« It's Time for a Congressional Housecleaning | Wattree's Blog | Healthcare: What's So Wrong with Having Government Protection? »

Why is President Obama Losing Momentum in the Polls?


BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Why is President Obama Losing Momentum in the Polls?

President Obama is beginning to lose the politically essential enthusiasm of many independent voters. The primary reason for that is that he seems to be deviating from the message that got their support in the first place. During his campaign, candidate Obama promised "A Change that We Can Believe in," but now, President Obama's vain attempt to appease the GOP is only serving to water down the very change that he promised, and America expected.

We embraced Obama because we understood that many of the problems in this country was a direct result of the logjam caused by the endless feuding between the far left and right fringes of American politics. We had the sense that Obama wasn't a partisan player, so middle America rose up, put race aside, and selected him as a refreshing change.

And as president, Obama is indeed a refreshing change in that he's neither liberal nor is he conservative. He's a pragmatist, so unlike most, his thinking is not distorted by a one-size-fit-all, pre-chewed and regurgitated ideology. He assesses every issue on its own merit, and he bases his decisions on what he believes is in the best interest of America as a whole.

But ironically, it is that very pragmatism that's currently undermining his efforts.

Political pragmatism has led President Obama to mistakenly believe that the best way to resolve the nation's problems is through reaching out in bipartisanship to the Republican Party. That sounds good in theory, but it can only work if the Republican Party is acting in good faith, which it isn't.

The Republicans have no interest in bipartisanship - especially if it means helping to resolve America's problems. Their only interest is in undermining Obama's presidency, serving their corporate contributors, and stoking the flame of division among the social fringies in the Palin\Limbaugh wing of the party. Clear evidence of that is apparent in Sen. Jim DeMint's (R, S.C.) comment indicating that if they can block healthcare reform it will break Obama - never giving a thought to the negative impact that would have on the families of millions of jobless Americans.

So the president's good will is being used against him, and based on the latest polls, with increasing effectiveness. The Republicans are using his attempt at bipartisanship to water down his initiatives to point where they're close to meaningless, then voting against them anyway after he's compromised in an attempt to accommodate them.

The president's accommodating nature is allowing Republican nihilists to have their cake and eat it too. First, they're sabotaging his bills with so many amendments that they're rendering them ineffective. Then, if the initiative is effective, they claim that the only reason it worked was due to their amendments. But if it's ineffective, they tell the American people, "See, we told you he didn't know what he's doing."

As a result, the polls show that many Democrats and independents are becoming increasingly weary with what's beginning to look like Obama's incessant catering to the whims of the right. Many of the president's supporters are now openly saying, we might as well have a Republican in office if he's going to give them everything they want. And it's becoming harder to argue that point with each day that passes.

In spite of the fact the every member of the administration has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, the Obama administration is doing a better job of protecting Bush and Cheney from accountability than they did for themselves, and it's absolutely unconscionable.

The Bush/Cheney regime mounted a blatant assault on the United States Constitution, caused the death and injury of thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and they committed war crimes so heinous that they have all but destroyed the reputation of the United States throughout the world - and all for the purpose of political and financial gain. So why are they walking around with impunity?

While one might argue that the president fully intends to address this issue, along with the matter of sexual bigotry within the military, his economic stimulus and healthcare reform is under attack, so it's simply impractical to also alienate the Bush apologists and homophobes at this time.

I don't think that argument stands up. The class of people who represent the homophobes and Bush apologists are going to be hostile to the president's initiatives regardless to what action he takes, or fail to take. So by failing to promptly address the mandate that got him elected, he stands to lose his base of support without gaining a thing. And further, if the GOP were kept busy trying to protect the Bush/Cheney legacy, they wouldn't have the time to distort the president's healthcare reform at their leisure.

But most importantly, President Obama is a constitutional scholar, so he should know better than anyone that it's not up to him whether or not these men are held accountable. Their accountability is dictated by the rule of law, and either a nation believes in the rule of law, or it doesn't. Thus, by turning his back on his responsibility in this matter, Obama is setting a precedent that tells the world, and posterity, that in America the powerful are above the law, and the rule of law is secondary to political pragmatism.

By taking this position he's placing the future of this nation in serious jeopardy. If Richard Nixon had gone to jail for Watergate, and Ronald Reagan had joined him for his excesses during the Iran/Contra affair and flooding our inner cities with drugs in order to finance it, the Bush administration wouldn't have dared to engage in the criminal activity that they engaged in.

The only reason Bush and Cheney felt free to mount an assault on our constitution is because a precedent had been set with Nixon and Reagan that the powerful was above the law. Now, with President Obama talking about "looking forward," that precedent threatens to be set in stone. If that becomes the case, what can we expect from the next generation of demagogues?

So it's understandable that the polls are beginning to show that many Democratic and independent voters are beginning to question the president's approach to this matter. It's nothing close to a change that we can believe in. As they see it, it is one thing to be a nice guy, but it is something altogether different to completely ignore the rule of law - even in an attempt to be pragmatic.

As Neville Chamberland learned after his warm and fuzzy moment with Adolf Hitler - it never pays to kiss a snake.


 Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

22 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Eric - I guess our perspectives are different. I I see the glass as 7/8 full, while you see it as 1/8 empty. OK - just kidding about the arithmetic, but you know what I mean.

In my view, Obama, despite occasional missteps, is doing a commendable job. He has begun to convert an economic collapse into a slow but inevitable recovery. Under his leadership, a major healthcare reform package is likely to pass - one that won't satisfy everyone, but which will transform American society by extending affordable health care to almost all Americans, subsidizing low income families to pay part of the premiums, and forbidding insurance companies to exclude any applicants or discriminate on the basis of illness or medical history. It will include a public component of some type - either government run or based on government supervised non-profit cooperatives. Here, I would see the 7/8 metaphor as accurate.

You lament Obama's appeal for bipartisanship, but I disagree for two reasons. First, appealing for bipartisanship is not synonymous with excessive compromise. Most independent voters favor leaders who attempt to engage the other side, and are then more supportive if that leader declares that his attempts have not been reciprocated. It's a wise political strategy.

Second, I believe you overestimate the power of the presidency in the face of entrenched Republican opposition and a fractious Democratic majority. He cannot simply will an outcome and have it happen. Rather he must negotiate, cajole, threaten, and engage the public in order to achieve objectives. In so doing, he expends political capital, because once he specifies his position, he will find many who are strongly opposed to it, even if they admire him as a person.

I won't address every instance you cite, and I probably agree with you regarding some, but on balance, my estimate is that Obama, only halfway into his first year, is showing signs that history will judge him as a good president, and perhaps a great one.

user-pic

Fred,

I agree with most of what you said, but with regard to "only halfway into his first year,[Obama] is showing signs that history will judge him as a good president, and perhaps a great one", I agree with that as well, providing, he deals with the Bush/Cheney situation appropriately.

If he doesn't, it will redefine the character of the United States, and render the nation vulnerable to future despotism. As a result, history will look upon it as a major failure on his watch.

user-pic

Another problem is that many poll respondents are confusing what Obama proposes with what happens when it hits Congress. And as you note, the Republicans are only too happy to obstruct and disrupt for their own party-over-country purposes.

user-pic

You're right, TOG.

I addressed that issue in my previous post.

user-pic

The reason Obama is declining in polls is because he was election in the "hope" of doing one thing but consistently ends doing another.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08/lets-cut-obama-some-slack-about-this.html

user-pic

Lalo,

That's exactly what this post is about - the dichotomy attendant to pragmatism.

user-pic

Would you also describe it as being a victim of his own success?

user-pic

I would suggest looking at the anatomy of betrayal which= Democrats over and over and over.

Gore
Kerry
Pelosi
Obama?

and last but not least, the so-called graciously referred to "Blue Dog Democrats" which are essentially the puppets of corporations (as they have always been) and comprise the new GOP (Bill Maher). I might call them something else...

You cannot trust either party. The only way to save Democracy in America is to reject all parties and register Decline to State. The Democrats have a history of brilliant campaign marketing then one they get in, selling out.

We have got to reject the two party system.

George Washington will back me up on this.

user-pic

Not to mention Howard Den.

user-pic

I wonder if that's just what happens to presidents when the come in after a president of a different party and have to clean up? I think it is quite natural for him to lose support given the circumstances.

I think he is losing support because he hasn't fulfilled all of his campaign goals and we, the American public have amnesia and or we are impatient on some issues. Do we want every thing at the snap of a finger? The federal government is ginormous and it really has to be turned with care or it will crumble under its own weight.

Besides, I much rather he have sagging poll numbers than have the previous administration any day and hour.

user-pic

Slight correction. There is a different take on polls and recent numbers.

user-pic

Paul Krugman has said that you can't compromise with the Republicans. He is correct. They have no agenda except to make Obama's a failed presidency so that they can regain power. Obama needs to wake up and work on passing things with only Democrats which will be hard enough given the Blue Dogs stance.

user-pic

Wattree, I think your post only addresses why the Left is losing faith in Obama. Caving to the Republicans, being too pragmatic, letting Bush/Cheney off the hook - those have been complaints from the Left for many months.

I would bet that most of the people in those polls were mostly from the center or center right (god I hate those labels). They don't think Obama is caving to the Republicans, they see him as cooperating and being inclusive. Bush/Cheney? - I have yet to see mainstream Americans get as angry as the Left about this. For them, just having them out of office is enough.

I believe his poll numbers are falling because when people turn on the evening news or read the local paper they are constantly hearing that unemployment numbers are getting worse, the stimulus isn't working, the bailout is going to cost 24 trillion dollars, and let's not forget the garbage they hear on cable news. If I didn't know any better, I would think Obama is doing a piss poor job. People are scared and impatient.
All they hear is doom, doom, doom.


user-pic

Viva, you said:

"Wattree, I think your post only addresses why the Left is losing faith in Obama. Caving to the Republicans, being too pragmatic, letting Bush/Cheney off the hook - those have been complaints from the Left for many months."

I disagree. I think that most Americans who are educated enough to understand the concept of American ideals that was laid out in the constitution are horrified by the Bush/Cheney assault on those ideals.

While most conservatives claim to love America, they don't love America at all, because they hate what America stands for. America is more than a plot of land - America is an ideal. It's an ideal that is dedicated to the rule of law, and a respect for the will of the people. They don't believe in that. They believe in trying to dictate the will of the people, and when they fail, mounting an attack on its institutions and attempting to sabotage the very nation they claim to love.

Thus, they only love America as long as they're free to loot it.

user-pic

You well state what contemporary conservatism is about. In a word, authoritarianism. If only their libertarian element could gain ground within the party the nation and they would be much better off.

With the passing of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing I read a comment on youtube where someone stated that the Apollo program was America at it's peak, but now, has become a liberal socialist shadow of it's former self. A stupid and incorrect comment to which I snark-ally responded:

"Yeah, especially with all of the private capital which funded the space program! Must have been a lot of profit motivation driving us to the moon, to attract so much private funding. Good thing NASA wasn't some government funded and run program, it would have failed for sure."


Rather than being a triumph of conservative ideology, Apollo actually was a triumph of socialist ideology, demonstrating what man can achieve when focused and self-sacrificing for a common cause, all via the agency of government. The rampant willful-ignorance and self-delusion of the right has become very worrisome.

user-pic

Bingo!

user-pic

Arianna Huffington had a good observation on some news show last week. She said that during the course of negotiations there are 4 stages, the first being conflict, and the last being reconciliation. Her point was that all four stages have to be addressed in order to get everyone's points heard and sorted out. In her opinion, Obama wants to go straight to reconciliation. I think she is spot on.

I don't think it is a fatal flaw, but one he needs to consider a "teachable moment."

user-pic

"President Obama's vain attempt to appease the GOP is only serving to water down the very change that he promised, and America expected."

Vain or just plain naive?

Obama campaigned dishonestly as an agent of change because that is what he perceived was the winning message but he has governed as an agent of the status quo in all respects. People seem to want to deny that very apparent truth, but the facts are the facts and the excuses won't work forever to gloss over his excuses for not doing what he said he would and what the people were expecting of him. It is one thing to try and fail. It is quite another to make no real attempt or to betray those who gave you their trust as Obama has in numerous instances.

Losing ground in terms of the polls was inevitable but his weak leadership on nearly every front save for protecting the interests of Wall Street criminals and of the criminals in the Bush administration is what is going to cost him dearly in the long run. That decline has not yet even begun.

user-pic

Well, here we go again-

The truth which might be apparent to you, is not necessarily apparent to everyone else. Obama was quite clear during the campaign about his desire to work with Republicans in congress, to include Republicans in his cabinet, and to try and change the divided nature of our politics, was he not?

OLEEB WROTE: "Obama campaigned dishonestly as an agent of change because that is what he perceived was the winning message but he has governed as an agent of the status quo in all respects."

That's utter nonsense, and betrays your own political bias against Obama. In addition to being clear about his desire to change the partisanship within the country, Obama was also clear about the other changes he hopped to bring. First among these were:

1. Responsibly end the Iraq war.
2. Healthcare reform.
3. Energy independence.
4. Education reform.
5. Brent Scowcroft 'realism' school foreign policy.

Obama did not promise to:
1. Prosecute Bush/Cheney.
2. Toss out our foundation of governing.

Most other claims about what Obama has promised but failed to deliver, are specious. Yes, there is disappointment on the left, but I don't see how that can be attributed to Obama either being dishonest or to his not working toward delivering his major campaign pledges. I guess, it's not only right-wingers who are delusional.

user-pic

Well, when you finally realize how dead wrong you are about the politician you believed was for change you can get back to me and admit it, but sadly by the time you and those who continue to make excuses for Obama's weak leadership clue in it will be far too late to do anything about it.

He said he was for change. He is not. Show me where he is doing anything to substantially "change the way Washington operates" as he said so many, many times. he is doing nothing of the kind. He is perfectly and mostly comfortable with going along with things as they are. Just ask the boys at the Pentagon or the lobbyists on K street.

He said he was for the rule of law and transparency in government would be "the hallmark of my presidency". That was a flat out lie and the boldest of betrayals. Neither I nor anyone else who criticizes him for this ever made the claim that he committed to prosecute those who broke the law during the Bush years, but as President he has an obligation to obey the law regarding investigations and he is refusing to do so, thus making him an accomplice to the war crimes he is helping to cover up. He has completely avoided his duty to enforce the relevant US statutes and our obligations under international treaties to investigate credible reports of war crimes. He is ignoring his lawful duty out of purely political concerns. That is the worst sort of abdication of responsibility and the most shameful. It isn't pragmatism at all it is cowardice. If he is for the rule of law then it is a no brainer in terms of what needs to happen (investigations of credible reports and let the chips fall where they may), but he is obviously only for the rule of law when it is easy and politically convenient. He lied about that and there is no credible way for you or anyone else to deny it. He has gone (for no apparent reason) even further than Bush in pushing for excessive secrecy and anti-Constitutional executive powers. His direct and repeated promises about the rule of law and transparency which were front and center throughout his campaign was nothing but a pack of lies.

He is not ending the Iraq war. He intends on keeping 50,000 troops there indefinitely.

He is escalating the war in Afghanistan for no good reason and still there is no objective for which we are fighting and no end in sight---ever.

The President has not proposed health care reform at all. He has proposed health insurance reform consisting mainly of subsidies for insurance companies and a mandate that everyone pay them. The public option is a joke that is being watered down more every day and isn't an option to people at all unless they have no other option due to unemployemnt or if their employer doesn't provide a private insurance plan. The President knows full well that single payer is the only "pragmatic" and "realistic" program for healthcare reform but his support for that option magically disappeared when he became a candidate for President and started accepting millions in contributions from the people who are bankrupting our families and our economy. Healthcare reform indeed! Bah!

His energy independence bill was by all accounts a joke and will be utterly ineffective.

Education reform? Give me a break. He has done nothing and will achieve nothing on that front. He is for Charter schools. Big deal--so are the Republicans.

Brent Scowcroft school of foreign policy? I thought Obama was a Democrat. He ran as one, but oh yeah, he governs just like the other guys and calls that "pragmatism" and "realism".

And what about the theft of money from the US Treasury to protect and coddle the criminals of Wall Street? There is simply no excuse under the sun that could possibly explain why Obama has allowed trillions to be handed over to those thieves without any conditions other than he far more interested in protecting their interests than he is in protecting the interests of the common people.

Lay off the kool aid for a while and you'll be able to see the lay of the land much more realistically. Change you can believe in? What a pathetic joke.

user-pic

It's very clear that you either did not read my comment, or you read it but plan, zealot like, to ignore it. I listed the top change items Obama campaigned on and which he is pursuing, yet you continue to either ignorantly or erroneously state he is not for making change.

The truth seems to be that he's not pursuing the specific change which YOU want to see, not that he has betrayed his top campaign promises for change. The fact that you keep calling Obama a liar is testament to your irrational emotional attitude toward him.

YOU WROTE: "Neither I nor anyone else who criticizes him for this ever made the claim that he committed to prosecute those who broke the law during the Bush years...", but then you go on to attack him for not investigating Bush era war crimes. BTW, investigating the Executive branch is the duty of Congress.

I do feel you have a valid point about transparency issues and continued Executive branch power encroachments. Fault goes not only to Obama on this, but more so, to Congress. It is their constitutional duty to curtail power grabs by the Executive branch. Either by Republican or Democratic presidents.

Of course, he is ending the Iraq war. You keep leaving out the key adjective "responsibly". Obama obviously chose that word to indicate he wasn't just going to yank us out of there, and he has been using this word since the primaries. He even had to explain, during one of the primary debates, that we would not foolishly rush us out out of Iraq. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, Obama has always stated that he believed that Afghanistan should have been our focus, and that we were under resourced there. Hasn't he?

On healthcare reform, again, you may not like his comprise approach, but what does your not liking some approach have to do with Obama's effectiveness on the issue? Of course, you must certainly realize the real problem lay in Congress. If Reid can hardly get a public-option accepted by a filibuster proof majority within his own party, how could he get single-payer accepted? What's more, how is any of that Obama's fault?

You are calling his energy independence goal a joke when he hasn't even seriously tackled it yet. Same goes for education reform. Can't you perceive the irrational emotions which have overtaken your thinking?

What, Democrats can't be foreign policy realists? You may or may not agree with a Scowcroft approach to foreign policy, but what you cannot say is that Obama didn't clearly communicate such was his intention. Right?

As far as Wall Street is concerned, wake up. You are just now figuring out that the banks run this country? There is no money in the Treasury to steal. That went away with the demise of the 'Greenback' and the Gold Standard. It's all Federal Reserve Notes, which are I.O.U.s to the Fed. It's all funny money. Who knows what will eventually have to be paid via taxes, and by whom. Why do you think it is that the wealthy got the Federal Reserve established? Snap out of it.

Obama has had to take drastic measures to stabilize the economy, which, by all accounts, was headed for a depression to rival that of the 1930's. You may not believe that it was headed there, but that would only be your belief. What Obama does still owe us here, I think, is hard regulation to ensure Wall Street is not in a position to cause this again.

Stop it, with the "common people" language, as if Obama came from some elite family, instead of from a broken home comprised of an absent black father and a white mother.

Lastly, I'll lay-off the kool-aid just as soon as you lay-off the venom. I guess, I'll be forced to drink kool-aid for some to come, then, huh?

user-pic

I'm one of the president's biggest supporters, but I am not a blind supporter. As dire as our current economic condition, I think the biggest issue before the United States today is protecting the rule of law - which means making absolutely sure that the Bush regime is held accountable for their behavior in office.

One might say that I'm may be overly sensitive to this issue due to the Black experience in this country, and they'd be right. As a Black man, I know without a doubt that "IT Can Happen Here," because although many White Americans were oblivious to it, any Black person can tell you that it already has.

We understand how easily people can slip on blinders. Even as tears rolled down our eyes as we watched John Wayne fearlessly fight for justice and "the American way" throughout the sound stages of the world, in the real world Black children were being blown up and lynched throughout the South.

So as far as I'm concerned, the rule of law is the most essential pillar of America's foundation. And for Obama to turn his back on it, for any reason, would be unforgivable.

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address