That about Sums it Up

Smoke & Mirrors only go So Far

TM notes: "Something isn't working".  No kidding.

We work with flowers and it's easy to see when the bloom is off the roses. Nobody wants the President to come and indoctrinate address their graduating youth:

The White House is ramping up an effort to promote a nationwide competition to decide which high school wins a commencement speech by President Obama.

An internal White House memo indicates that the White House is facing a shortage of applications less than a week before the deadline.

The competition was extended from the February 25 deadline until Friday, March 11 after few schools met the original application deadline. CBS News has learned a White House Communications Office internal memo dated February 22 noted "a major issue with the Commencement Challenge."

"As of yesterday we had received 14 applications and the deadline is Friday," the memo said. The memo also urged recipients to, "please keep the application number close hold."

A follow-up memo on February 28 reported receipt of 68 applications. Noting the competition among more than 1,000 schools last year, the memo said, "Something isn't working." It called on staffers to ask "friendly congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral offices" to encourage schools to apply.

The President became president by fooling people into believing charisma and grandiose rhetoric were an actual accomplishment. The bloom is off the rose and people are beginning to notice just how empty the suit really is.

It's the Policies, Stupid (Or How I learned to stop worrying and love my Inner Racist)

According to a Quinnipiac poll released this morning, 52% of voters disapprove of the President's policies. From the Topline summary:

Three out of four American voters - 74 percent - like President Barack Obama, but a narrow majority disapproves of his policies, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. President Obama gets a split 46 - 46 percent job approval rating, little changed from his 48 - 44 percent score January 13, and voters split 45 - 47 percent on whether they think he deserves a second term in the Oval Office.

Broken down by category, it's easy to see that, much like President Bush, the public likes the man but isn't so appreciative of what he's doing:

Voters disapprove 58 - 36 percent of the way Obama is handling the federal budget deficit, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey finds. They say 51 - 10 percent that he will cut spending too little rather than too much, with 32 percent saying he'll cut the right amount, and 44 - 14 percent that he will raise taxes too much rather than too little, with 36 percent saying he'll get it right. By comparison, voters split 33 - 32 percent on whether congressional Republicans will cut spending too little or too much, with 29 percent saying they'll get it right, and by 33 - 25 percent they say GOP lawmakers will raise taxes too much rather than too little, as 36 percent say they'll get it right.

"President Barack Obama is a charmer. The American people like him a great deal, but they aren't nearly as sold on his policies. This combination of personal appeal and skepticism about his policies explains why his overall approval numbers seem to be stuck in the middle," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Having spent 3 1/2 years in market research certainly doesn't make me an expert but at the same time I look at this and it all makes reasonable sense unless there's something truly screwy in the sampling or a biased questionnaire. Seems pretty straight-forward, no?

Well, maybe not. Over at Pajamasmedia, Roger Simon notes that the President still seems hung-up on the issue of his black-ness:

In an an excerpt (linked in red on Drudge) from his new book, Family and Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House, US News journalist Kenneth T. Walsh writes:

But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn’t helping them nearly enough, he said.

A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to “take back” their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a “subterranean agenda” in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.

That was then and this is now and the assessment doesn't seem to have changed much. The left in general, including the President, still views things--far too many and far too much--through the prism of race.

Simon notes the seeming duality inherent in the President's thinking...he wants to be "post-racial" but is trapped, stuck in--or happy to stay in--his racial stereotypes and seemingly will remain there until he leaves the White House for the last time in early 2013 or '17. Sometimes there is no changing minds and people will believe what they believe.

Given a choice between the President's stereotypes and hard data showing a full 3 out of 4 like the man but hate the policies, it ought to be clear though.

It's the Policies, stupid!

The Thin-Skinned President

An illuminating exchange between the President and Senator McCain at today's Health Care Charade Summit:

After Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) focused on issues in his wheelhouse — the dearth of transparency and wealth of special deals in Obamacare — and chastised Obama for failing to live up to his campaign promises to change the way Washington works and conduct health-care negotiations in front of C-SPAN cameras, the president got testy.

"We're not campaigning any more, John. The election is over," he said.

To which McCain responded, "I'm reminded of that every day."

Prickly, defensive...the President just can't take criticism.

Getting Old but Fast

It's all Bush's fault.

Going to War?

Erick Erickson lays out his thoughts about the recent killing of CIA employees last week in this post at Red State. Erick suggests that the President's public 'outpouring' over these deaths poses a threat to the Agency:

People tell me the President’s rush to acknowledge the attack on the CIA in Afghanistan and mourn the deaths openly, publicly, and via press release is a huge no no. The CIA and greater intelligence community would prefer not to have the attention put on them. Additionally, because the President took the time to draft a blanket statement focused on the CIA in general instead of individually and more privately focusing on the families of the victims, it acknowledges the CIA’s work in Afghanistan, acknowledges that the attack has an impact on the CIA, and gives the terrorists a new recruiting tool — “you too can cause America to publicly mourn the loss of their spies.”

 An interesting thought but what really caught my attention was the addendum to the original post:

UPDATED: Take the information above and couple it with this. The White House is subtly blaming the intelligence community for the failure to deduce the Delta/Northwest attack.


Why?


Presidential aides are concerned that Obama will somehow be unfairly accused of dropping the ball on the fight against terrorist in Yemen

Because the President is worried about being blamed, the White House is trying to blame the CIA while at the same time undermining the CIA through a rush to publicize the Afghan attack.

What Erick describes sounds to me like the beginnings of yet another fight with the Agency, akin to what we saw last year with Speaker Pelosi calling the Agency a bunch of liars when it came to intel briefings about waterboarding years earlier. So, if the President is blaming the agency that's not going to go over well at Langley.

As we witnessed over the last 8 years, when push comes to shove the Agency can damage the President greatly. Adding to this also is the potential for exposing CIA operatives to legal prosecution over interrogation methods which may come to light in the trials of KSM and others when those start.

So my question is simply this: Will the CIA declare war on another President?

Trendlines

It's official. President Obama's Disapproval rating, as an average, is higher than his Approval rating.

For a while now some polls have already been there while others have slowly followed suit. Pollster.com has compiled the average, and as of today, this is where we are. Were I a member of the Administration, the trendlines would bother me. Bigtime.

What the President Accomplished on his Trip to Asia

Correlation is not Causation

But this is interesting...

Insulting

The basic premise is insulting...beyond insulting:

Eight months into Barack Obama’s presidency, as criticism of his administration seems to reach new levels of volume and intensity each week, the whispers among some of his allies are growing louder: That those who loathe the nation’s first African-American president, and especially those who would deny his citizenship, are driven at least in part by racism.

Are there people on the extreme edge of this opposition? Certainly. There were people on the extreme edge of the Left's opposition to President Bush as well.

Frankly, the Left would do well to remove the log from their own eye before telling us all about the logs in ours. Not everyone who thinks Healthcare is a bad idea hates the President. Not everyone who is arguing against the largest deficits in the nation's history is a racist.

Perhaps some of us have an aversion to economic ruin; some of us think that this unsustainable spending arc needs to be resisted. Because President Obama is black? Of course not.

Because ruinous debt will kill our economy; because coming inflation will eat at American's wealth and further strain the very working families the President and his party so vociferously champion.

The vast majority of us who oppose the President's non-plan of a plan do so for a simple reason: we think it's a bad idea.

Close Enough to Kiss

Big Bust?

Politico wonders today where the Obama Administration agenda will ultimately end up.

Earlier in the day I was simply dumbstruck by just this one day's worth of 'bad news' or, if you rather, commentary related to the Health care debate and the President's performance. These all come from one day at one blog:

ANDREW KLAVAN: A Subtle Theological Point.

Related: Obama’s Twisted Faith.

ANN ALTHOUSE: “Obama also has a big problem with moderates. Basically, Obama has a big problem. He got lots of people to trust him, chiefly by doing exactly what Krugman now complains about: speaking in vague generalities. It only works from a distance.”

UPDATE: Ron Brownstein: Obama’s Erosion.

POST-PARTISAN, POST RACIAL? Voight: Is Obama creating a civil war in America?

“I’M SORRY.”

PEGGY NOONAN: Pull the plug on ObamaCare.

WASHINGTON POST: Faith in Obama Drops As Reform Fears Rise: Health-Care Effort Is Major Factor, Poll Finds.

DAVID HARSANYI: What would Jesus Obama do? “For with thee is the fountain of life: and in thy light we shall see the public option.”
UPDATE: A reader emails: “Most commenters are focusing on Obama’s words about being his brothers’s keeper and his sister’s keeper, but the most egregious statement he made was that , ‘we are partners with God…’. Really? As a long time student of the Bible, I can’t recall God ever saying he needed a partner or wanted one.”...

ANOTHER UPDATE: “As Jesus often said, ‘Let’s get the government to do something about it!’”

STEVE CROWDER: White House FAIL! The People Win…Now it’s Time to Keep Fighting.

JAMES TARANTO: Q: What’s the difference between the Associated Press and the Obama campaign? A: The AP admits the public is against it.

HAS THE MORTGAGE-MODIFICATION PLAN failed?

UPDATE: A reader emails: “When the present administration put the private sector, rather than trained, non-profit oriented bankruptcy judges, in charge of mortgage modification, what did they expect?”

L.A. TIMES: Americans’ faith in Obama fading: Poll.

DEBACLE, DISCONTINUED: Obama admin. to end cash for clunkers on Monday. Smart move — people were starting to wonder why they could handle healthcare when they can’t even deal with used cars.

How to sum it all up?

He's losing the Left, he never had the Right and the folks in the Middle are asking themselves, "Is this what I voted for?!"

Does He own it yet?

Poll results from Quinnipiac University. Take from it what you will...

-President's Job Approval Falls to 50%

-52% Disapprove on Health Care

-Right Track 35% Wrong Direction 64%

From CNN and equally interesting:

"Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"

Welcome to Earth!

Obama sees the bottom-side of 50% for the first time.

The first rule of holes is of course 'stop digging.' I don't expect however that the Administration will suddenly reverse on the very things that have helped drive those ratings down over the last 4 months.

Selling Healthcare Reform

From NRO with the attendant editorial on last night's press conference.

Hardly Schocking

At Politico today:


Trust in President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies to identify the right solutions to problems facing the country has dropped off significantly since March, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll.

Just as Obama intensifies his efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and reach an agreement with Congress on health care reform, the number of Americans who say they trust the president has fallen from 66 percent to 54 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who say they do not trust the president has jumped from 31 to 42.

The president’s party has taken a similar hit since the last Public Trust Monitor poll, with only 42 percent of respondents saying that they trust the Democratic Party, compared with 52 percent who do not. The party’s numbers are nearly the inverse of March’s survey, in which 52 percent said they trusted Democrats and 42 percent did not.

Obama’s personal approval rating has fallen below 60 percent in a number of recent major polls, and according to a Washington Post/ABC News survey out Monday, support for the president’s leadership on several key issues has fallen below 50 percent.

Not to beat the same drum but some of us right-wing troglodytes saw this coming. The Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training for a Neophyte Executive.

UPDATE: Gallup reports similar numbers. But this is my favorite...thats gonna leave a mark:

President Barack Obama's tumbling poll numbers have dipped below those of his predecessor George W. Bush at the same point in his White House tenure, according to a national poll released Tuesday.

A Pale Imitation

And far more disingenuous:

So the Obama administration is all for due process, as long as it produces the correct result. Obama already has said that Guantanamo detainees who cannot be successfully tried by military commissions or civilian courts can still be imprisoned indefinitely if they are considered too dangerous to release. Now Johnson is saying that even those who are prosecuted can be kept imprisoned regardless of the verdict. The only point of prosecuting them, it seems, is to create an impression of due process while continuing the Bush detention policies that Obama condemned during the campaign.

The Bush Administration was at least principled about their stand on these issues, like the actual policies or not. His successor continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth, in effect simultaneously condemning the very actions he autohorizes.

Does this leave as bad a taste in supporters mouths as it does in mine? Hopefully, people are noticing the disconnect between Presidential rhetoric and action.

Bush is a piker

It almost makes me long for the days of the "Bush cabal" screeds. The current administration makes Bush look like a piker:

Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year’s presidential election. . . . Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows.

(H/T Instapundit)

You wanted the Job...

From David Broder's column today:

Bush's silence has made it harder for Obama to keep the public focused on Bush as being responsible for our present difficulties -- the weak economy, the unsettled wars, the scandals of Guantanamo and the detainee program.

How many months before a new President owns the events of the day?

The Gambler

James Pethokoukis (one of the few econ reporters around who goes out of his way to write accessibly on his beat) wrote an interesting post at his new digs today about changes in public perception of President Obama's economic policies. Key points:

Okay, here’s the thing: Obama took a tremendous economic and political gamble last January. The new president had the option of putting forward a stimulus plan that would attempt to reverse or significantly dampen America’s terrible economic downturn ASAP. The quickest and most effective approach would have been a big cut in payroll taxes. For $800 billion, combined Social Security and Medicare taxes could have been slashed by 6 percentage points, or 40 percent. That would have put $1,500 in worker paychecks and, according to one credible study, increased employment by 4 million jobs in 2009.

Instead, Obama chose to listen to Rahm “Never let a crisis go to waste” Emanuel and put forward an $800 billion plan that advanced his healthcare, energy and education policy goals — but pretty much neglected the economy in 2009. Team Obama had to fully understand this. Indeed, a study from the Congressional Budget Office study — when led by current Obama budget chief Peter Orszag — concluded that an Obama-like economic stimulus package would be “totally impractical” because it would take so long to implement. (True enough, only seven percent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been doled out so far.)

Presidential gamble. In short, Obama wagered that the deluge of money coming from the Federal Reserve would do the heavy lifting as far as stabilizing the financial sector and keeping the already apparent recession from turning into a real disaster. Voters would, thus, continue to support his policies to assert more government control over healthcare, heavily regulate energy through a costly cap-and-trade program and further intervene into the financial industry.

The gamble appears to have failed miserably, both economically and politically. The terrible tale of the tape: a) the current downturn is arguably the worse since the Great Depression; b) household wealth has fallen by $14 trillion during the past two years, including the first quarter of 2009; c) while the economy may not shrink as much this quarter as it did in the previous three months (-5.7 percent) or the final quarter of 2008 (-6.3 percent), unemployment is soaring; d) Obama himself said the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year; d) even worse, the Federal Reserve sees it approaching 11 percent next year. (Recall, that the original White House economic analysis of the Obama economic plan never saw unemployment exceeding 8 percent if Obamanomics was passed by Congress.)

Falling public support. So now many Americans are rightfully wondering just what they are getting for that $800 billion, as well as massive budget deficits as far as the eye can see. And it goes beyond the mercurial world of polling. Pricey plans to deal with perceived climate change and healthcare are also appear on the ropes or are being scaled back as voters view them as lower priorities than job creation and taming out-of-control spending.

As a couple of the dissenting comments point out, the post includes a number of assertions yet to be proven. I thought however that overall the piece makes a good-faith analysis.

Is he right? No clue and my crystal ball is broken; only time will tell us that.

The more conspiratorial view would be that the President back-loaded the stimulus for obvious political reasons with most of the spending occurring in 2010-12. The question then is what do the economic numbers look like and if as bad as they may be, will people forgive the worst unemployment in a generation, the return of inflation and most-likely slow growth when stimulus spending starts in earnest?

The President may have in fact made that very bet.