MONDAY,  AUGUST 24,  2009

HE'S SOOO THIRD WORLD - AT 10:56 P.M. ET:  Fouad Ajami, who normally writes on Middle Eastern affairs, turns his attention to President Obama's political troubles, and finds that, in some strange way, there may be a connection between the two subjects.  The president, he says, is just so third world, and eventually Americans would discover it.  From The Wall Street Journal:

It was true to script, and to necessity, that Mr. Obama would try to push through his sweeping program—the change in the health-care system, a huge budget deficit, the stimulus package, the takeover of the automotive industry—in record time. He and his handlers must have feared that the spell would soon be broken, that the coalition that carried Mr. Obama to power was destined to come apart, that a country anxious and frightened in the fall of 2008 could recover its poise and self-confidence. Historically, this republic, unlike the Old World and the command economies of the Third World, had trusted the society rather than the state. In a perilous moment, that balance had shifted, and Mr. Obama was the beneficiary of that shift.

That is very perceptive and well stated.  Don't you think?

His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.

And that is precisely what happened.

The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic. The devotees could not make up their minds. In a newly minted U.S. senator from Illinois, they saw the embodiment of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.

But the situation has changed.

Now that realism about Mr. Obama has begun to sink in, these iconic figures of history had best be left alone. They can't rescue the Obama presidency. Their magic can't be his. Mr. Obama isn't Lincoln with a BlackBerry. Those great personages are made by history, in the course of history, and not by the spinners or the smitten talking heads.

That last paragraph should be tacked on the wall next to the desk chair of every Washington pundit, but it won't be.

And the remarkable contrast between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama:

At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.

In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land.

Finally...

American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.

Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama's charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation's recovery of its self-confidence.

COMMENT:  As Jacques Barzun of Columbia used to say, time out for good reading.  Ajami's column is one of the best I've read on Obama.  Please read it through.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

WHERE ARE THE "HUMAN RIGHTS" GROUPS? - AT 6:28 P.M. ET:  As President Obama pushes ahead with the "peace process," designed to create a Palestinian state, the potential leaders of that state are making plain what it will look like:

Female students in the Gaza Strip will be required to wear head coverings and full-length robes beginning this school year, the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip announced on Monday.

According to the new regulations, any female student that does not attend class in the proper attire will be sent home.

The ministry also has ruled that male teachers cannot teach in girls' schools and women are not allowed to teach at boys' schools.

And...

These guidelines join an increasing amount of reports from Gaza residents saying that modesty patrols were forcing women to wear head coverings, especially at Gaza's beaches, and that they were inspecting isolated cars in order to prevent unmarried couples being alone together.

This is pretty much Saudi Arabia all over.

COMMENT:  I wonder what the attitude of this regime will be toward real democracy, living in peace with Israel, and toward the United States.  Don't ask, don't tell.

And, naturally, the "human rights" groups and "feminist" groups are silent.  As are the "peace activists" and "rights activists" in American universities.

Senior Hamas officials had claimed, in the wake of Hamas's June 2007 Gaza takeover, that the organization did not have any intention to turn the Sharia, Islamic religious law into official state regulations.

All they want is a little multicultural respect.

Do we really want to create a state like that?  Apparently the Obamans don't see a problem.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

THE LOCKERBIE RELEASE - AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  The release of the Lockerbie bomber last week by Scotland is producing a growing scandal in both Scotland and England.  This is joined by American reaction.  Some 82% of Americans in a new poll oppose the release.

British journalists, often far more blunt than their American counterparts, are on the case, and their verdict is scathing. Leo McKinstry of the Daily Express nails it:

THE decision by the Scottish Government to release the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi marks a new milestone in the decline of our nation.

The whole sickening episode has brought shame on Britain, exposing the moral cowardice and cynicism at the heart of our political elite.

Most of the civilised world felt only revulsion at the hero’s welcome given to Megrahi on his arrival at Tripoli airport, Libyan and Scottish flags waving in celebration at our country’s pathetic self-abasement.

Self-abasement is exactly the right term.  But the European and British left are so good at it.  Practice makes perfect.  The release was supposedly approved on grounds of "compassion" because the prisoner is dying.

This controversial decision was taken by the Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, a politician who mixes arrogance and self-righteousness in equal measure. If he really thinks that, then the Scottish Justice Minister has a perverse definition of “compassion.”

To hear MacAskill, you would have to think he is the reincarnation of St Francis of Assisi, not an anti-British fanatic who had just reached a grubby deal with the one of the world’s most discredited regimes.

And...

This is not the way for a morally self-confident country to behave. So-called “compassion” has been a mask for pusillanimous surrender, squalid commercialism and naked political hypocrisy.

No trace of British understatement there.  Once again we see a moral collapse, with rumors sweeping Britain that business considerations played a role.

The United States also protested the release.  But then the president went on vacation, and all is forgotten.  Now we "move on" to investigate our own CIA.  For the left, that is much more tempting than easing the pain of PanAm 103 victims' families.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

NOT FUNNY - AT 5:25 P.M. ET:   

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - At least 1,200 veterans across the country have been mistakenly told by the Veterans Administration that they suffer from a fatal neurological disease.

One of the leaders of a Gulf War veterans group says panicked veterans from Alabama, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming have contacted the group about the error.

Denise Nichols, the vice president of the National Gulf War Resource Center, says the VA is blaming a coding error for the mistake.

COMMENT:  Yes, mistakes happen, but this should serve as a warning to those who want to turn the health-care system over to the federal government.  When you have a single system you have no alternative, and the system itself, lacking competition, becomes lax and indifferent. 

August 24, 2009   Permalink

YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE - AT 10:42 A.M. ET:  For those who think Europeans are simply so superior to Americans.  From The Times of London:

It could be construed as a black day for the English language — but not if you work in the public sector.

Dozens of quangos and taxpayer-funded organisations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence.

Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day”, according to documents released under freedom of information rules.

It gets worse:

Many institutions have urged their workforce to be mindful of “gender bias” in language. The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it, while the Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic.

COMMENT:  This is actually serious stuff over there. 

Oh, by the way, a quango is defined by Oxford as "a semipublic administrative body outside the civil service but with financial support from and senior appointments made by the government."  I thought you'd like to know.

The Europeans are absolutely manhandling the language.  Excuse me.  Personhandling.  I promise not to do that again.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

THE NEXT GREAT CHALLENGE - AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  Things are coming to a head in Afghanistan, which President Obama has declared a war of necessity, the good war.  The New York Times reports:

AGRAM, Afghanistan — Military commanders with the NATO mission in Afghanistan told President Barack Obama's chief envoy to the region this weekend that they did not have enough troops to do their job, pushed past their limit by Taliban rebels who operated across borders...

...The assessments about troop needs came as the top American commander in the region, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been working to complete a major war strategy review, and as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, described a worsening situation in Afghanistan despite the recent addition of 17,000 U.S. troops ordered by the Obama administration and the extra security efforts surrounding the presidential election.

"I think it is serious, and it is deteriorating," Mullen said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" program. "The Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated, in their tactics."

COMMENT:  For Obama, this comes at a bad time.  His popularity is down and downer.  The United States is deep in debt.  The American people, in the absence of any serious campaign to strengthen public support, are souring on the war.  And the increasingly angry left wing of the Democratic Party wants to do to Afghanistan what it failed to do to Iraq - turn it into a place from which Americans run. 

The president has, admirably, supported our effort in Afghanistan.  But up to now the decisions have been relatively easy, and the left has left him alone.  Now he may well be asked for a major commitment of additional troops.  Already there are stories wondering whether Afghanistan will be "Obama's Vietnam."  (There's a whole generation of journalists who just won't let go of Vietnam, and who believe that the "anti-war" movement of the sixties was some kind of high point in godliness, morality, sophistication and togetherness.)

As another story in today's Times reports:

“The analogy of Lyndon Johnson suggests itself very profoundly,” said David M. Kennedy, the Stanford University historian. Mr. Obama, he said, must avoid letting Afghanistan shadow his presidency as Vietnam did Mr. Johnson’s. “He needs to worry about the outcome of that intervention and policy and how it could spill over into everything else he wants to accomplish.”

The problem is, Obama must win in Afghanistan.  His party's national-security credentials are weak enough.  If he loses, or pulls out, they'll be zero, and the United States will, as after Vietnam, be weak in the eyes of the world.

We have said here that this autumn shapes up to be dramatic politically.  We adhere to that judgment.  Many things are coming to a head for Mr. Obama, and the stars are not aligning in his favor.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

A GOP RESPONSE ON HEALTH CARE?  ABOUT TIME - AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  The Politico is reporting that the Republican National Committee is coming out with a health care bill of rights for seniors.  That's good news.  We've long argued here, as readers know, that the GOP can't simply oppose.  It has to propose. 

EXCLUSIVE -- The Republican National Committee today makes a play for senior support by rolling out a “Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights,” aimed at amplifying concerns -- already clear in polls -- about the effect of health-care reform on Medicare. RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “America’s senior citizens deserve access to quality health care that will not bankrupt them. … Unfortunately for America’s seniors, President Obama and Congressional Democrats are looking to fund their government-run health care experiment by cutting over $500 billion from Medicare.” The first point in the six-point “Bill of Rights”: “PROTECT MEDICARE AND NOT CUT IT IN THE NAME OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.” And, of course, it includes: “PREVENT GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERING WITH END-OF-LIFE CARE DISCUSSIONS.”

COMMENT:  The "bill of rights" device in the health-care debate is a good one.  This is a subject that produces high anxiety and fear.  People want to be reassured that their rights involving health care are guaranteed. 

Let's hope this is the start of a positive Republican agenda for 2010 - practical, imaginative, and stated briefly.  The Dems are having trouble selling a 1,000-page bill, and for good reason.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

THE REAL REASON - AT 7:46 A.M. ET:  The New York Post, in a fine editorial, examines the wild charges coming from the left, directed at Americans who have the nerve to criticize The One, and finds them absurd.  The Post correctly explains the real reasons why Americans are so angry:

It's been a hilarious August, watching media supporters of President Obama's health care package puzzle over the obscure motivations of the noncompliant Americans rallying against it.

"Racial anxiety," guessed New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

"Nihilism," theorized Time's Joe Klein.

"The crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy," historian Rick Perlstein proclaimed in the Washington Post.

While the commentariat's condescension is almost comical, the whole evil-or-stupid explanation misses the elephant in Obama's room: Americans of all stripes, it turns out, aren't very keen about the government barging into their lives.

Yeah, and they aren't very keen about a president who runs as a moderate and governs from the increasingly far left.  And they may be less than confident in an administration, and its allies in Congress, who can't even explain the contents of the health "reform" they're jamming down our throats.

This isn't about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. A majority oppose Obama's policies because they fly in the face of this country's bedrock values of personal liberty and limited government. Robbing Peter to pay Goldman Sachs does violence to that fundamentally American ethos.

And increasingly, Obama administration policy does violence to European values, as well. The continent has for the last two decades been systematically disengaging national governments from domestic industries. Top officials from Sweden, of all places, complained about Washington's auto bailout, tersely announcing that "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories."

COMMENT:  Incredible, isn't it?  Even some in Sweden - the pinnacle of Superior Nationhood in the view of the chattering classes - are appalled at what's happening here.  Many in Europe have realized their economic mistakes in recent years, only to see those same mistakes made, with enthusiasm, by the new Obamans. 

But Americans, always faster to wake up than the welfare stated Europeans, are waking up quickly.

August 24, 2009   Permalink

THE NEW, IMPROVED INTERROGATORS AT 7:32 A.M. ET:  The Obama administration is changing the way we interrogate people who may want to, say, blow up American buildings, or even cities.  The Washington Post outlines the new, progressive approach:

President Obama has approved the creation of an elite team of interrogators to question key terrorism suspects, part of a broader effort to revamp U.S. policy on detention and interrogation, senior administration officials said Sunday.

Obama signed off late last week on the unit, named the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. Made up of experts from several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the interrogation unit will be housed at the FBI but will be overseen by the National Security Council -- shifting the center of gravity away from the CIA and giving the White House direct oversight.

A word about the timing:

The administration is releasing the new guidelines on the day when what it sees as the worst practices of the Bush administration are being given another public airing. New details of prisoner treatment are expected to be included in a long-awaited CIA inspector general's report being unveiled Monday about the spy agency's interrogation program. The report could set off a fresh debate between members of the current administration and the previous one over whether such tactics are necessary to prod detainees into cooperation and, ultimately, keep the country safe.

And...

a steady drip of stories about past practices has focused attention on the Bush administration. According to recent reports, the CIA hired the private contracting firm Blackwater USA as part of a program to kill top al-Qaeda operatives.

COMMENT:  So, at the very time that we're protesting Scotland's outrageous and cynical release of the Lockerbie bomber, this stuff starts dripping out.  At the very time when we must make critical decisions about increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, "sources" strangely leak new stories that can damage our security services.  At the very time when we're trying to balance our withdrawal from Iraq with safeguards to prevent our achievements there from being lost, we hear word of new "investigations" into past practices.

I don't want to sound paranoid, but have you ever noticed how damaging information about alleged "abuses" comes out when we have a full plate of security questions before us?

There may well have been abuses, and they can be handled through normal channels.  But you just know that any "investigation" will turn political very quickly, which is exactly what many on the left would love to see.  To a certain group in Washington, and they are linked to the Obama wing of the Democratic Party, the time to end Bush-bashing is never.

As to the Obama White House controlling interrogations of high-value detainees, in my worst moments I can imagine the questions:

1.  Are you comfortable?

2.  Has anyone been nasty to you?

3.  How about that flat-screen TV?  Enough contrast?

4.  Did they get you a CD of that new song you were asking about, you know, "We'll Smash the American Imperialist Infidels Until They Accept the Prophet and Put Their Women in Cages"?  We can get you the whole album if you like.

You get the picture.

August 24, 2009   Permalink   

SUNDAY,  AUGUST 23,  2009

BRACE YOURSELF - AT 9:08 P.M. ET:  Iran is on a human-rights campaign.  I'm sure we're all moved.  From The Washington Post:

TEHRAN, Aug. 23 -- Iranian lawmakers voted overwhelmingly on Sunday for a bill creating a $20 million fund intended in part to expose human rights violations by the United States, the ILNA news agency reported.

Passage of the bill suggests the depth of mistrust that remains between the nations as Iran faces a September deadline to respond to President Obama's offer for talks. Iranian lawmakers said the legislation was in retaliation for what they consider similar action by the United States.

The U.S. Senate passed a bill in July that would allocate $30 million for technologies to allow the U.S. government's Farsi-language satellite and radio stations to bypass Iranian government efforts to jam their broadcasts. An additional $20 million would be set aside for developing Web sites and other technologies that will improve Iranian access to censored information. An additional $5 million is authorized for documenting information about human rights in Iran.

COMMENT:  I would view this story very seriously.  Yes, I know, the Iranian action, taken while dissidents are on trial for their political views, looks ridiculous.  But there is an ugly alliance between Muslim extremists and leftist groups in the West, and that alliance can surface again, with seed money from Iran.  Don't be shocked if "scholars" at Western universities, including those in the United States, suddenly decide to study "American human rights violations and abuse of Iran," and to do so with Iranian funds.  It happens with Saudi funds all the time.   There are professorships of "Middle Eastern studies" at Western universities, financed by the democracy-loving Saudi government. 

And don't be shocked either if some of those "exposing" human rights violations by the United States wind up being seriously interviewed by CNN.

Money talks, and money is what funds "human rights" studies.

August 23, 2009   Permalink

UNBELIEVABLE - AT 6:15 P.M. ET:  Well, we must praise The New York Times - rare here - for a hard-hitting piece on the gross negligence of the Obama administration in filling key policy posts.  The numbers here are staggering, and they point to an incompetence administration run more like the Chicago political machine than the United States Government.  No surprise there:

WASHINGTON — As President Obama tries to turn around a summer of setbacks, he finds himself still playing without most of his own team. Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.

Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled so far — a reflection of a White House that grew more cautious after several nominations blew up last spring, a Senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both.

The sluggish pace has kept Mr. Obama from having his own people enacting programs central to his mission. He is trying to fix the financial markets but does not have an assistant treasury secretary for financial markets. He is spending more money on transportation than anyone since Dwight D. Eisenhower but does not have his own inspector general watching how the dollars are used. He is fighting two wars but does not have an Army secretary.

Will you go to bed tonight more confident that your security is in good hands?  No, I didn't think so.

“If you’re running G.M. without half your senior executives in place, are you worried? I’d say your stockholders would be going nuts,” said Terry Sullivan, a professor at the University of North Carolina and executive director of the White House Transition Project, which tracks appointments.

Of course the piece does, as is required, throw some barbs at President Bush.  What would a New York Times story be without that?  But the point is clear:  This administration is functioning on half its cylinders. 

Change we can't believe in.

August 23, 2009   Permalink

SOME SANITY ON HEALTH CARE - AT 5:51 P.M. ET:  Some of the sanest members of Congress, like Joe Lieberman, are suggesting that we approach health-care "reform" incrementally, rather than trying the "great revolution" idea.  This approach might upset Che or Lenin, but it makes sense for America.  From The Politico:

Sen. Lieberman said "in a word, yes" when asked if it's time to shift to an incremental approach to health care reform, and called the Senate Finance Committee's effort to work out a bipartisan bill "the great hope now."

“Morally every one of us would like to cover every American with health insurance, but that’s where you spend most of the trillion-plus dollars, said the Independent from Connecticut, who caucuses with the Democrats. "I'm afraid we’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy’s out of recession.”

“I think it’s a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform--health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very passionate mixed minds about. It’s just not good for the system—frankly, it won’t be good for the Obama presidency….There are other fights to fight,” Lieberman said on "State of the Union," listing climate change, regulatory reform, and the war in Afghanistan.

“Great changes in our country often have come in steps….let’s focus now on how to reduce costs,” Lieberman said, adding that the six members of the Finance Committee – three Democrats and three Republicans – "agree on about three-quarters of what needs to get done."

COMMENT:  Lieberman's approach requires leadership, which is precisely what we're not getting from the White House.  The blame for this mess must be placed squarely on the shoulders of Barack Obama.  He has no real ideas, can't even describe the plan he wants, and has left the fate of reform in the hands of the reckless House Democrats.  Americans are starting to understand that the man they elected last November is unprepared for the presidency, and is anything but the moderate who was sold to us.

August 23, 2009   Permalink

LOOK IN THE MIRROR, BARACK, THE MIRROR - AT 11:37 A.M. ET:  Victor Davis Hanson explains to President Obama who the president should blame for his current troubles.  Guess the answer:

Liberal columnists decrying the Obama administration’s supposed lack of partisan fortitude and eagerness for a nasty fight for health care seem oddly detached from reality. The opposition to Obamacare would have gone nowhere had the president offered a concise plan, had his team kept repeating four or five logical and easily understandable talking points, and had he prepared a few pat answers to the more controversial elements of the plan, from the public option to so-called “end of life” panels to treatment of illegal aliens and the real cost.

That hits it.  And...

Instead, Obama and his advisers, in lazy fashion, outsourced the plan to the partisan left-wingers of the Democratic party who are key House chairs. They in turn offered up a 1,000-page legalese mess, which the administration’s key players never read, and which Obama arrogantly thought he could wing through in a few weeks with his “hope and change” / “trust me” cadences.

The result...

Now the problem is not just that health care is going down, but that in the process the administration has tarnished the blue-chip Obama brand, and we are in a sort of emperor-has-no-clothes moment.

COMMENT:  All right, great argument.  I buy it.  But there are two questions now to be answered:  1)  What will Obama do in response to his problem?  Remember that the presidency is, indeed, a bully pulpit.  The president has greater opportunity to turn things around than any other official, witness Bill Clinton's turnaround and eventual reelection; and 2) How will the GOP react to Obama's decline?  If it doesn't react with creative plans of its own, it can arrange another Democratic victory by default.

August 23, 2009   Permalink

McCAIN SAYS NO TO NEW TAXES - AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  John McCain is throwing down the gauntlet on new taxes:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John McCain is refusing to consider raising taxes to reduce the ballooning deficit.

McCain was asked on ABC's ''This Week'' whether he would make a similar pledge as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to do whatever it takes to bring down the deficit over the long run, such as raising taxes.

COMMENT:  The question is whether the GOP will stick to its guns on this.  The Dems, especially the leftward contingent, can't wait to raise taxes to pay for its spending spree.  Republicans must resist on principle and demand budget cuts, with no program sacred.

And please be alert to increases in hidden or quiet taxes, such as taxes on businesses, which get passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, but aren't labeled as taxes on the individual.

August 23, 2009   Permalink

WHY, HOW BUSHIAN - AT 10:08 A.M. ET:  From Fox News:

The White House hired a private communications company based in Minnesota to distribute mass e-mails, helping to shed light on how some recipients received e-mails in support of President Obama's health care plan without signing up for them, FOX News has learned.

The company, Govdelivery, describes itself as the world's leading provider of government-to-citizen communication solutions and says its e-mail service provides a fully-automated on-demand public communication system.

It is still unknown how much taxpayer money the White House provides to Govdelivery for its services.

The revelation comes after the White House acknowledged this week that people were receiving unsolicited e-mails from the administration about health care reform and suggested the problem was with third-party groups that placed the recipients' names on the distribution list.

COMMENT:  If this were the Bush administration, reporters from the nation's "leading" news outlets would be descending on the White House, and ominous editorials would be in their second draft, warning about a vast fascistic propaganda machine operating, Nazi-style, from the White House under the command of a latter-day Goebbels.

Am I wrong? 

You are being watched.

August 23, 2009    Permalink

POLL STUNNER - AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  In a stunning rebuke to President Obama, today's Rasmussen poll reports the worst numbers recorded for the president in Ras's presidential approval index.  This measures the gap between those who strongly approve of presidential performance and those who strongly disapprove.  That index this morning stands at minus 14. 

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% 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 -14. These figures mark the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President. The previous low of -12 was reached on July 30.

And...

Prior to today, the number who Strongly Approved of the President’s performance had never fallen below 29%. Some of the decline has come from within the President’s own party. Just 49% of Democrats offer such a positive assessment of the President at this time.

At the other end of the spectrum, today’s total for Strongly Disapprove matches the highest level yet recorded. The 41% mark was reached just once before and that came one week ago today. Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans now Strongly Disapprove along with 49% of those not affiliated with either major party.

COMMENT:  We always stress that polls are snapshots in time, and can change abruptly within a day or two.  But these are pretty jolting numbers, and the president will need all the distractions of Martha's Vineyard to get away from them. 

By the way, you may be sure that these polls are reported regularly by embassies in Washington to their home countries.  The attitude toward Mr. Obama by foreign ministries will be affected by his assumed popularity among American voters, and Rasmussen polls among likely voters.

Another cautionary note:  Obama's polling misfortune is not a guarantee of Republican resurgence.  The GOP's numbers are less than stellar, and need work.

August 23, 2009   Permalink