What would you attempt to do if you knew you would not fail?
Robert Schuller
Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich: The 2012 Numbers Don't Look Good
Obama's approval numbers have plateaued in the mid-40's since roughly mid-May, according to Gallup. The jury is still out in terms of what this means for reelectability. Others have pointed out that Reagan and Clinton rebounded from poor mid-term ratings to easily win reelection. One would think it's unlikely for the economy to remain in the doldrums during Obama's entire term, and it would seem that any improvement whatsoever would be to Obama's benefit: almost certainly the approval numbers would surge past 50%.
I'm not sure the conventional take, the parallel between Obama and the other two Presidents, is likely. There are a number of reasons why. First of all, people do not necessarily win based on favorability ratings: Governor Ehrlich (R-MD) in 2006 had 55% approval ratings, but Martin O'Malley rose to victory in a Democratic wave election. Second, just like Clinton stridently attacked G.H.W. Bush's "no new taxes" broken pledge, the Republicans will hone in on Obama's problematic issues with his broken class warfare pledge, Gitmo, the Afghanistan surge, etc. Another example is Obama's reversal, initially opposing individual mandates for the health care bill. Third, I think if Obama can't at least get unemployment numbers back to where he started (and I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see it happening), it's a tough sell. Fourth, we could have a critical incident, something like the Iran hostage crisis that plagued Carter. This could happen in a variety of ways: for example, a municipal bond bubble bust, a double-dip recession, another energy crisis of sky-high oil prices, a dollar crash, a successful terrorist incident in the US, etc.
On the other hand, Obama benefits from a highly fragmented GOP Presidential field. Scott Conroy, in an RCP post today, points that Sarah Palin, who has had more publicity than all other potential candidates put together with a cable reality show, frequent Fox News Channel contributions, and widely-sought endorsements during the recent mid-term elections, has some troubling numbers. In the latest CNN poll, slightly less than half would be at least likely to vote for her as nominee, considerably less than the two-thirds just after the election--and nearly 30% would vote for somebody else. (You take take this to the bank, and I would say even if I supported Palin: if Palin is nominated, a third party/candidate will appear. Has anyone else learned a lesson from Joe Miller's loss in the Alaska Senate race? You can almost write the script: after the fact, Sarah Palin will attack the party establishment, like Christine O'Donnell, for not having backed her...)
Newt Gingrich, as the former Speaker of the House, is unquestionably qualified and hands down, except maybe for Paul Ryan, the best "new conservative" idea man around, and probably the best Republican I would like to see debate Obama. Getting rid of the Clinton deficits gives him unquestioned credibility on a key issue. The problems I see with his candidacy: I think the voters want to see a competent executive, someone who can work with the opposition, and somebody untainted with Washington insiders. Pawlenty, Romney, and Huckabee have all been able to work with opposition party legislative leadership. Second, in the CNN poll, he's picking up a 40% or so "unlike/no" vote (second only to Palin's). I suspect if Gingrich runs, he doesn't really expect to win, but I think what he'll really after is influence, i.e., getting his ideas into the party platform or talking points.
Now if we're talking about a predictable script, look at whoever wins the GOP nod to nominate former Florida governor Jeb Bush (assuming he stays out of the main event) or his charismatic protégé Senator-elect Marco Rubio as Veep. I think the GOP wants to send a message to the Latino community, just like George W. Bush signaled that he wanted to name Miguel Estrada to the Supreme Court by nominating him first to the Court of Appeals. (Jeb Bush is not a Latino, but he has a Latina wife.) Also, Florida, with two newly-awarded Congressional districts (and electoral votes), has become a critical swing state.
The Kissinger Kerfuffle: The Danger of Speculating Hypotheticals...
"Let's face it: The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. It may be a humanitarian concern." National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Nixon White House Tape, 3/1/73To read this, one should realize that Kissinger, a Jewish German-born immigrant, lost a granduncle, three aunts and other relatives to the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust. In my opinion, Kissinger puts together a convincing explanation of the context in a recent Washington Post column. Kissinger explains that the Nixon Administration had begun low-key diplomatic discussions in allowing Soviet Jews to emigrate from the USSR under the 'realist' diplomatic policy. Around the time of the tape, Jackson and Vanik (Senate and House Democrats) were drafting an amendment to a trade deal which explicitly wanted most-favored-nation status (desired by the USSR) tied to human rights, including the unobstructed emigration of Soviet Jews. (At the time, there was a controversial "barrier-to-exit" tax assessed to relevant emigrants.)
Kissinger's main point is that we have to look at negotiated diplomatic agreements in terms of the "big picture"; it's not that you are indifferent to moral injustices against relevant minorities, but it's more productive to discuss these concerns quietly. For one thing, we have no control over how other nations treat their citizens, and there's a question of a loss of face: for example, what right does the US have a right to single us out explicitly for injustices, given how they have historically mistreated Native Americans or African Americans?
Kissinger said, in the above quote, seems to be saying that we are willing to throw Soviet Jews under the bus because the only thing we care about is large-scale diplomatic agreements and treaty confirmations, but what he's really saying is that meddling with a carefully negotiated treaty can be counterproductive, with the other nation responding in a passive-aggressive manner. He exaggerated the nature of a violation of human rights to emphasize the point at hand.
Indeed, I agree with Dr. Kissinger, not in how he said it, but in what he was trying to convey. We can't tie up diplomatic negotiations by adding incidental conditions to an agreement's complexity, thus enabling its failure. Human rights violations are unconscionable and reflect on those authorities whom enable or sustain the practice. The United States is NOT the world's policeman. What we can do is to point out quietly that adherence to human rights contributes to trust between countries which is to the benefit of both countries.
Political Humor
A few originals:
- I'm not saying Sarah Palin is running for President, but the posters around New York City are promising a snow machine in every garage...
- Everybody is making their resolutions for the new year. President Obama promises to "spend more time outside of Washington
talking tolistening and learning and engaging with the American people". The House Republicans are putting their own resolutions in writing: (1) cut spending, cut spending, cut spending; (2) repeal and replace ObamaCare; (3) simplify taxes and regulations; (4) reform entitlement programs; (5) privatize the GSE's; (6) audit the Fed...
The Ronettes, "Sleigh Bells". I remember this song from my high school choir Christmas concert...
