in their presidencies, Obama is much more unpopular than Bush was, it is NOT correct to claim that Obama now is much more unpopular than Bush was when he left office.
Therefore, in this context we will revise our wording:
Obama: Barely less strongly disapproved of than Bush
Via Peter Wehner at Contentions, we learn:
President Obama remains in a fairly strong -- but no longer commanding -- political position. The RCP poll average of Obama's job approval rating is 56 percent.
We've been watching Obama's numbers at Rasmussen, and have been wrongfully neglecting the RCP poll average. So let's get a snapshot from RCP:
Apart from the obvious trend (converging Approval and Disapproval and shrinking Spread), one thing that struck us was the Approval number, 55.8%.
And what do you know, someone else had a 55.8% approval rating at this time in his first term.
But besides the similarities in their approval ratings at this point in their presidencies, Bush had a 31.0% Disapproval rating while Obama's Dissapproval rating is 37.8%. One can rightfully draw on this dissimilarity between Obama and Bush to make this observation:
Obama: Much more unpopular than Bush
Via Rachel Adams at the Weekly Standard, there is a rift in the White House between the first couple, which has huge implications for the current health care debate:
WASHINGTON - Now it can be told: President Obama says one of the best-kept secrets at the White House is the pastry chef's to-die-for pie.
In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, Obama was asked to reveal a White House secret, and he dished about the pie.
Obama says the pastry chef makes "the best pie I have ever tasted, and that has caused big problems with Michelle and I."
Of course it is causing big problems with Michelle. According to her, by eating the whole pie, Obama is preventing us from getting universal health care.
Most Americans, she said, don't want much.
"They don't want the whole pie," she told the women. "There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach."...
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
Of course, put me down on Obama's side on this.
Just don't tell me that Obama is serious about universal health care.
Okay, let's take on the saga of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.
You want a little backstory on how Zelaya was booted and how (and how quickly) Obama reacted? Here you go.
What accounts for the difference between Obama's reaction to Zelaya and Honduras and with his reaction to Ahmadinejad and Iranian protesters?
Well.
Remember during the campaign when we were all made aware of these Obama comments:
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …
I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
Obama was speaking directly about the civil rights movement, and specifically about redistributive change in that context. The words are from 2001, but were brought to light in last year's campaign after Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber.
There were, in other words, "essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" that Obama wished were not there. And Obama displays his, uh, lack of fondness for the "negative rights" aspect of the Constitution.
He doesn't like the idea that the Constitution fundamentally tells the government what it cannot do.
You know who else doesn't like that? Honduran president Manuel Zelaya. The Honduran Constitution had a "negative right" that said the president could not seek re-election.
Like Obama, he was not optimistic about changing that through the courts. And the legislature unanimously opposed his efforts. So, seeing the constitution as fundamentally flawed (like Obama sees the US Constitution), Zelaya sought to do a little populist community organization with a referendum that would allow him to run again, essentially giving him the power to become President for life, outside the strictures of the laws of Honduras.
It was from there that the court ordered his removal from the contry, which led to his ouster, and Obama's quick support.
Which leads us to this...
Like Obama, Zelaya simply sees his Constitution as fundamentally flawed.
Like Obama, Zelaya simply wants change.
No wonder Obama came out so quickly to support him.
Like with Ahmadinejad, Obama and Zelaya think alike.
It was an attempt by President Obama to reach out to Iran with a classically American invitation: celebrate July 4 with hot dogs and hale fellowship at United States embassies worldwide. Now, hot-dog diplomacy is the latest casualty of the bloody clashes in Tehran.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had authorized diplomatic posts earlier this month to invite Iranians to their Independence Day parties, sent out a cable rescinding the invitations.
“Unfortunately, circumstances have changed, and participation by Iranian diplomats would not be appropriate in light of the unjust actions that the president and I have condemned,” she said. Embassies that had already invited Iranian diplomats were instructed to disinvite them.
Well, good for the administration, though it comes much, much later than it should have -- and actually rescinding the invitations should never have had to occur as the invitations should never have been sent.
But notice that the disinvitation to the Iranian diplomats sounds eerily similar to the hypothetical example of a Presidential disinvitation in Miss Manners' Guide to Excrutiatingly Correct Behavior that we shared in a previous post, which read:
MR. AND MRS. JONATHAN R. AWFUL, II
129 PRIMROSE PATH
BROOKDALE, CONNECTICUTTHE PRESIDENT AND MRS. EAGLE REGRET THAT HIS
MAJESTY HANDSOME V WILL BE UNABLE TO VISIT
THE UNITED STATES AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF THE
REVOLUTIONARY CIRCUMSTANCES NOW EXISTING IN
MAGICLAND. THEREFORE THE DINNER IN HIS HONOR
AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7,
2005, HAS BEEN CANCELLED.THE SOCIAL SECRETARY THE WHITE HOUSE
Nobody messes with Miss Manners.
