CBS is reporting the story on the evening news. Rahm is not doing the President any favors with this strategy.
No, he isn’t. In fact, the first crack in my hopes for Obama’s presidency came with his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.
Well, since the decline in his third-quarter ratings is the worst of any president in 50 years, clearly you have a definition of “fine” that is different from the rest of the planet. As Gallup says:
“Ranks near the bottom”, yeah, that’s “fine” on your planet perhaps, but not on this one.
Take a look at the latest numbers from the widely respected Rasmussen Poll. His approval numbers are not “fine”. They are very bad, and worsening.
My advice? Keep your fingers in your ears and repeat “na na na can’t hear the polls” and believe that everything is fine, that’s worked so well in the past.
I would submit that his calm and unhurried manner has been very effective, especially in the area keeping centrist/moderates/independents engaged in the discussion. Perhaps, as a by product, it seems to amplify the, all too frequent, yelling by the Right (which is having the opposite effect on the aforementioned centrist/moderates/independents). The absence of moderate Right voices in the discourse is disappointing, however.
I agree with the concept of isolating Fox News, but not with the Administration’s execution of it. I would have recommended the same course of action without the public comment by the White House. I think the mid to long term strategy is sound, however. In the short term it will generate a lot of chaff, like what is in evidence now. If the White House is persistent, however, the Administration will need to expend less energy and news cycles debunking Fox mis-information on a day-to-day basis and thus focus the discussion on relevant issues. This will, naturally, create a backlog of Fox News grievances with the White House Administration. During issue-specific press conferences, Fox News will either have to stay on topic with Q&A, or appear out-of-touch and belligerent trying to air off-topic grievances.
Finally, this is not a new tactic. The previous administration did just the reverse and it worked very well for keeping the press on topic. Most other discussions at the time seemed like a lot of off-topic ranting when compared to the issues that dominated the news cycles.
It’s not paralysis, it’s consideration. I know that thinking things through is an utterly foreign concept to conservatives, but that’s how you DON"T end up in a quagmire.
The choice is not between Leaving things as they are in Afghanistan or committing more troops, its about deciding whether the goal in Iraq is worth pursuing at all if it’s going to require more troops (and the public grumbling from the General is political anyway).
It’s not some easy snap decision to make, and taking a couple of weeks to get all the information and advice possible is not going to make the ultmate difference in Afghanistan.
You can relax, though. He’ll send more troops (which will be the wrong decision – he should leave altogther, but he won’t). Not that the right wing will give him any credit for it. They’ll just say he took too long.
Measuring from the “point in the Presidency” is a false barometer. His numbers are astronomical for a President in this kind of economy. You can relax. Obama will be easily reelected in 2012.
But it’s helping to change the subject from health care reform. With so many of the nuts focused on Rahm and Obama and the White House, the adults are finally allowed to have a mature discussion about health care.
Meh. It’ll be in the news for a few days and that’s it. If the administration really thinks this is some sort of meaningful diversion from such a terrifically devisive and important issue as government health care, it’s more naive and clumsily manipulative than I would have guessed.
Or so you hope. It keeps building attention, as health care is seriously moving forward.
If it’s moving forward all that well, why would the administration then feel the need to make itself look petty, foolish and unconstitutionally controlling of the media in order to divert attention from it?
No, just noting that the source has taken a particular glee in focusing on news that is detrimental to Obama. I realize your post was in rebuttal to Diogenes, whose optimism I don’t share—I think it’s likely impossible, at this point in our history (and perhaps evermore), for a U.S President to be competent, effective, *and *popular, and I won’t be surprised at all to see Obama continue to struggle.
But despite the “feel-good” component of seeing my own chosen candidate soar (or his opponent plummet), I don’t find popularity poll numbers particularly useful, except as an indicator of the likelihood of re-election. The American People (as a group) are impatient, capricious, spoiled, uninformed, immature, and gullible, each of us raised to expect instant gratification as a birthright, assured that the universe centers upon our GPS coordinates.
Should Obama have ignored Fox? Fuck if I know. Should the nerdy valedictorian ignore the prankster making fart noises in the back row, or endure the crescendo of flatulence throughout his address? Is there a way to win? And should we give a shit, you know, it being our country and well-being and all?
It’s moving forward, *because *the adminstration is diverting attention. It’s politics, and it’s a pretty good strategy. The loons had been sabotaging the health care reform dialogue for too long, but that now that the attention is on the WH, like I said before, the adults can finally have a mature conversation about actual logistics of reform. And now that the right-wing fringe isn’t screaming about death panels and whatnot, support for the public option is actually growing.
It’s a diversion, yes, but so it goes in politics.
You don’t need to talk to general. They always say more troops and bigger guns is the answer to every problem. It is like asking a priest for input in a problem. You already know his answer before you ask. You already know a general wants more troops. Generals only tell the truth after they retire. Unless they are working for military contractors. Then they still lie.
The real worry is that he’ll choose the worst of all possible responses - increase the soldiers by a token amount, but not enough to carry out the strategy. Which is exactly what I think he’ll wind up doing. I hope he proves me wrong.
That’s not what he’ll end up doing. It’ll either be whole hog or nothing. I’m sure a token half-step is what the right hopes he’ll do (they want failure in Afghanistan a badly as they want economic failure), but Obama doesn’t do token half-steps. He isn’t Jimmy Carter.
I hope you’re right.
And in other news, Republican poll ratings are much lower, and still dropping.
You say that Dems are hurting… but man, you guys are screwed.
You don’t understand! The more hurt you guys are, the less screwed us guys are! 
I might be projecting my own hopes here that for once the dems are being proactive instead of reactive, but this seems plausible to me. I remember during the primaries there was an interview where one of Obama’s campaign people, I think Axlerod but I could be wrong, likened the press to a bunch of kids chasing a soccer ball. Wherever the ball goes, they follow blindly. You don’t have to score a goal, you just have to deflect the ball away from you and they won’t even notice you’re there.
I’m glad you guys brought this up. I’m emailing Rush and Fox as we speak. 