Hometown Slap-Down: Chicago Trib Tells Obama To Withdraw From 2012

Its not a big deal when I suggest to Obama that he consider not running for reelection, or you hear it from Republican pundits on TV News/Talk shows.  It's even no big deal when unnamed Democrats whisper that the President has no chance of winning and should give way to a Democrat with a better chance of winning.

But when a member of the editorial board of one of the President's hometown papers make the suggestion in print, then it becomes big news. In today's Chicago Tribune. Steve Chapman a member of the Editorial Board held back no punches as wrote just such an opinion piece.

The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can't even sneak a cigarette.

His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.

The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic."

Chapman suggests that Obama should get out before he is thrown out, but then he says something really frightening:

It's not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, "Second-Term Blues," that "their second terms did not measure up to their first."

Can you imagine that? If a first term Obama Presidency was bad, history tells us that a second term will be even worse.  This will give people nightmares.

Presidential encores are generally a bog of frustration, exhaustion and embarrassment. They are famous for lowest moments rather than finest hours. Richard Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal, and Bill Clinton made the unfortunate acquaintance of Monica Lewinsky.

..Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.

What is Chapman's solution? that Hilary Clinton become the Democratic Party standard- bearer.

Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president. Oh, and a new Bloomberg poll finds her to be merely "the most popular national political figure in America today."

If he runs for re-election, Obama may find that the only fate worse than losing is winning. But he might arrange things so it will be Clinton who has the unenviable job of reviving the economy, balancing the budget, getting out of Afghanistan and grappling with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Obama, meanwhile, will be on a Hawaiian beach, wrestling the cap off a Corona.

Interestingly today former President Bill Clinton commented on Dick Chaney's suggestion that his wife would be a better President than Obama.

"Well, you know, I'm very proud of her, so I'm always gratified whenever anyone says anything nice about her. And I very much agree that she's done a good job," Clinton told Bob Schieffer on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"But I also have a high regard for Vice President Cheney's political skills, and I think one of those great skills is sowing discord among the opposition. So I think he's right that she's done a heck of a job. But she is a member of this administration, and committed to doing it. And I think he, by saying something nice about her in the way that he did, knew that it might cause a little trouble," Clinton continued.

"I don't want to help him succeed in his political strategy. But I admire that he's still out there hitting the ball."

The truth is there is little chance that Hilary Clinton wage a challenge against President Obama, that would splinter the Democratic party into so many pieces it would take years for a united party to reunited again. Even if Obama is somehow booted a Clinton campaign would be fraught with disunity.

In the end, its nice to see the liberal media starting to gripe against the Teflon President, maybe during the next few months, instead of genuflecting at the name Obama, they will start doing their job by reporting the truth whether it helps or hurts the Obamessiah. That would be very interesting to watch.

Obama Approval Hits New LOW In Both Rasmussen and Gallup

It seems as if President Obama's bus tour and divisive political message isn't doing him much good, in the latest Rasmussen three day rolling approval poll, his approval index hit a new low -26.  Gallup has Obama's approval sinking to a new low 38%.

The Rasmussen approval index compares voters who strongly believe Obama is doing a good job to those who strongly disapprove of the job he is doing. Those who have strong opinions of a President are more likely to work for or against his reelection. Today's -26 number is the lowest that Obama has seen since his inauguration.

Note: Double click on each chart to see it larger and more clearly) 
The chart above takes a look at Obama's approval index since July 25th (his last prime time speech about the budget deal) through today.  As you can see the budget deal at the beginning of July gave the President a bump. Since then, the economic news has been awful and Obama has been on the road trashing the GOP and the Tea Party.

The strongly approve and strongly disapprove numbers show a similar trend. The 19% strongly approve percentage is also an all time low achieved just once before (8/16).

 The overall approval/disapproval percentages also tell a sad tale for Obama:

Rasmussen released other numbers that are a black cloud floating over Obama's reelection campaign, only 28% of voters trust him on the economy (25% of independents).  With the economy being the most important issue in the upcoming election, this may be an indicator that Obama's approval numbers are likely to go down.

Gallup, whose numbers tend to be a bit more favorable to Democratic candidates also shows the President at an all time low. His approval has fallen to only 38%.

There is still plenty of time between now and election day 2012.  George HW Bush  had a Gallup approval rating of 74% at this point in his Presidency.

Unfortunately for Obama and for the country, it takes longer for the massive US economy to right itself than it does to sink. And our President still has no plan to fix the economy.  Unless he does and unless it works awful fast, we will have a new president beginning January 2013.

Rasmussen Reports...Obama's Approval "Falls Off The Cliff"

Between Debbie Wassserman Schultz' claim that the economy was turning around, and Obama's joke about shovel ready projects, if the President, and the progressive Democratic party leadership has proven anything over the past few days, it is that they are out of touch with the American people. And the American people are beginning to understand the progressive's distance from the voters.

There is a wealth of polling data coming from Rasmussen over the past few days, that signal problems for the President.  For example the chart below reflects the President's overall approval/disapproval ratings since his Bin Laden announcement.

You will notice that right after the announcement the President's approval (Blue line) took a bump up, but that advantage was quickly dissipated. For the next month, the approval/disapproval numbers remained close until the bad economic data and comments such as the ones described above began to take their toll. Today there is a nine percent spread between those who disapprove (54%) and those who approve (45%) of the President's performance.

What should be particularly troubling for the President is that 62% of independent voters disapprove of Obama's performance (37% approve).  Independents are likely to be the difference in the 2012.


Obama's approval index shows the same pattern. Approval index is the difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove of the president's performance. This number is important because a voter with a strong opinion regarding a president's performance is more likely to work for or against the reelection of that president. Obama's approval index was at a -11 at the time if the Bin Laden mission.


It remained approximately in the same place until late last week when it fell to -19.  Just like the overall approval numbers, the independent voters show a strong negative feeling about Obama's performance with a -29 approval index.

Approval numbers are not the only statistic indicating voter frustration with President Obama.

• Almost two thirds of voters (65%) feel the country is going in the wrong direction

• 44% of voters blame the lousy economy on Obama (vs 49% who blame Bush). Last month it was only 39% blaming Obama, and 54% Bush.  Just as important is the fact that more independents (45%) blame Obama than Bush (44%).

• Only 28% of all voters and 23% of independents trust Obama on the economy more than they trust themselves.

• The President is seen as very liberal. 42% of voters see Obama as very liberal, 24% as somewhat liberal. Only 25% see him as a moderate. Independents generally agree, 39% see him as very liberal, 28% see him as somewhat liberal and only 23% see him as a moderate.  As US voters tend to be center-right, those very liberal numbers should be a concern for Obama's reelection team.

Putting it all together it is all bad news for the President. The only  good news (for him) is that there is a very long time between now and November 2012.  Over the next 17 months the Republicans need to keep pounding on the Presidential poor economic performance to ensure that America can elect a new president and turn itself around.

An Email Debate With a Liberal/Progressive

Some of you may remember a post from a while back that laid out the reasons I thought it was preferable for someone of the Jewish Faith to be politically conservative. Last week I received a letter from a reader questioning my rationale, not based on religious law which is what my original post talked about, but  using the kind of arguments made famous by MSNBC and the NY Times. As it might be interesting for others to read this grass-roots political debate, I have posted his letter and my response below (editing out his name)

To the editor:

Jeff Dunetz writes: "It does not mean, as the liberals ascribe to, when it comes to talents, predilections, or natural abilities we are all equal. Nor does it mean we all should have the same big screen TV, wireless internet, or savings account balance."

Jeff may be pleased to know that liberals do not ascribe to these things and never have. Many of us do believe in providing as level a playing field as possible to give those with talent and ability a fair chance to make money and have that big screen TV. One way is a by a progressive form of taxation. Conservatives do not believe in progressive taxation, and Americans can judge for themselves whether a system in which the rich do not pay their fair share works well.

Jeff writes: "Liberalism takes away our personal choice, gives it to the government, retarding our spiritual development and most importantly the opportunity to get closer to our Maker."

Jeff does not explain how liberalism does this, nor how conservatism honors this idea by generally restricting gay couples from marrying, restricting a woman's right to choose, by being on the wrong side of most civil rights issues historically, and generally attempting to legislate morality whereas liberals generally leave personal choices to the people.

Moreover, while Judaism values personal action through Tzedakah, it certainly does not prohibit collective action through government. However, Jeff's article would explain why conservatives want to get rid of Medicare and turn it over to those fantastic recipients of bailout money, the insurance companies. Somehow, I have a feeling even most conservative Jews don't support that one.

Jeff writes: "A Liberal/Progressive government teaches citizens that the government will always bear the responsibility of protecting you; there is no individual responsibility, just the collective bailout."

Jeff appears to have forgotten that the bailout began under President Bush, was supported by most Republicans, and opposed by many liberals.

Jeff should remember that Judaism values education and facts, particularly in a time when 45 percent of Republicans are part of the "birther" movement.

My response follows:

Dear xxxxx

I cannot tell you how much it pleases me that you read the article and thought enough about it to write a letter. Disagreeing and debating important issues is very much part of the Jewish tradition.You obviously put much thought into your correspondence so allow me to address your points as best as I can.

One of your points is that Conservatives do not believe in progressive taxation, and Americans can judge for themselves whether a system in which the rich do not pay their fair share works well. That is not the case.

The IRS reported 2008 (the last time they released this data) the rich pays more than their fair share. The top 1% of earners pay 38.02% of all income taxes, after deductions and such their average tax rate is 23.27%. The top 5% pay 58.72% of all income taxes their average tax rate is 20.70%. The bottom 50% pays 2.7% of taxes and their average tax rate is 2.59%. There is no one in the mainstream conservative movement calling for our income taxes to lose their “progressiveness.”

You say that the liberal position is not that we all should have the same big screen TV, wireless internet, or savings account balance…but to give those with talent and ability a fair chance to make money and have that big screen TV. I would submit to you that the redistribution of income called for by the President and liberal leaders such as Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi is being executed for that purpose. In progressive/liberal orthodoxy there is no rich or poor, just a mediocre middle. A great example of how this works in the U.S. is Obamacare, which is partially funded with high taxes on “Cadillac” plans (health plans which the govt. has determined cover too much). The objective is for everybody to have the same health plan.

Another question was about conservative suppression of individual rights. You gave examples such as gay couples marrying, restriction of abortion, being on the wrong side of most civil rights issues historically and attempting to legislate morality as opposed to personal choices to the people etc?

The historical truth is that the liberal/progressives have been on the wrong side of the Civil Right issue. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican Party President; he had a fairly good civil rights position. Between the Civil war and World War I the military was integrated, but President Woodrow Wilson segregated the military (and fired most of the African Americans who had high positions in the federal government. Throughout the fifties and sixties it was the Democratic Party trying to delay civil rights. Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It was Democratic Party Governor George Wallace who stood on the steps of a Huntsville Alabama school trying to stop it from becoming integrated.

The Civil rights act of 1964 was filibustered by Democrats led by Richard Russell (D-GA) Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." That filibuster lasted 57 days, until the morning of June 10, 1964, when former KKK member, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

As far as “the restrictions on free choice” issues such as abortion or rights or gay marriage. Allow me to provide some facts, without sharing my opinion on the issues.

Being pro-life is not only a conservative position. A February 2011 Rasmussen poll reported that 53% of voters consider abortion morally wrong most of the time, while just 32% say it is morally acceptable most of the time. That is much larger than the conservative community (which is not necessarily homogeneous on that issue).

The Catholic community which tends to vote for liberal causes as much as Jewish voters is aggressively anti-abortion. And when you look at the 53-32% margin above, a fair-minded observer could claim that it is the pro-choice voters who are mandating their morals on the rest of the country.

Likewise the gay marriage issue has proponents and opponents on both sides. For example the “Defense of Marriage Act” was a Bill Clinton invention. The 2008 Prop 8 vote in California banning gay marriage was passed by liberals. According to pollsters the margin of defeat was provided by African Americans who came out in abnormally large numbers to vote for Barack Obama. These voters were liberal in every way except for religious-based issues such as Gay Marriage.

There are examples of liberal politicians legislating morality and lifestyle. The laws restricting soda in schools, or “happy meals” in fast food places takes decision making out of the hands of parents and into the government’s (as is the proposed San Francisco law to ban the circumcision of children). The legislation restricting the amount of salt a restaurant can put in food, restricts adult decision making.

Liberal politicians’ refusal to drill for oil, even though the last two Congressional Research Service studies show we have more oil than Saudi Arabia is another example. Those gas prices approaching $5.00 are a clear example of what the President said during the campaign (under my energy plan prices will necessarily skyrocket). He is trying to force America into a low fossil fuel lifestyle which may not be warranted by the climate change science or the technology. And for those who say that people must be forced to abandon fossil fuels because they really believe global warming is the truth; that may be so. But understand the liberal position that it’s OK to enforce their beliefs about man-made global warming are no different than a person who is pro-life trying to enforce their belief about when life begins.

As far as Medicare, I am assuming that you are talking about Paul Ryan’s plan I suggest you read the plan itself and not the headlines in the media or the political words of our President. It does not get rid of Medicare, nor does it change the plan at all for anyone with-in ten years of retirement. It gives the money directly into the hands of the patient and lets them pick their insurers. That in itself is the key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe in the basic good of people and their ability to make the best decisions for themselves. It does not give the money to banks, the auto-unions or anyone else who received government bailouts (by the way most conservatives were anti-bailout).

Ryan’s plan does not “bail out” or help insurance companies. The plan removes the restrictions preventing insurance companies to cross state lines increasing competition. In fact it puts them on their toes and will make them cut costs. Marketplace competition is a great regulator and competition improves service and product and pricing.

You are correct when you say that the recent banking bailout was supported by many Republicans (and Democrats). But my essay was about conservatives and they were vehemently anti-bailout. During the past primary season many liberal/progressive Republicans were not re-nominated specifically because of conservatives objection to their vote on the bailout (Senator Bennett from Utah for example).

And as far as the last point, I am too am proud that Judaism values education and facts. With that in mind I will share with you my disappointment that an April 26th poll by USA Today reported only 38% of all Americans believed that the President was born in the U.S. I have written often that the “birther” issue, which was invented by a Hillary Clinton operative named Philip Berg, was—well quite frankly an ignorant one and it takes away from the important issues we should be debating (an April 28th article I wrote for Big Government called birtherism and the search for his college records-stupid).

It is my hope that I addressed all of your concerns.

And once again, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful questions.

Warmest Regards



Jeff Dunetz