The ink was barely dry on the Obama-McConnell tax deal and already Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer had proclaimed the president "the new comeback kid." Many in the media quickly echoed this new meme. "Political Rebound? Obama sets up as new Comeback Kid" seconded USA Today. "Some now see Obama as the 'comeback kid'" wrote the Christian Science Monitor. You get the gist.
Six weeks ago, in the wake of the Democrats' midterm shellacking, many commentators put the Obama presidency on life support; he was weak, spineless, out of touch. Now they're promoting the exact opposite narrative -- Obama is strong, ruthless, willing to put the good of the country ahead of his whiny liberal base.
Time for a reality check: Obama's presidency didn't end after the midterm election and it hasn't been revived during the lame duck session of Congress. Polls currently show a mixed bag of news for Obama. After dropping precipitously in 2009, his numbers have held steady for much of 2010. According to the latest Gallup poll, 46 percent of Americans approve of the job he's doing as president, while 45 percent disapprove. He's facing a divided country and a weak field of prospective 2012 GOP challengers, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney, who'll spend the next year trying to convince Tea Party activists how "Romneycare" is different from "Obamacare." Good luck with that, Mitt.
Yet other numerical indicators don't paint a rosy picture for the president. No president since FDR has run for re-election or been re-elected when the unemployment rate was over 8 percent. Nearly six in ten Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to the latest Marist poll. Obama's approval ratings among liberal Democrats--his strongest and most reliable constituency--fell below 80 percent for the first time last week, after the tax deal was announced. He's losing his base but failing to bring independents back into the fold. (I made these points last week on MSNBC's "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell. Posting clip below.)
Both substantively and politically, the tax deal was hardly a courageous move by Obama. His negotiation strategy came straight from the Rahm Emanuel school of politics--take the path of least resistance (extending all the Bush tax cuts), get what you can in return (unemployment benefits, the continuation of some progressive tax cuts), declare victory and move on. Or, in the case of this deal, kick the can down the road another two years and hopefully make the tough choices then.
Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a more clear cut victory for the president, a policy change that would have been unthinkable under George W. Bush, who spent much of his time in office trying to prevent equality for gay and lesbian Americans. Passage of the START treaty will be trumpeted as another major victory, even if most Americans don't know what that is or care. But the tax cut deal, not the repeal of DADT or passage of START, will likely be the precursor of things to come in the new Congress. A hostile GOP House will want to negotiate on their terms and will be determined to make Obama's life a living hell.
We don't know how the president or Congressional Democrats will react to this new reality. The Obama administration accomplished a lot in the past two years but it also disappointed and alienated a good chunk of core supporters. Did Democrats make the most of their legislative supermajority, in terms of the breadth and scope of legislation passed, or did they unnecessarily compromise on too many top priorities? Obama supporters are debating this very question today and historians will continue to for years to come.
In the past two years Obama has been uneven on offense -- determined to do big things but often ambivalent about how hard to push and the best path to get there -- and untested on defense (that elbow he took on the basketball court was a bad sign). Can he outmaneuver his opponents or will he fall victim to the ideological extremity of the right, agreeing, for example, to cut Social Security benefits and shred a core platform of the Democratic Party?
Let's hold off, please, from anointing Obama the comeback kid until we know what the full extent of what that "comeback" actually entails.
Cross-posted at The Nation
Follow Ari Berman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriBerman
Martin Nolan: The Liberal Divide: Recovery vs. Revenge
Robert J. Elisberg: The Real Nuclear Option
He twisted arms on the mandate.
He twisted arms on stopping drug re-importation.
He cut deals with pharma and insurance behind his party's back.
He let EFCA wither and hasn't addressed tax policy that encourages job offshoring.
He appointed the Catfood Commision (after Congress refused) and appointed people known to be advocates of cutting SS even though SS has nothing to do with deficit.
He talked about the urgent need to address the deficit and then cut a tax deal behind his party's back that will increase the deficit.
He cut payroll taxes, setting the stage for SS cuts in the upcoming resurgence of deficit cutting.
There's more, but I have to stop somewhere.
What the heck is he going to comeback to?
"Everybody's talking about..."
"We all were captivated by...."
"Some are now saying..."
STOP telling us what we think. Instead do some investigative research and tell us what the facts are and whose lying about them.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to hear, "Republican leaders continued their lies today that there is controversy in the scientfic community about global warming when there is actually an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists."
Or how about hearing, "The Obama administration today lied that combat operations are over in Iraq while troops, both military and private contractors, will continue to engage in combat along side Iraqi troops when engaged with insurgents."
Ok. I'm ready for the attacks on me now.
CAREFUL, he might ACHIEVE an attack on IRAN, next. It would not surprise me at all. He aims to please somebody and it is not ME
Lipstick on a PIG instead of talking left. He will try anything won't he
OBAMA talked left, and maybe he still does, Once he started walking it is not the Republican who are reacting to his outrages ACTIONS, but the liberals
WE NOW KNOW there is no change we can believe in in this GUY
You are learning slow, the base is understanding well what this character is. There are many base of the base who are speaking American and not a particular group of people
1. The GOP base was motivated while the Democratic one was not. Why? Because Obama bailed on so many of his promises. The mandate was one. But also he bailed on the public option, clsoing Gitmo and ending the tax cuts for the rich. He said he'd do that and then decided once he was elected to put it off. Then he also demoralized his base by not going after real Wall Street reform and creating a stacked Deficit Commission that was obviously going to recommend flatter taxes and cuts to Social Security.
2. The pragmatic swing vote was disillusioned with him because of the high unemployment. Things might have been different if he'd fought for a stimulus that would have been robust enough to turn things around instead of just keeping us from falling off the cliff.
Marijam, I have little hope he'll do the right thing on Social Security. I think a lot of the base will turn out, but the activists who do the work in an election will not volunteer. Me? I'm going to go to my caucus and vote against his nomination but for "uncommitted." I doubt I'll have any trouble getting to the next level. I expect there will be only a handful of people there, unlike 2008 when there were over a hundred.
The "big chunk" of supporters that he so called disappointed, made thier own disappointment, and please believe that thier are still BIG Chunk of people who still support him!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No prsident Obama should not be labled the comeback kid due to the fact that he never lost is luster!!!!
Failing to close Gitmo and end indefinite detention without trial didn't do it.
Failing to prosecute Bush folk for torture didn't do it.
Continuing wire taps of our phones without warrants didn't do it.
Expanding the war into Pakistan and sending drones into kill more civilians there in the first half of 2009 than Bush killed in 7 years didn't do it.
Ordering the assassination of an American citizen didn't do it.
Telling us in speeches he was for the public option when he'd already made a back room deal with the Health Care Industry to kill it didn't do it.
Quietly killing the Congress' attempt to not allow the big Banks we'd bail out give million dollar bonuses with tax payers money didn't do it.
Putting Bush's horrid "No Child Left Behind" on steroids and using it to bust teacher unions didn't do it.
Not only NOT reviewing NAFTA like he promised, but then taking pride in getting more job kiling "Free Trade" deals didnt' do it.
Surrendering to Israel's continuation of confiscating more and more of the West Bank and supporting their blockade of Gaza didn't do it.
Well, how about what I predict he'll do in the next two years?
Bombing Iran? Will that do it?
Cutting Social Security? Will that do it?
Putting Asange in prison?
Flatting the tax rates?
American troops helping Colombia invade Venuzuela?
Or will the good always trump all the bad?
When Netanyahu has the temerity to ask for Pollards release....that is a sure sign that the sitting President is not "coming back"!
WF-
http://www.saintpeterii.com/blog/?p=599
He awarded the ruling class with tax cuts that will later come out of the hide of entitlements.
["-take the path of least resistance ... get what you can in return ... declare victory and move on....in the case of this deal, kick the can down the road another two years"]
The enormity of this "kicking the can down the road" far overshadows the
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" gloating over "getting what you can in return"
DADT repeal is far more a factor of "the times they are a-changin"
than a sign of Obama's political influence..
Changes in public acceptance and reduction in fear and loathing
of homosexuality have been very steadily'
gaining strength over the last few decades.
I suspect that recent court decisions have more influence
than Obama in effecting DADT repeal.
In any case, DADT/gay civil rights
is a very, very secondary smokescreen issue that diverts attention
from far more pressing issues of the economy----
unemployment, foreclosures, banking corruption, US debt,
lobbyists buying our government, and becoming a two-class society.
The START treaty is a no-brainer.....
every thinking person in government, Dem or Rethug,
knows it is necessary that it gets ratified.
It is not the positive pressure of Obama's persuasive influence
against forces of rational treaty opposition that results in ratification,
rather it is the negative Rethug vow to halt US government
at all costs in order to thwart Obama that has delayed ratification
until this last moment, only to be called to task by Republican
voices too powerful to be ignored.
.
I stopped liking him when he'd give speech after speech saying he was for the public option when all his actions were out to destroy it. Then I found out he'd already made a back room deal with the Health Care industry to kill the public option.
I stopped liking him when his attack dog attacked people like me for trying to put pressure on Blue Dogs so they'd support what the President kept telling us he wanted. He apologized to Palin for using developmentally challenged people as the slur he called us. But he never apologized to us.
I stopped liking him when instead of undoing Bush's horrid "No Child Left Behind," he put it on steroids and then started going after teacher unions as the "bad guys."
You are right. I stopped liking him a long time ago. You see I dont trust him and I don't like people who tell me one thing and then do the opposite and then call me names when I call them on it.
I'm glad DADT got passed. I'll really be glad when I see it implemented.
As for START? Come on. That was not going to NOT be passed.
I'll never forgive him for selling us out on the Tax Cuts for the wealthy. I don't trust him and expect him to cut Social Security, flatten the tax rates, & bomb Iran.
It is remarkable how many crumbs a few hundred billion cash dollars into Wall Street pockets arranged for in back-door "bipartisan compromising" can buy for throwing to Main Street, particularly when none of these crumbs takes a penny away from the Plutocracy.
It is Main Street that will eventually pay for all of this in terms of blood, sweat and toil; meanwhile Bernanke will run the moneypresses overtime so that the stab to the heart of Main Street is not immediately noticed.
.
Clinton's popularity went steadily up; Obama's has gone steadily down. The economy went up under Clinton, down under Obama. The size of government went down under Clinton, up under Obama. Poverty went down under Clnton, up under Obama. Military spending went down under Clinton, up beyond belief under Obama. The size of the military was reduced under Clinton, expanded under Obama. Income went up at all levels under Clinton, down at all levels but one under Obama. The deficit was reduced under Clinton, blown to bits under Obama. Two peas in a pod, these guys.
LOL! Two years after Clinton's election, his poll numbers were in the 30s!
"The economy went up under Clinton, down under Obama."
LOL. Two years after Clinton's election, the economy was in the dumpster.
1. You're comparing Clinton's 8 years to Obama's first 2.
2. Even then, you're making up things out of whole cloth. Either you don't history or you're dishonest.