Really there is no better headline for any president than “Bin Laden Dead”.
That’s it. Victory.
No, you can better gauge it by what the talking heads DON’T say.
Tell that to Bill Clinton.
This is certainly going to boost the perception of Obama in the polls for now. The election is a long way away yet, and will be decided by the economy.
Yes, Obama is the real “decider”. This raid could have been Obama’s Desert One, and I am sure Obama was aware of that. When given an opportunity to get Bin Laden, Obama considered it and took the chance. Voters would surely have punished him for failure, I hope voters reward him for success.
Fact.
GHW Bush was seen to be strong on foreign policy, aiding to his large victory over Dukakis-in-the-tank in '88. While the end of Gulf War I boosted his popularity, it also eliminated a perceived electoral strength. Without a foreign threat, his '92 campaign lost a huge advantage and the more charismatic Clinton stood out positively in comparison.
The difference with Obama is, foreign policy was a perceived weak point during his campaign, and we all know how Republicans have loved to harp on Democratic candidates for being “weak on terror”. His campaign assets won’t be diminished in the slightest by Bin Laden’s death - quite the opposite. A foreign policy victory for the Dems is the Republicans’ worst nightmare. Their best hope is for the economy to tank even worse than it did in 2008.
It all adds up, Rand, it all adds up. A given voter might not be swayed at all by any one thing the POTUS does or does not do, but his total record of things done or not done, his approval rating, etc., all add up to his electoral momentum. – the perception that he is beatable or unbeatable; and in politics perception is reality. Give Obama enough momentum and the 2012 election will be like 1984 – the other party will put up its own candidate only because they have to.
And sometimes an admittedly little success like this, which presumably has been in planning since before Obama took office, can be just enough to make his momentum the unbeatable kind. It’s the straw that breaks the GOP’s back, as it were.
OTOH, in 1992, George H.W. Bush had total victory in a war under his belt. That’s no help if the economy sucks.
Can I correct QSH’s usage? 'Cause he seems to be applying the French meaning to the English word.
So what in my statement was “dead wrong?”
And again, stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say that Bush had something to do with the execution of the operation? I was talking about intelligence gathering that led to the operation.
The timeline regarding the courier intel has been reported everywhere. It is an undisputed fact that the process started and pieces started falling in place during the Bush administration.
So again, what was “dead wrong” about my statement regarding the timeline of intel gathering?
Alot of posters here are claiming that it will take away the “Why haven’t you caught Bin Laden?” argument during the election.
Although this is true, I don’t think it was ever going to be a huge attack point anyway. I am not aware of any current potential GOP candidates that were even hinting or suggesting anything in that direction, nor is it a topic brought up by any pundits or talk show hosts. (That I’m aware of)
I think Republicans and Democrats are judged on different criteria. This is not so much a complaint as an observation. Republicans are, whether true or not, known, or at least perceived, as being tough on crime and adept at foreign policy. These are bonafides that almost no Republican has to spend time establishing. Democrats are, again whether true or not, known, or at least perceived to be better at managing domestic issues such as the economy, and have a higher hill to climb when attempting to establish credentials as relates to military matters.
I’m broad-brushing, I know. My point is there are different expectations for a Republican administration than for a Democratic one. Although Obama will get a bump in his approval ratings in the short term for the bin Laden success, because prosecuting wars, setting foreign policy agendae, and directing military operations are considered the other party’s purview and a distraction from what a Democratic president should be focused on, his bump will be lower and less-sustained than a Republicans. The economy is struggling and this is a Democratic president’s bailiwick, so if the economy tanks again, Obama’s chances will tank with it, not that I believe for one second this will happen. Yes, of course Republicans have lost elections because of poor economies, but in recent history Republicans have also been able to war themselves into second terms. Democrats? Not so much.
That said, although the election is 18 months away, and the impact of the killing of bin Laden will have faded away well before then, what the success of the operation does is weaken the ‘soft on defense’ criticism the Republicans were as sure to employ as night follows day. However, as Republicans aren’t going to change parties just because Obama achieved a military success, I don’t see him picking up any traditionally Republican voters anyway, even soft ones; forget about the tea party types who will despise Obama no matter what he does.
I think Obama’s challenge is to motivate Democrats to come out and vote for him in the numbers that won him his first election, and that hasn’t changed with the success of the bin Laden operation. On the other hand, the cadre of crazies who are likely to run on the Republican side won’t hurt his chances either.
Bottom line is I haven’t made the case for why bin Laden’s death increases Obama’s chances of winning the next presidential election because I don’t believe there is one. He will win the next election regardless.
I don’t think he was specifically going to get attacked for not finding bin Laden. On the other hand this is now something Obama can bring up whenever the debate turns to national security. There’s no arguing with the fact that this happened on his watch.
The other issue that I don’t think has been discussed here is that the GOP’s stars don’t seem to be spoiling to run against Obama in the first place. A lot of potential candidates are sitting out 2012 and waiting for 2016, when they’re not going to have to compete against an incumbent and it’s safe to assume the sitting VP won’t be running. Some candidates are going to run and believe they can win, but with the economy improving (albeit slower than anyone would like) and bin Laden dead, it’s not going to push any fence-sitters toward running.
You ,even in post 11 suggested Obama just got lucky because of the intelligence gathered during Bush’s term. You are downgrading the decision Obama made. You seem to think that finding out a nickname of a potential courier years ago was the prime factor in the raid. Obama just got lucky . He could have been drinking a latte at the time and it all would have occurred without him.
Exactly, and Obama does['t need a slam dunk, he just needs to continue with his own momentum. But that is not going to win him the election, what will win him the election are all the Michelle Bachman tea party folks out there. All of the libertarian, moderate republicans will never vote for a Michelle Bachman type - they’d rather see Obama go another 4 years and hope for a better field in 2016. My WAG of course.
The reason this helps Obama is because it makes the current list of potential Republican candidates look like very small people. None of them can lay claim to anything in their background that would place them on a standing with Obama in terms of foreign policy and military leadership now. Obama didn’t either in 2008, but he had the opportunity to run against Bush’s failures, which McCain had hitched his wagon to as well.
I concur that the advantage is generally with the incumbent President, as Kerry found to his sorrow. If Obama holds his own, politically, he will probably be re-elected. But it depends on the economy, and how well the GOP candidate can play off whatever happens in the next eighteen months. Bush Sr. won a whole war and lost the election, because of the economy and Clinton’s skill at campaigning.
If I understand what you mean by a “Michelle Bachmann type”, I suspect it will not be a problem (for the GOP). She won’t be the candidate (neither will Palin).
If you just mean that the lefties will go berserk attacking whoever the GOP nominates, sure, but that’s not the same thing.
Your assertion about what moderate Republicans want reminds me a bit of the stuff about how Romney is a Mormon, therefore all the extreme hard-right fundamentalist radical Christians in the GOP will never accept him. I think the left has done a little bit too good a job convincing itself that the right is so terribly extreme. By SDMB standards, sure, but those are not particularly good standards to use.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think that, taken out of context, the killing of OBL wins in 2012.
What it does do, indeed we’ve already seen this in the last 24 hours, is convince people to reconsider BO’s credibility. It certainly poked a lot of holes in the right-wing narrative about BO’s competence. Back to the drawing-board for Repubs.
Speaking personally, I was beginning to regret voting for Obama thinking he was in way over his head. I am willing to give him a clean slate.
I agree with you on this point in general, but I’m not convinced that the fundies have accepted Romney.
Romney has a credibility problem with conservatives that goes deeper than how religious fundamentalists feel about the Mormon thing. And that was true before the health care reform law was passed.
Indeed, and there was even a Saturday Night Live sketch (broadcast November 2, 1991) to that effect titled “Campaign '92: The Race To Avoid Being The Guy Who Loses To Bush” in which caricatures of Bill Bradley, Dick Gephardt, Lloyd Bentsen, Mario Cuomo and Tipper Gore (there on behalf of her husband) make the case that none of them are going to run in 1992. A year later, Bill Clinton was President-Elect.
Nobody was going to straight out ask “Why haven’t you caught Bin Laden?” because then the question would have been thrown back at them - “Why didn’t you guys catch Bin Laden?”
The strategy is subtler. The idea was to create the impression that Bush hadn’t been a fuck-up - he was just a victim of circumstances. Sure his administration had a lot of disasters but that was just bad luck. Gore and Kerry would have had the same problems.
The central question would have been “The Democrats said they would fix everything if you elected them in 2008. Did they fix everything?”
Now the Democrats have Exhibit A in their rebuttal to that plan. They can say “Osama bin Laden. There’s an example of how we fixed a problem the Republicans couldn’t solve.”