Is Team Obama getting lucky for once?
Love him or hate him, few pundits would describe President Barack Obama as lucky.
His administration inherited a massive economic slump and also ran smack into a powerful, energized tea party movement.
His first term has also been snared in huge foreign policy challenges, ranging from political transformation in the Middle East to the slow wind-down of two major wars.
Even the President’s signature accomplishments — healthcare reform and changes to the rules governing Wall Street – were won by razor-thin margins, earning him more critics than fans.
But as we prepare to crack open the 2012 election year, there are signs that the White House’s bum luck may be turning.
First, there is growing evidence that the Republican Party could blow an opportunity to limit Mr. Obama to a single turn.
It’s not a done deal yet, but this GOP primary is shaping up to be the worst political warm-up lap for any party since the Democrats crashed and burned in 1968.
The other big development, of course, is jobs. Three months ago, economists were worried that unemployment could be permanently stuck in the 9% range.
Then through the fall, that number dropped to 8.6% and the latest numbers for November showed more significant improvement in the jobs picture in 43 states.
There is obviously still a lot that can go wrong and Mr. Obama’s approval ratings remain, to be kind, fragile.
But the latest CNN survey showed that more Americans approve of the President’s performance (49%) than disapprove (48%). That’s a huge swing from his dismal numbers last summer.
And there are signs that the current battle over payroll taxes could be benefiting the administration far more than the Republicans in congress.
It may seem a little unfair to credit these developments to luck.
So I’ll note in passing that there’s a reasonable debate to be had over how much Mr. Obama’s efforts have actually helped the economy, or improved the Democratic Party’s appeal.
But it is, undeniably, darned lucky timing.
The President’s political fortunes could rest on the fact that these employment gains are happening now, with the potential to sap the GOP’s chief attack narrative in 2012.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
.png)
“And there are signs that the current battle over payroll taxes could be benefiting the administration far more than the Republicans in congress.”
If there are signs I wonder why that is?
It is strange that the senate said that they were passing a two month extension so they could buy time to negotiate a longer deal. Then when they passed it they immediately went on vacation!
As far as unemployment goes if this can be sustained in reports after the normal holiday upswing then he may really be “darned” lucky like Brian describes. But as the president has said the GOP has blocked him from doing what he wants to do to “fix” the economy. Is it the “block” that has lead to the slight “fix”? Maybe.
Paul – you are dreaming on both counts, even as spin. The republicans in congress have way over-played their hand. Obama gets to be the guy fighting for middle class tax cuts? You think there is anything good about that for republicans? And a little bump in the economy? It can only help Obama and now he can argue that it is all his work in spite of the republicans trying to scuttle everything. But Im not counting on the economy getting much better soon enough.
how crazy is the house gop? apparently they hate obama more than taxes. it’s really something to the behold.
sorry, delete that last “the.”
Thanks for the best news I’ve heard in a LONG time! Even people who have been around for a “while” like me have unfortunately been disappointed in President Obama’s progress in making changes. Even though we know what kinds of stupidity goes on in political shenanigans, we had hope. With serious thought, however, I realize that he is doing the best that is possible in the current situation, and I hope that what changes is the House. The economy doesn’t just get better automatically, and things don’t change without work. Obama is a worker. There is still hope.
Given that the Republicans have made it clear since the day after inauguration that their sole mission has to make sure Obama only serves one term, I think it’s impressive that he has been able to accomplish anything at all. If the republicans mantra continues to be “tax breaks for the rich” I don’t see any big impediment to the president being re-elected next year.
“that number dropped to 8.6% and the latest numbers for November showed more significant improvement in the jobs picture in 43 states.”
It was pretty well documented here, at the Inbox, that the 8.6% number is voodoo unemployment. Many more people fell off the work force than were added.
43 States. Hmmm. A while ago, Obama said there were 57 states.
Maybe he should run for “President of the 43 United States”.
Sad state of affairs with this guy at the helm.
I didn’t vote for this President, however on the things he does have direct control over, mainly foreign policy he has succeeded. How much is it worth to really end the Iraq war, kill Osama Bin Laden and largely disable al-quida? I would say quite a bit. If he follows through on downsizing our Afghanistan presence plus gets help from the unemployment numbers next year he will win.
If the Republican candidate whoever that may be is talking about staying in Afghanistan forever or increasing our troops there, I would have to vote for Obama. Getting killed in another countries civil war is more damaging to a US citizen and our country; than being unemployed or having a bad economy.
“Paul – you are dreaming on both counts, even as spin.”
Peter, sorry, what are do you mean?
First I think if we see unemployment continue to drop the president may be lucky. Employment numbers almost always spike in the late fall. Where is the spin there (maybe from the president?)?
The president has repeatedly said that the GOP has blocked him from doing what he needs to do to “fix”the economy. Have they been successful or are things improving? Where is the spin there? Is this “maneuver” another example of that?
I am certainly not spinning anything. This will go however it goes.
Obama is even more lucky in the Republican’s determination to commit political hari-kiri by tricks like defeating the payroll cut extension in the House (after Senate Republicans voted overwhelmingly for it) and presenting a group of would be Presidential nominees from Hell (except Romney, who is from Heck). It is all chickens coming home to roost, since they recruited millions of folks from the right wing religio-conservative fringe of American politics into the party to win elections, and now these are demanding that the party support their determination to turn American into the country they know God wants it to be. Except that this is not the country that even most Republicans want to see, never mind the other 70% of us.
Kind of reminds me of when the Mexican government was having a terrible problem with Comanches on their northern borderlands back in the 1820’s. So they invited as settlers into Tejas the only people more fierce than the Comanches: land-hungry Tennesseans. Well, the Comanches were contained, all right, but at a price that ended up costing the Mexicans the northern half of their country.
Except that, unlike the Republicans, the Mexicans probably didn’t deserve it.
These elections predictions here may be correct. But the president does not run against the house. The polls (for what they are worth) that I have seen shows a race that is very close no matter who is pitted against who. That is before the president has to start running on his record. We will see where we are when summer rolls around.
Mervel, I haven’t been paying attention to what the Republican candidates have been saying because I won’t need to choose between them, but is anyone seriously saying they might stay in Afghanistan after 2014?
Any statement like that should disqualify anyone from their parties top post.
And just a slight correction, the war in Afghanistan is not a civil war, anot yet anyway. It is a proxy war. It was a proxy war from 1979 to about 1992, then it was a civil war in the mid and late 90’s, then it was a low grade confrontation in small areas of the country under the Taliban rule, and finally it became a proxy war again after our invasion in 2001. The next stage after our pull out in 2014 may be a combination of proxy war and civil war. But there is some small hope still that when Karzai leaves, if he does as he’s promised, a more conservative government may return and avoid significant bloodshed.
“The other big development, of course, is jobs. Three months ago, economists were worried that unemployment could be permanently stuck in the 9% range.”
Here are some data about the “lucky” 43 states:
Nevada saw its rate fall from 13.4 percent to 13 percent.
California down to 11.3 percent.
Michigan’s unemployment rate took the steepest drop, from 10.6 percent in October to 9.8 percent in November.
——
Hope you can believe in, Nevada. Only 13% unemployment in Obamaville. Think of how lucky you are!
“But there is some small hope still that when Karzai leaves, if he does as he’s promised, a more conservative government may return and avoid significant bloodshed.”
Good luck. I thought that the NPR story this morning telling about how much better off Afghanistan is now than it was 15 years ago really shows that this has been somewhat of a success.
I had no idea how much better it is now than when the war began. NPR uses the term “stunning progress”.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=144111949&m=144111922
I heard the same report. Good news indeed. All the more reason to bring the troops home. Like any country, Afghanistan needs to be allowed to “sink or swim” on its own. We’ve built the foundation, now it’s up to them to build the rest. We can’t afford to continue to hold their hand so to speak.
Knucke,
Romney was against the Iraq pullout for example. There is a group that seems to think we should stay in these wars forever, literally. I think Romney was critical of the plan to leave in 2014, the thinking is NEVER give a date when we are going to leave we must stay until ultimate victory is ours.
Do we really have a handle on what the Afghan people want? We never did know what the Iraqi people wanted even after 10 years we still don’t seem to know if significant portions of the population of Iraq supported our involvement or not. Its like we really don’t want to ask those kind of questions. Who knows maybe most Afghans support a Taliban style government? If they do that would be there choice in my opinion.
“All the more reason to bring the troops home.” Without security I doubt that USAID would be bale to do much of anything. But you are right they do need to do more for themselves. My guess is that they will “sink”, once again become a good haven for terrorists, and we will get attacked and then we will be back…….
The problem is that we are no longer protected by the ocean that separate us from the bad guys.
When a place like Afghanistan “sinks” we “sink” with them.
Paul,
I disagree that we sink with them. And the best way to avoid another terrorist attack is to get the United States the hell out of the Middle East and monitor and suppress terrorist activity the way Joe Biden and others have suggested. Not by occupying entire countries with thousands of military personnel, but by good intelligence, police work, and quick response special opts., drones, etc….Cheaper and far, far more effective as the Obama administration has proven
I hope you are right.
It looks like gridlock may be just the ticket:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577114030255284656.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs
Happy Holidays!
Paul said; “The problem is that we are no longer protected by the ocean that separate us from the bad guys.”
What? global whatever is worse than I thought. The oceans have dried up?
A good portion of the world is sinking we can’t support the whole world. The only truly safe world for us would be if we were a totalitarian one world government with control over all aspects of the world. Safety is not all its cracked up to be there are things we should not sacrifice for safety.
The part of the Bush doctrine that made sense was that if your country harbors organized groups of people that are at war with the US, we will come into your country to go after them. That makes sense and we can always do that in Yemen or Iraq or Pakistan or Afghanistan as we have shown and demonstrated.
You don’t have to occupy and colonize nations to fight terrorism. I have no doubt that Iraq is indeed heading for a civil war, one that they should have had 5 years ago. So now we get to have a civil war in Iraq anyway; plus we lost all of those US lives.
We didn’t have to re-make Pakistan to fight al-quida who live in Pakistan.
“…if your country harbors organized groups of people that are at war with the US, we will come into your country to go after them.”
That’s exactly how Al Qaida felt about the basing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia following the 1991 Gulf War. That’s why we should think long and hard about sending troops into volatile corners of the world.
Remember Star Wars? To far too much of the world, _we_ are the Empire.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks
I’ve been talking to some Afghans and the general consensus seems to be that they are looking forward, with a certain amount of dread, but never the less looking forward to the pullout in 2014.
Many are trying to make as much money as they can while the occupation lasts but any balking on a firm date for withdrawal will be a setback to the process of attempting to form a stable government. That new government will necessarily be conservative because the majority of the population is conservative. But even the fundamentalists recognize that there is no going back to the worst of the Taliban days,
The problem will be keeping Pakistan, Iran, the US, and other countries from interfering in the Afghans own herky-jerky efforts to move forward on their own.
Walker I do agree. With the possible exception of the South Koreans and Japanese who really needs or wants us in their country? What are we doing?
“The part of the Bush doctrine that made sense was that if your country harbors organized groups of people that are at war with the US, we will come into your country to go after them. That makes sense and we can always do that in Yemen or Iraq or Pakistan or Afghanistan as we have shown and demonstrated. ”
Mervel, I agree. In the part of the country that I live many people are very much opposed to these tactics and they are all democrats. Do you think there is any real support for this on the left?
“Walker I do agree. With the possible exception of the South Koreans and Japanese who really needs or wants us in their country? What are we doing?”
Mervel, many of the operations that you seem to support above are launched from remote bases that you seem not to support.
Which is it?
You can launch drone strikes from here but most counter terrorist operations have to be done from bases nearby. If you really support this doctrine I think you have to support US bases abroad.
Paul, I think that is a problematic question. When the danger seems real Democrats will stand behind it as happened in the 2001 invasion of Afgahnistan or in the execution of bin Laden which I believe most Democrats supported with some reservations. Same with the action in Libya.
But if there is a situation similar to the Second Iraq war, where huge numbers of Democrats believed – correctly – that the evidence for military action was being fixed by a government determined to use military force under any circumstance, then I believe that Democrats will be against it.
And in any of those cases there is a difference in what ordinary Democrats will support and what the elected Democratic officials will support. Elected officials in general will go along with whatever will send more money to the military.
To go back to Brian’s original question, is Obama finally getting lucky?
Most of the time you make your own luck. Obama through most of his administration so far has done a poor job of generating good luck. IMO because he has too often failed to stand on principle.
I think in some of the current circumstances it may be more that the Republicans are starting reap the bad luck they have sown by courting the wacko fringe than Obama turning his own luck around very much.
Walker,
But we don’t need hundreds of thousands of troops anywhere and frankly the amount of places we need to go to attack true organized terrorist threats is pretty limited.
It is amazing to me the thinking, it is like we just totally forgot the lessons of Vietnam. You can’t colonize and occupy countries against the will of the people of that country, it does not work, it is the wrong side of history. Sure we can remove governments and dictators but then we should leave. Afghanistan is simply waiting for us to leave, Iraq simply waited for us to leave, and now they are going to fight it out for themselves. Afghanistan will do the same, how many lives do we want to lose while waiting for them to do what they are going to do anyway?
Look at our own history why in the world we think we can now go around occupying countries? It is so un-American.
“When the danger seems real Democrats will stand behind it as happened in the 2001 invasion of Afgahnistan or in the execution of bin Laden which I believe most Democrats supported with some reservations”
I think this is very true, and also problematic if the strategy is to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to preventing terrorism.
Like I said many democrats in this area are not supportive of the type of covert operations that Mervel describes and I support.
“Look at our own history why in the world we think we can now go around occupying countries? It is so un-American.”
Mervel, sorry I totally disagree and think this is a distorted view of history in general. This is exactly our history and the history of many other countries.
Mervel, this country wasn’t empty when we got here.
“this country wasn’t empty when we got here.” And that justifies going around the world meddling in other’s affairs?
Our history of U.S. interventions is not a very proud one: Hawaii, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Iran, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Southeast Asia, etc., etc. Who can say unequivocally that the world is a better place because of our actions in these places? How many of these actions were taken to further commercial aims? Or because our military leaders need combat service in order to get promotions?
There is almost nothing that I agree with Ron Paul about except for one video I saw in which he argued convincingly that our interventions in the middle east directly cause 9/11.
So yes, Mervel, for the most part our meddling abroad is, or at least ought to be, un-American.
Paul, I guess the litmus test would have been when Clinton tried to kill bin Laden with cruise missiles. I don’t remember how Democrats in general felt about that case, but if you do then I guess there’s your answer.
I disagree Paul; our history is one of throwing off the shackles of colonialism and forming the first functioning democracy in the world that actually looked at individual liberty. From that point on sure we didn’t live up to our ideals particularly when it came to slavery and how we treated the Native Americans.
But its better than most we should be proud of our history, warts and all.
But traditional colonialism of the European bent, is something that we have not been good at nor is it a part of I think our identity. In some ways we get the worst of all worlds. In our interventions we always have the delusion of leaving so all we do is go in and destroy things, like in Vietnam or Iraq, we don’t build roads, we don’t bring education, language or architecture. We just leave unexploded ordinance and a bunch of land mines. If you look at Vietnam or India or Mexico, they all still retain good some good parts of their colonial experiences. We just don’t do it well and should not try. We need to be more isolationist when it comes to military adventures. I think we should be more like Canada in this regard.
“But its better than most we should be proud of our history, warts and all.”
Mervel, I agree with you there, and I am as well.
Have a good holiday!
“”this country wasn’t empty when we got here.” And that justifies going around the world meddling in other’s affairs?”
Not at all.
Did I say it did?
“…we should be proud of our history, warts and all.”
Proud of much of our history, certainly.
But to be blind to the reality that some of our history is shameful is going too far– Mi Lai and Abu Graib are not “warts”, and the CIA’s overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 is exactly the kind of thing that it is important that we not forget. We can’t learn from our mistakes if we sweep them under the rug. If we had kept the shameful Banana Wars fresh in our mind, perhaps we wouldn’t have been so foolish in Iran in ’53, and the history of the Middle East might have been quite different.
Paul, if I misinterpreted you, I apologize. But what _did_ you mean by “this country wasn’t empty when we got here” in the context of Mervel’s question “why in the world [do we] we think we can now go around occupying countries?”
In case the term “Banana Wars” is unfamiliar (I certainly never encountered it in school), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
Walker, No one is sweeping anything under the rug.
As far as the other comment I was simply saying that we are a nation with a history of conquest and occupation like many others.
I didn’t say that it justified anything.
Walker I agree! Those sorts of interventions are the very thing that we should not be involved in from the beginning. Think about Mai Lia and Abu Graib, both of them were the results of ham handed incompetent occupations. Occupations always sicken the oppressor. The domino theory is still around this time it is about Isalmic extremism and “failed states”. The fear is if we lose Pakistan or lose Afghanistan what will happen? The answer of course is that they are not ours to lose and we can look no farther than Vietnam to realize that it is a stupid idea to start with. Vietnam is fine, southeast Asia is fine, the only thing that sucks was our intervention there.
Actually Mervel, if you asked the vast majority of Afghans they would tell you they would be thrilled to be the 51st state.
It is indeed a conundrum that we are both a great perpetrator of evil and at the same time one of the greatest nations on earth. In spite of all of our warts and even our long history of war crimes, people from around the world love us. Sometimes they wonder why we do such stupid things but they also understand that the American people really want to do the right thing and much of the time we succeed.
Mervel says “The domino theory is still around…”
Yes, and I have a funny feeling it will always be around. Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, or as he originally intended to call it, the military–industrial-congressional complex, in his farewell address in 1961:
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-[congressional] complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” (Eisenhower dropped the “-congressional” at the last minute for fear of insulting Congress, but it very much belongs there.)
But you have to have a bogey-man to keep the complex in operation, and 9/11 came along just in time to give the fear-mongers something to scare the gullible with. It’s all about money at its root.
“…the American people really want to do the right thing…”
Well, lately it seems as if a large segment of the American people want to do whatever their corporate masters want them to do– hate Muslims, bash unions and the poor, despise government.
Speaking of unions, did you see this?
In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. The average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average in the U.S. was $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies are very profitable.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/
…the American people really want to do the right thing…”
Wanting to do the right thing and knowing what that is or agreeing to work together are totally separate issues.
I agree walker but the boogey man goes both ways. The military, the government, the “corporate masters” these are all false boogey men just like trying to worry about small groups of Islamic Terrorists.
The basic idea of the perpetual “enemy” in the US is simplistic and I think a tool of both sides of the political spectrum. I don’t buy any of it.
Corporations are not evil, the 1% are not evil, unions are not evil the vast majority of Muslims are not evil, the government is not evil, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are not evil either.
I mean finding a simple answer to our individual problems by blaming something or someone is an appealing solution, that has been used for a very long time in human history.
Mervel, I’m sorry, but you’re setting up an entirely false equivalence. No one is funding a vast military machine to combat the evil of corporations or fundamentalist Christians.
All corporations are not evil, but some corporations do some thoroughly evil things– Enron, Union Carbide, Halliburton come immediately to mind. Not all rich people are evil, but some rich people have done evil things– Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, Ken Lay, Bernard Ebbers, etc.
Not all unions do good, but many have. Not all Evangelicals do evil, but some have (like in the U.S. Air Force). Etc.
But because most Muslims are perfectly good people doesn’t mean that we can ignore the danger posed by Al Qaida and other extremist groups.
By the very same token, it is definitely worth looking closely at any number of corporations, including especially those involved in the military industrial complex– at Halliburton and Blackwater (or Xe or Academi or whatever name they’re hiding behind now) and Lockheed, just to pick a handful.
Right we have to have a balanced way to look at these issues. I do a agree about the military machine needing an enemy, but that is logical. Shoe salesmen rarely want to admit a lack of need for shoes, people who sell their skills and talents to the military machine both in the Armed Forces and in Industry, are going to logically believe that what they do is needed. It is our job to determine what is really needed. But unlike shoe salesmen, the government alone has the power to force me to buy services from the military when I don’t honestly believe I need them.
So yes we need to look at this issue. What is evil? How do you define evil? I think that is a strong term for most of these topics. It is not evil for rich people to look for a tax break, it is not evil for unions to get the best deal they can for their members even when it hurts other workers, it is not evil for Lockheed Martin to sell fighter jets. It may not be good for the country but it simply people acting in their own self interest.
I think there is an evil in starting wars that are not honestly needed, there is evil in torture and murder and genocide. In general I think evil should not be used in political discourse unless it really is dealing with something like torture etc.
“it is not evil for Lockheed Martin to sell fighter jets.” No, but it is when they bribe foreign governments to buy them, as they did in the ’70s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals )
And I’d say it’s evil for unions to look out for the most senior members and throw the newbies under the bus.
I call it evil when rich folk spend millions on advertizing campaigns (not to mention whole networks) that misrepresent reality to justify tax breaks for the wealthy.
I call it evil when the military demands incredibly expensive weapon systems that we don’t need except to fight wars that shouldn’t have been started.
Your mileage may vary.