Unless something very unexpected happens, something that enables Obama to show real leadership at last, Romney will almost certainly beat him in 2012. The conventional explanation is that the jobs picture is not going to improve much between now and then--and the election will hinge, above all, on the economy. True 'dat.
Republicans understand this, of course, and they are going to make sure that the economy doesn't improve -- which would be unlikely even if Obama's latest round of half-measures were to take effect. So that's a double whammy.
But Obama is in deeper trouble. His significance, the very meaning of his being, has settled itself in the national psyche and a couple of remarks in Romney's recent speeches on foreign policy play skillfully upon it. Here's first one:
"I will not surrender America's role in the world," Romney said in a carefully-crafted speech at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina, an early primary state. "This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president. You have that president today."
"Carefully crafted" is right. A whiff of Bush-Cheney jingoism, yes, but just a whiff for the remaining yahoos -- the lethal dose is in the negative "do not want" and the loaded "You have that President today." Obama is weak. Obama can be rolled. That's the message. It resonates with a deep anxiety abroad in the land, the feeling that America itself is getting weak--dependent on the fate of the Euro, yielding to an ascendant China, paralyzed politically. Images of a weak Obama and a weak America are fusing.
This fused image fits with Obama's conduct of domestic politics, with all the situations in which he seemed to cave before the battle was even joined. The sad fact of the matter is that people who were once his ardent supporters cannot help but share this sense of him. Their half-hearted applause for the much touted toughness of his tone in recent weeks betrays the fact: it looks like an act. Obama has secured his coveted bipartisan consensus at last -- in this ruinous assessment of his character.
Here's another ring on the same bell from Romney's website: "Instead of apologizing for America abroad and 'leading from behind,' Mitt Romney will pursue a strategy of American strength."
As for "apologizing for America" -- well, once again, a bipartisan consensus is achieved. The election of Obama did represent, among many other things, an apology for America. And a good thing too, many of us felt. It was an apology for the America that re-elected the Bush-Cheney regime after having been directly confronted with irrefutable evidence on a massive scale of their brutal indifference to life and truth. So again, with this theme, Romney will be tapping into something real and deep in the national psyche, however divergent evaluations of it may be.
As for "Leading from behind," -- well that is right up there with "I was for the war before I was against it" on the top 10 list of phrases uttered while committing political suicide. It fits so perfectly with how people have come to view Obama that most of them have probably forgotten -- if they ever knew -- that he never said it. But that's how it goes in politics, once the image congeals.
James Zogby: Deja Vu: 2012/1996
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/part3/
was cut out by the moderators? Why? Shouldn't he have some background in politics?
I thought he was passing himself off as an expert, but I see he is just like the rest of us-expressing
our one person opinion without any proof or data to support his conclusion the President will lose to Romney. So I say, the President will beat the Repub. candidate by a landslide in both the popular vote and the electoral vote.
He has written one book and is working on another, short stories and 8 articles from 2-5 pages since 1989-most for Harper's Mag.
Articles
“The Romance of Empire and the Politics of Self-love”
Harper's, July 2003
“Common Ground: Finding Our Way Back to the Enlightenment”
Harper's, January 2003
“The Numbing of the American Mind: Culture as Anesthetic”
Harper's, April 2002
“World World: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Blob”
Harper's, July 2000
“The Gunfire Dialogues: How Media Influences Children Prone to Violence”
Harper's, July 1999
“On Wittgenstein's Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough”
Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1989
I found no references to political writings, or the study of Political Science. Nor could I find a background in election trends, polling, or data collection.
After my crude research, I put off worrying about the President's election chances. What I do
believe is that Mr. Z's second book is due out soon.
I need not comment on his theories about the media's influence on opinion. Instead I can comment of what is generally accepted. There is nothing that spurs some writers' opinions and need to write quick articles more, than a publishing house about to launch a book. A hot campaign makes the job easy for people are waiting for hints their candidate will win.
I think you're also assuming far too much if you believe Romney is Dr. Zengotita's candidate of choice.
All the Dems need to do is show up. If they can't even do that they deserve whatever happens.
War is for the MIC. War is to keep the rich rich and then cut services for the poor and middle class to pay for it.
I think enough Americans have figured that out, by now. But nice try, Thomas
Yes, it is sad that another neocon ready to express himself through war is being readied for the presidency. Eight years of Republican policies resulting in a second Great Depression is not enough to prevent the advocacy of the same policies that got us there. Republican ownership of the nation's media is a monopoly that will have to be addressed one day.
So Obama compromised, worked behind the scenes to implore the haters to join hands and work with him. That kind of willingness to accommodate, including all the sops to the right (some Medicare and Social Security reforms, some extensions of tax cuts for the higher brackets, should be viewed as the kind of leadership more politicians should engage in.
Even caving in to Big Wall Street Banking had it's sense of trying to keep America at the forefront of the financial world, preserving its integrity in the face of what looked like socialism with the Bush bail outs.
Should Romney get in, we'll get a splendid spectacle of a Republican getting many of the bills that Obama ran up the flag pole and people will have to wonder why they wouldn't cooperate with our well-meaning, hard working president. Or not.
Bain Capital: Romney eliminated more jobs than he ever created. Would America elect Carl Icahn as President?
Romney Care: Romney Care was the forerunner of Obama Care
Mormonism: Evangelicals won't come out to support him en masse
Lack of a Core: he has flipped on so many issues, nobody knows where he really stands
Country Clubbism: in recent history, the country has never elected a country club Republican for President. The closest thing to a country club Republican was Geo Bush I, who did all he could to hide his country club background. Romney is a down-the-line country club Republican.
Bingo.
The same will happen for "leading from behind".
Is that what you call helping to overthrow an intractable dictator at a modest cost and no American lives lost? I'm OK with that.
Bingo.
he only way Romney wins is if enough Dems don't show up - or aren't allowed - to vote.