Time's Joe Klein Blames Obama's Drop in the Polls On...The Media!

(Newsbusters).The mistakes President Obama has made in recent months that have led to his plummeting poll numbers aren't his fault.

According to Time's Joe Klein, it's all being caused by -- and I quote! -- "the media's tendency to get overwrought about almost anything."

Yep. After withholding from the public material information about Obama last year that almost certainly would have doomed his candidacy, the press today are focusing too much attention on silly things like his: response to the Fort Hood massacre; not spending enough time on unemployment; accomplishing nothing in Asia, and; allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be tried in New York City.

As one reads Klein's Wednesday column, you get the feeling he dearly misses the good old days when anything Obama did or said was met with thunderous applause, and anything that could take the bloom off the rose was squelched:

As a fully licensed pundit, I have the authority to weigh in here ... but I demur. Oh, I could sling opinions about every one of the events cited above — some were unfortunate — but it would matter only if I could discern a pattern that illuminates Obama's presidency. The most obvious pattern, however, is the media's tendency to get overwrought about almost anything. Why, for example, is the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall demolition so crucial that it requires a President's presence? Which recent U.S. President has gotten the Chinese to agree to anything big? (In fact, Obama has secured significant diplomatic cooperation from the Chinese on North Korea, Afghanistan and Pakistan.) Was his deep bow indicative of anything other than his physical fitness? (My midsection, sadly, prevents the appearance of obsequiousness in such circumstances.)

Stepping back a bit, I do see a metapattern that extends over the 40 years since Richard Nixon's Southern strategy began the drift toward more ideological political parties: Democrats have tough first years in the presidency. Of the past seven Presidents, the two Bushes rank at the top in popularity after one year, while Obama and Bill Clinton rank at the bottom, with Jimmy Carter close by. There is a reason for that. Democrats come to office eager to govern the heck out of the country. They take on impossible issues, like budget-balancing and health care reform. They run into roadblocks — from their own unruly ranks as well as from Republicans. They get lost in the details. A tax cut is much easier to explain than a tax increase. A foreign policy based in bluster — railing against an "axis of evil" — is easier to sell than a foreign policy based in nuance. Of course, external events count a lot: the ratings of Bushes I and II were bolstered, respectively, by the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the flattening of the World Trade Center. Reagan's rating — 53% and headed south — was dampened by a deepening recession.

Huckabee on FNS: 'Less than likely' I'll run in 2012'

Huckabee: 'Less than likely' I'll run in 2012

Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor from Arkansas who has his own Fox show told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" that a 2012 presidential bid is "less than likely" and depends on whether Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, keeps liking his show.

"The reason I wouldn’t is that this Fox gig I’ve got is really wonderful, " he said, talking about whether or not he would get in the race given that he is a GOP front runner according to most recent polls. "Jumping into the pool, you gottta make sure there is some water in it."

Huckabee said that GOP leaders would be foolhardy to think that President Barack Obama is an easy mark in 2012, given the example of President Bill Clinton's easy re-election for a second term after a bruising midterm in 1994.

And Huckabee said that during his 2008 campaign, he never got the backing of the GOP establishment.

"The Republican Party needs to unite in 2012," he said.

False hopes on Obama approval "bump" if Senate passes HC

(Pollster).A New York Times story on President Obama's approval rating yesterday included this unpersuassive claim:

"If Congress passes Mr. Obama's health care bill, the White House -- and many independent analysts -- believe that the accomplishment of a signature campaign promise is likely to push the president's approval ratings back up".

I can see why the White House might make this argument to wavering Senate moderates, but who are these unnamed "independent analysts" and what are they talking about? I don't know any reason to expect that Obama will receive a significant approval boost from passage of health care.

Let's consider the last three presidents who passed a "signature campaign promise" during their first year in office -- Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush. (I'm omitting George H.W. Bush, who didn't have much of a domestic agenda.)

*Congress passed Reagan's budget on June 25, 1981 and passed his tax bill on July 29, 1981. Here are his approval ratings from Gallup from that period:
6/5-8/81 59%
6/19-22/81 59%
[Budget passes June 25]
6/26-29/81 58%
7/17-20/81 60%
7/24-27/81 56%
[Tax bill passes July 29]
7/31-8/3/81 60%
8/14-17/81 60%

Do you see an approval boost? I don't.

*Bill Clinton signed his deficit reduction bill on August 10, 1993 (the major votes were on August 5 and 6). You can argue about whether this was a "signature campaign promise" (Clinton increased his focus on the deficit after taking office), but it was the major legislative accomplishment of his first year in office and there's no evidence he received a boost from it:
6/29-30/93 46%
7/9-11/93 45%
7/19-21/93 42%
[Bill passes August 5-6]
8/8-10/93 44 %
[Bill signed August 10]
9/10-12/93 47%

-Finally, there's George W. Bush, who passed his tax cut bill on May 26, 2001 and signed it into law on June 7, 2001 -- as with the previous two examples, there was no discernable bump in approval (I'm omitting the bipartisan No Child Left Behind bill, but the story is the same there):
4/20-22/01 62%
5/7-9/01 53%
[Bill passes May 26, signed June 7]
6/8-10/01 55%
6/11-17/01 55%
6/28-7/1/01 52%
7/10-11/01 50%

The larger story here is that many journalists and political operatives have a wildly exaggerated view of the president's ability to change public opinion outside of a foreign policy context (as with the Obama's health care speech). The reality is that Obama, like his predecessors, is largely at the mercy of the economy and external events unless a new war or foreign policy crisis emerges.

Rasmussen Poll : Romney does best against Obama, Huckabee - worst

Mitt Romney (R) - 44%
Barack Obama (D) - 44%
Some other candidate - 6%
Not sure - 5%

Mike Huckabee (R) - 41%
Barack Obama (D) - 45%
Some other candidate - 6%
Not sure - 8%

Sarah Palin (R) - 43%
Barack Obama (D) - 46%
Some other candidate - 9%
Not sure - 3%

According to the poll numbers released today (shown above), Mike Huckabee is the weakest of three potential Republican candidates against Barack Obama, while Sarah Palin is the middle of the road, and Mitt Romney is in a dead tie with Obama as of now. Huckabee received just 41% support, while Palin achieved 43% support, and Romney was able to clinch 44% support.

With three years to the 2012 Presidential election these results are just predictions, however, it appears we will have a good shot at defeating Obama, and it appears Palin is becoming stronger in the polls, while Huckabee is becoming weaker.

Opposition to health care legislation lingers

(USAtoday).As the debate over a health care bill enters a critical stage, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds Americans inclined to oppose congressional passage of the legislation this year.

The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, finds 42% against a bill, 35% in support of it. Despite nearly a year of presidential speeches, congressional hearings and TV ad campaigns by interest groups, more than one in five still doesn't have a strong opinion.

When pressed about how they were leaning, 49% overall said they would urge their member of Congress to vote against a bill; 44% would urge a vote for it.

Those Democrats surveyed were overwhelmingly in favor of a bill: 76% to 17%. By an even wider margin, 86% to 12%, Republicans were opposed. Independents were against it by 53% to 37%.

Obama has seen his approval rating on handling health care policy slide a bit since the summer. Now, 40% approve, 53% disapprove, down from a 44% approval rating in July.

Lou Dobbs run hurts Romney's chances to beat Obama

(Rasmussen).Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs has indicated that he might consider an independent bid for the White House in 2012, and early polling shows he could attract up to 14% of the vote. However, some of that is almost certainly a generic protest vote as an unnamed “some other candidate” picks up between six percent (6%) and nine percent (9%) of the vote in similar 2012 match-ups.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that if the choice is between President Obama, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Dobbs, Obama leads 42% to 34% with Dobbs pulling 14% of the vote.

With Mike Huckabee as the Republican nominee, Obama leads 42% to 36%, with Dobbs at 12%.

If Sarah Palin is the GOP nominee, it’s Obama 44%, Palin 37% and Dobbs 12%.

With Dobbs out of the equation, Obama and Romney are tied at 44%, Obama leads Huckabee 45% to 41%, and the president leads Palin 46% to 43%.

Lou Six pack! 6% for Lou Dobbs in a Romney-Obama '12 race

(frumforum).Mickey Kaus alerts us to the latest Greenberg-Carville’s Democracy Corps poll suggesting that 6% of likely voters might vote for Lou Dobbs in a Romney-Obama race in 2012.

Angelina Jolie Can’t Stand Obama – Says He’s a Socialist

US Magazine reported:

Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie’s seal of approval.

“She hates him,” a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now).

“She’s into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise,” adds the source.

But don’t expect to see the Salt actress rally against Democrats on Fox News like her staunch Republican father, Jon Voight.

“Angie isn’t Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors,” the source says.

And those political views are putting her at odds with Brad Pitt, 45, who is a big fan of the president and even went solo to the 2008 election party in Chicago.

"They get in nasty arguments all the time about it," says the source. "She doesn't respect Brad when it comes to politics, but, in the end, this won't tear them apart."

GOP extands 7 point lead in generic ballot; Among independents, GOP leads by 24 points

(Rasmussenreports).Republican candidates have extended their lead over Democrats to seven points, their biggest lead since early September, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Support for the Republican party held steady from last week, while support for Democrats dropped slightly. Republicans have held the lead for over four months now. Democrats currently have majority control of both the House and Senate.

Voters not affiliated with either party continue to heavily favor Republicans, 44% to 20%.

Britian's Defense Minister Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan

(The Telegraph).Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington - and a lack of clear direction - had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.

Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.

Mr Ainsworth spoke out as the inquiry into the 2003 war in Iraq started in London, hearing evidence from British diplomats that the UK government concluded in 2001 that toppling Saddam Hussein by military action would be illegal.

Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committe in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop 'surge' decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.

“We have suffered a lot of losses," he said. "We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal's plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.

“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress... put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are."

Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan and has announced it will send another 500, a decision some US officials saw as a move to put pressure on Mr Obama.

Mr Ainsworth said he is confident that once Mr Obama confirms his new strategy, allies will follow and British public opinion will shift back in favour of the mission.

“I hope and believe that we are about to get an announcement from the USA on troop numbers and I think that that will be followed by contributions from many other Nato allies and so we will be able to show that we are going forward in this campaign to an extent that we have not been able to in recent months with those issues still hanging,” he said.

Der Spiegel: Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage

( Gabor Steingart-Der Spiegel.de).US President Barack Obama is back in the US after an Asian trip that produced few results.

When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it's not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming.

There were only a few hours left before Air Force One was scheduled to depart for the flight home. US President Barack Obama trip through Asia had already seen him travel 24,000 kilometers, sit through a dozen state banquets, climb the Great Wall of China and shake hands with Korean children. It was high time to take stock of the trip.

Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said "thank you, guys," and disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists' questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public's expectations had been "too high."

The mood in Obama's foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The "first Pacific president," as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions.

Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama's currency isn't as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik. The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington's new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences.

A look back in time reveals the differences. When former President Bill Clinton went to China in June 1998, Beijing wanted to impress the Americans. A press conference in the Great Hall of the People, broadcast on television as a 70-minute live discussion, became a sensation the world over. Clinton mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when the government used tanks against protestors. But then President Jiang Zemin defended the tough approach taken by the Chinese Communists. At the end of the exchange, the Chinese president praised the debate and said: "I believe this is democracy!"

Obama visited a new China, an economic power that is now making its own demands. America should clean up its government finances, and the weak dollar is unacceptable, the head of the Chinese banking authority said, just as Obama's plane was about to land.

Obama's new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere, with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry. For the government of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, peace is only conceivable under its terms. Netanyahu has rejected Obama's call for a complete moratorium on the construction of settlements. As a result, Obama has nothing to offer the Palestinians and the Syrians. "We thought we had some leverage," says Martin Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration and now an advisor to Obama. "But that proved to be an illusion."

Even the president seems to have lost his faith in a genial foreign policy. The approach that was being used in Afghanistan this spring, with its strong emphasis on civilian reconstruction, is already being changed. "We're searching for an exit strategy," said a staff member with the National Security Council on the sidelines of the Asia trip.

An end to diplomacy is also taking shape in Washington's policy toward Tehran. It is now up to Iran, Obama said, to convince the world that its nuclear power is peaceful. While in Asia, Obama mentioned "consequences" unless it followed his advice. This puts the president, in his tenth month in office, where Bush began -- with threats. "Time is running out," Obama said in Korea. It was the same phrase Bush used against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, shortly before he sent in the bombers.

There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will take a tougher stance in the future. Obama's advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush. Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. "Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead," Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: "This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter."

Mr. Independent mulls a bid for title - Mr. President

(Politico).Former CNN host Lou Dobbs fueled already rampant speculation about his political future Monday, sending the clearest signals yet that he's mulling a bid for president—and leaving third-party political operatives salivating over the possibility of a celebrity recruit for the 2012 campaign.

Less than two weeks after announcing his departure from the cable network—and following a series of interviews in which Dobbs encouraged speculation about his political plans—the anchorman known to fans as "Mr. Independent" finally made his presidential ambitions explicit on former Sen. Fred Thompson's radio show Monday.

Asked if he might make a run at the White House in 2012, Dobbs answered flatly: "Yes is the answer."

"I'm going to be talking some more with some folks who want me to listen in the next few weeks," Dobbs told Thompson. "Right now I'm fortunate to have a number of wonderful options."

Dobbs's political future, however, remains shrouded in question marks. He has left open a variety of paths to public office—in addition to toying with a presidential campaign, Dobbs hasn't ruled out a bid for Senate in 2012 in New Jersey—and also left his party affiliation a mystery.

Though Dobbs's criticism of the Obama administration and his famously conservative views on illegal immigration have raised the prospect he could run for office as a Republican, he has staked out a rhetorical position that places him outside both parties. In 2007, he penned a book titled, "Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit" and in his final CNN broadcast Dobbs took broad aim at a political culture "defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous, empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion."

Following two consecutive presidential cycles in which independent contenders had virtually no impact at the polls, independent political strategists are delighted at the prospect of a third-party campaign for the White House headlined by a high-profile, TV-friendly candidate with the potential to scramble the national political map.

"I would assume he's going independent, since he's made a very strong case that that's where he is," said Bay Buchanan, who ran Pat Buchanan's 2000 campaign for president as the Reform Party's candidate. "There's enormous movement out there, I think more so than when Pat ran. I think they've really given up on Republicans, they've given up on Democrats; so he would be stepping into something where a path had been laid."

Rasmussen: Obama in lowest approval number ever - 45% approve, 54% disapprove

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 68% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, just 16% Strongly Approve and 51% Strongly Disapprove.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this president. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve as do 33% of unaffiliated voters. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans disapprove.

Among all voters, 54% now disapprove.

Yes, she can: How Palin has a shot at the presidency

(Matthew Dowd-WaPo).President Sarah Palin. To many pundits and late-night comedians, this sounds like a punch line, and to many die-hard Democrats it sounds like a reason to leave the country.

Yet while the conventional wisdom has it that Palin is too badly damaged to make a serious run in 2012 -- and I agree that her success is not probable -- it is definitely a possibility that Palin could be elected president of the United States.

Those having concerns about my objectivity or wondering whether I am a "Palinista" should keep in mind that I raised serious questions about her qualifications last fall -- doubts I still have -- and that I predicted John McCain would look back at his vice presidential pick with remorse.

Looking ahead to the political landscape of the 2012 presidential election, there are certain elements to keep in mind, assuming that President Obama runs for reelection.

First, Gallup polls over the past 60 years show that no president with an approval rating under 47 percent has won reelection, and no president with an approval rating above 51 percent has lost reelection. (George W. Bush's approval rating in the weeks before the 2004 election hovered around 50 percent.) The 2012 election will be primarily about our current president and whether voters are satisfied with the country's direction.
ad_icon

Who the Republican candidate is, and his or her qualifications and abilities, will matter only if Obama's approval rating is between 47 and 51 percent going into the fall of 2012. Interestingly, in the latest Gallup poll Obama's approval rating was at a precarious 49 percent.

Second, America is still (unfortunately) politically divided and polarized, and Palin benefits from this dynamic. While Democrats love Obama, Republicans look on him with real disfavor. The gap between Obama's approval rating among Democrats and among Republicans is nearly 70 percentage points -- a higher partisan divide than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush experienced. Obama's agenda and actions this year, and some mistakes, have solidified this divide.

Polls show that Palin's favorability numbers are a mirror image of those of Obama. She is respected and loved by the Republican base, while Democrats despise her. Granted, independent voters have significant reservations about her capability to be president, and this would be a hurdle in the general election. But to win the Republican nomination, Palin needs only to get enough support from the base to win early key states. Already, in nearly every poll today, she has a level of support that makes her a viable primary candidate. Just look at the crowds and the buzz her book tour is drawing.

While today I would not support a Palin candidacy, here are five suggestions that would go a long way toward winning her more converts:

-- Quality over quantity. You don't need to "tweet" quite so much. You don't need to be at countless rallies and photo ops. Instead, seek out substantive platforms where you can relate to people in a thoughtful, measured way. Appear on Sunday shows every now and then, sit down with Charlie Rose and editorial boards, and give serious speeches on your approach to the world in the 21st century.

-- Hope and fear. To be elected president, a candidate has to understand voters' fears but appeal to their hopes. Ronald Reagan (and Bill Clinton) knew this very well. To do this more comprehensively, I would suggest traveling more to better get a handle on where the voters are on topics related to finances, faith, race, etc. Get out of the bubble of high-profile events. Go to the inner cities, the suburbs and small towns where folks are trying to live their lives through great anxiety. And don't go to talk about yourself, but to listen to others.

-- Reagan is the past. While Reagan is a beloved president who did much for this country, folks want to look to the future and believe in a new brand of leader. Espousing the values Reagan spoke to and represented is fine, but you need to be yourself, not an acolyte for a president who is now in the history books.

-- Use humor. In responding to controversy, bad press and negative occurrences in general, learn to let it slide off of you with a knowing smile. Maybe even use some self-deprecation. Levi Johnston, your almost son-in-law, has been a thorn in your side. Let it go. Publicly sparring with a teenager is not presidential. Don't be afraid to make fun of yourself. Voters like candidates who know that they aren't perfect and can laugh at themselves.

-- Think accountability. Yes, bad things happen to good people, and it isn't fair. But voters don't want to hear all the excuses of why an interview didn't go well or which other person was responsible for a bad decision. Americans want presidents who accept blame when things go wrong. They are tired of their leaders and institutions not admitting mistakes, learning from errors and making improvements.

Like it or not, if Sarah Palin decides to seek our nation's highest office, she has a shot. The probability of her success depends on her ability, and that of President Obama, to admit and learn from their mistakes as we head into 2012.

Anger over Health care, Palins high profile bring down Romney's popularity among Republicans

(Public Policy Polling).Mitt Romney is considerably less popular with Republican voters than Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, and that problem has become worse for him over the course of the year.

On our monthly 2012 polls, which began in April, an average of 74% of Republicans have held a favorable opinion of Palin to 66% for Huckabee and 56% for Romney.

The gap hasn't always been that wide though. On the first three iterations of this survey, from April to June, Palin averaged a 76% favorability number to 67% for Huckabee and 63% for Romney. On the last three runs, from September to November, Palin has averaged 72% to 64% for Huckabee and just 51% for Romney.

Romney polled in the 60s on the first three polls but has not reached that threshold since and now for the first time he's below 50% with the party base. I don't have any theories to explain Romney's popularity slide with Republican voters.

The higher the profile of the healthcare debate, the lower Romney's numbers go.

Scott Hennen Show - Dick Cheney Exclusive Interview

The 'Real' Jobless Rate: 17.5% Of Workers Are Unemployed

(CNBC).As experts debate the potential speed of the US recovery, one figure looms large but is often overlooked: nearly 1 in 5 Americans is either out of work or under-employed.

According to the government's broadest measure of unemployment, some 17.5 percent are either without a job entirely or underemployed. The so-called U-6 number is at the highest rate since becoming an official labor statistic in 1994.

The number dwarfs the statistic most people pay attention to—the U-3 rate—which most recently showed unemployment at 10.2 percent for October, the highest it has been since June 1983.

The difference is that what is traditionally referred to as the "unemployment rate" only measures those out of work who are still looking for jobs. Discouraged workers who have quit trying to find a job, as well as those working part-time but looking for full-time work or who are otherwise underemployed, count in the U-6 rate.

With such a large portion of Americans experiencing employment struggles, economists worry that an extended period of slow or flat growth lies ahead.

"To me there's no easy solution here," says Michael Pento, chief economist at Delta Global Advisors. "Unless you create another bubble in which the economy can create jobs, then you're not going to have growth. That's the sad truth."

Pento warns that forecasts of a double-dip ("W") or a straight up ("V") recovery both could be too optimistic given the jobs situation.

Instead, he believes the economy could flatline (or "L") for an extended period as small businesses struggle to grow and consequently rehire the workers that have been furloughed as the U-3 unemployment rate has doubled since March 2008.

Economists cite several reasons for the phenomenon.

For one, more workers are becoming discouraged as real estate—the focal point for the expansion in the earlier part of the decade—has collapsed and taken millions of directly related and ancillary jobs with it.

Many workers believe those jobs aren't coming back, and have thus quit looking and added themselves to the broader unemployment count.

"In the earlier part of this decade, 40 percent of all new jobs created were in real estate. Attorneys, mortgage brokers, agents, construction—they were all circled around housing," Pento says. "We've had a jobless recovery in the last two recessions. This is going to be the third jobless recovery in a row."

Another factor that may be leading people onto the rolls of those no longer looking for jobs is the government's accommodative extensions of jobless benefits.

"Workers are unemployed for a much longer span than we've seen historically," says David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International in New York. "Part of that may be affected by the longer availability of benefits. It reduces the incentives for an urgent job search."

Schumer Coffeemaker Sen.Gillibrand (NY-D) Struggles with Recognition

A new Marist Poll finds that 10 months after Kirsten Gillibrand (D) was appointed to the U.S. Senate she has failed to become a household name among registered voters in New York State.

Just 25% of New York voters think Gillibrand is doing either an excellent or good job in office, and 12% believes she is performing poorly. Perhaps, though, Gillibrand's bigger concern is that 24% of the electorate is unsure how to rate her.

There has been a great deal of talk over the last few days about whether former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will oppose Gillibrand in the 2010 race for U.S. Senate. If that’s the case, it could spell trouble for Gillibrand. In a hypothetical matchup against Gillibrand, Giuliani leads 54% to 40%. But, how would she do against another well-known name, former Governor George Pataki? Here, voters divide. Pataki receives 47% of the vote and Gillibrand garners 45%. 8% are unsure.

RGA releases Zogby poll: Only 43% nationwide (including only 37% Independent) say they would re-elect Obama

(earthtimes).The Republican Governors Association released the results of a poll today that show only 42% of voters in competitive 2010 gubernatorial races would vote to re-elect President Obama. This is roughly the same amount of support each of the candidates who Obama backed in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races recently received from voters.

In addition, only 43 percent of voters nationwide say they would re-elect President Obama, including just 37 percent of Independent voters, according to the Zogby International/O’Leary Report Poll.

The Zogby/O’Leary Poll asked:

If the presidential election were held next month, would you vote to re-elect President Obama or would it be time for someone new in the White House?

Just 42 percent of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election, and who will vote in competitive gubernatorial races next year, would vote to re-elect President Obama. Nearly 45 percent say it is time for someone new in the Oval Office, and 12 percent say it would depend on who runs against Obama.

Only 43 percent of Americans who voted in the 2008 presidential election say they would vote to re-elect Obama – ten percent fewer votes than the President received on Election Day last year. Forty-five percent say it is time for someone new to be president. Eleven percent say that their vote for-or-against President Obama would depend on who is running against him, and one percent are not sure.

Among Independent voters, only 37 percent say they would vote to re-elect Obama. Forty-six percent say it is time for someone new, and 17 percent of Independents say it would depend on who is running against Obama.

In addition, a majority of Americans do not trust President Obama to get legislation passed that would create jobs in 2010.

Almost 42 percent of voters in competitive 2010 gubernatorial races say they do not trust the Obama administration “at all” to get job-creating legislation passed, while just 28 percent trust the Administration “very much.” An additional 12 percent don’t trust the Administration much to pass such legislation, and only 18 percent trust “somewhat.”

Likewise, 42 percent of voters nationwide say they do not trust the Obama White House “at all” to pass laws that create jobs, and an additional 11 percent do not trust the Obama administration much to get such laws passed. Only 28 percent say they trust the President’s administration “very much” to accomplish this task, and an additional 18 percent say they trust it “somewhat.”

“We saw how President Obama’s popularity is sinking in the recent Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, where not much more than 40 percent of voters in each of those two states voted for the Obama-backed candidate,” said Governor Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

Obama inspires; Palin connects

(Rex Murphy-theglobeandmail).There are two great political speakers in the America today. Sarah Palin is the other one.

Barack Obama's speaking skills are his signature talent. He's a platform performer, a speechmaker in the great tradition, a kind of teleprompter Cicero. The campaign to become President owed more to Mr. Obama's oratorical mastery than to any other element. His speech on race in America, necessitated by revelations of the ugly thoughts and sentiments of his hometown preacher, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was the most important event of his campaign. If it had failed, his candidacy would have been doomed. Under pressure – the great test of the real speechmaker – he delivered.

The other great speech of the U.S. campaign season was Sarah Palin's on receiving the vice-presidential slot on the McCain ticket. This was a speech delivered under even greater pressures than that of Mr. Obama. John McCain's choice of Ms. Palin had been early and widely criticized, and in some quarters ferociously reviled. She had never really been under the national spotlight before. The entire media were focused on her with an intensity almost unseen in the annals of vice-presidential politics. If she'd been just “okay,” or messed up, John McCain's campaign was over. It was the highest of high-stakes gambles.

Did she deliver? She soared. She was the very acme of self-confidence and ease. She mixed a natural charm with a mischievous edge of sarcasm toward her opponents – even daring the unthinkable by pinging The One himself. It was her “first serve” on the national stage and she delivered an ace. The backwoods hick knocked it out of the hall that night – not only did she not sink the McCain campaign, she gave it the only real vitality and spark that gloomy, tight, fussy little campaign had from start to finish.

Her speech, in fact, was the rhetorical equivalent of Mr. Obama's crucial one. They do not as speakers, it is obvious, share the same idiom. Mr. Obama is utterly composed, deliberate down to gesture and word, very conscious that he is a “figure” on a stage. Mr. Obama “bestows” himself on an audience. Ms. Palin has none of that. She will never speak in front of faux Greek columns. She walks on the stage much the same way she'd go into a gas station. But she's shrewd in her choice of themes, has a marvellous feel for her audience, and a confidence that will never be confused with arrogance.

They are, in the way fate or the mysteries of politics sometimes offers such things, curiously equivalent or parallel figures, polar opposites but equals. Ms. Palin connects: Mr. Obama inspires. She's a latter-day frontier figure, impulsive, instinctive; he's pure urban cool, highly deliberate, even detached. Both have real charisma.

It will make Obama fans perspire to hear this, but Ms. Palin has a more forceful bond with her supporters than he with his. Mr. Obama offers a kind of self-flattery to his worshippers. They feel exalted that they have the intelligence or sensibility to see how remarkable their man is. But he remains remote. Ms. Palin works close up. She offers those much invoked, but actually neglected figures, “the ordinary Joe or Josephine,” a real sense that she does represent them.

Ms. Palin is a real and evolving element in the great story of American politics. She is the “other half” of the Obama moment, and she may be in the ascendant. Mr. Obama is losing his lustre, his appeal is dimming, at the very moment the Alaskan outsider is staking her claim. Those who call her a joke are expressing an anxious hope not offering a rational description.

Ms. Palin has rare gifts and stamina enough to give them play. She is the second most outstanding figure on the great stage of American politics.

48 YR OLD BARACK OBAMA POPULARITY SINKS TO 48%

(THE EXPRESS).A YEAR after his election was heralded as the start of a bright new era, President Barack Obama’s popularity rating is at an all-time low.

Yesterday he urged Americans to be patient over the economy and was forced to defend his trip to the Far East after heavy criticism that he had failed to make any trade agreements.

With US unemployment levels at a generational high of 10.2 per cent, he said in his weekly address to the nation: “Even though it will take time, I can promise you this, we are moving in the right direction. The steps we are taking are helping.”

One source close to the President said he was highly aware that the public was getting impatient and wanted to see him deliver on a single policy or promise.

On Sunday a Gallup poll showed Obama’s job approval rating had dropped to 48 per cent, the first time it has fallen below 50 percent was on Friday to 49%.

LETS NOT GIVE UP YET! Politico:How health care reform could fall apart

(POLITICO 44).Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid eked out 60 votes on a procedural motion to start the health care debate Saturday night – but there’s no guarantee he can pass a bill on the merits.

And as he struggles, the reasons are clear: deep divides among Democrats on a public insurance plan, abortion, tax hikes and cost-cutting. Liberals want the plan to be generous enough. Moderates fear a budget-buster. And everyone is trying to avoid angering seniors.

Even in the blush of Saturday’s victory, Reid (D-Nev.) is far from having the votes to move his $848 billion package to final passage. At least four centrists have pledged to oppose it in its current form, largely over the public option. Reid is in a bind. Stay to the left, and moderates vote no. Move a tad to the right, and Reid faces insurrection from the left, as liberals in his own caucus and in the House vow not to compromise any further on their signature issue.

As one of the Senate most liberal members, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), told POLITICO’s The Arena: “I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed.”

Health care reform proponents considered Saturday’s vote a major milestone, one that significantly boosted the odds of passing a bill. But, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed Saturday, “the battle has just begun.”

Here are the battle lines where President Barack Obama’s vision of reform could falter.

read more here

SNL Bashes Obama, Stimulus, Healthcare and Cash for Clunkers

A Message from Michael Steele: A chance to cut Obama's term in half

(via email).Last week's big Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia proved what the Obama Administration's apologists in the liberal mainstream media have been avoiding telling you -- the bloom is off the Barack Obama rose.

As hard as the White House and leftist pundits try to spin Election Day's results, there's no arguing the big change in voter attitudes toward the Obama Agenda.

In 2008, Barack Obama carried Virginia by 6%, and the Democrat stronghold of New Jersey by 14%.

Last week? New Jersey's GOP candidate for governor Chris Christie bested incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine by 4 percentage points, and in Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell defeated his Democrat opponent by 18 points -- that's a 24% turnaround!

Jacob, Barack Obama won election last year, aided by his claims of moderation and transparency, and the huge cover he received from the adoring liberal media. Many Americans gave the relatively unknown first term Illinois senator the benefit of the doubt, and are now coming to regret it.

Instead of centrist policies, they have seen an extreme far-left assault on private enterprise and personal liberties. From pork barrel "stimulus" to unprecedented government spending and debt, and auto company takeovers to the present attempt at a socialist seizure of health care.

In New Jersey and Virginia, the voters have realized their mistake -- and sent a clear message to the Obama Democrats. When polled in both states about their votes for the Republican candidate, 68% and 74% respectively agreed that they were sending a message to the Obama team that they were "unhappy with the direction they are taking Washington and the country."

But are the Democrats listening? Not a chance. Instead, despite losing in two states where Democrats had controlled the governor's mansion for years, Nancy Pelosi arrogantly declared "We won!" Then she and her leftist followers dismissed the clear will of the people and rammed their socialist health care takeover scheme through the House of Representatives on Saturday.

Our victories last week are a great start, but as long as the radical Obama-Pelosi liberals are determined to force their socialist agenda on the American people, our work isn't done.

You can help our Party spread the word about the Obama-Pelosi Democrats' disastrous, arrogant plans, and help us recruit the commonsense, conservative Republican candidates today who will defeat them in next year's crucial mid-term elections.

Please make a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or $1,000 to the Republican National Committee today, to end the Democrats' Congressional majorities and cut Barack Obama's term in half.

Chris Matthews on Obama: “Is he just too darned intellectual?”