Obamaville July 7, 2014 - Who can run faster - away from the president?

.

The Obama Foreign Policy Process

So here in the political capital (yes the spelling is right) of America there is a new game in town and it is who can run the fastest away from the policies of President Barack Obama. You might have noticed that the Obama favorability ratings have been in free fall since his re-election in 2012.

Now that his negatives have passed his positives and the people of America seem to be wondering just what it is he actually stands for there seems to be a stampede of liberals, people and institutions, running away from any responsibility for the Obama presidency.

Once upon a time such turncoats were known as hypocrites and scorned but since the list of hypocrites includes people and institutions who were once darlings of the left I guess we have to consider them enlightened.

With no apparent concept of the mechanics of the policy development and implementation process and having been abandoned by all those Obama mouthpieces who used to be around and told him what to think and say, you might say who ran interference with the media, the Obama administration is clearly adrift when it comes to coherent messaging and purpose.

There are times when presidential decisions seem to be made with an Ouija Board rather than any decision-making process.  And at times it seems as if the Dark Side is controlling the Board.  Such is the mystery of the presidential policy process.

As for the runners away:

Hillary Clinton - Her calculated ambitions to lock everyone out of the Democratic nomination for president keep running into speed bumps when it comes to her relationship with Obama.  She did lose to him then agree to be a loyal partner as his Secretary of State.  It has come back to haunt her stumbling presidential coronation as the Obama foreign policy, which she directed, has collapsed in the eyes of the public.  It will take a diversion as good as husband Bill Clinton pulled off to avoid impeachment when he was president to get out of responsibility for the Obama foreign affairs fiasco.

Bill Clinton - Lo and behold the other Clinton has also gone silent on what used to be his lukewarm support for the guy who beat his wife in the 2008 election.  Let's face it, after the rough and tumble primary it was probably the endorsement by Bill Clinton and his work to get Obama elected that propelled Barack into the presidency.  The same effort was critical to getting Obama re-elected.  Now Bill has to make all that go away to help his wife.

Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi - The Democrat leaders of the Senate and House never seem to mention Barack Obama as if that would make him fade away in the minds of the public.  But there is a massive record of all the times they served as water boy and girl to the president, defended his actions, and supported his failures during the past six years so in their cases silence is golden.

The chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, DNC, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida - She was handpicked by Obama to defend him against the dastardly Republicans, and also seems to have adopted the "out of mind out of sight" approach to public relations.  Once upon a time her face was all over the media defending her president but those days seem long gone and after the exasperation it must have caused her it came not a moment too soon.

The New York Times and The Washington Post - These Citadels of liberal Main Street media have changed their tune from Obama apologists to nitpickers about the failure of the president to live up to his liberal agenda promises.  In particular they seem surprised and upset about the massive failure in the Obama foreign relations.

Stay tuned because we still have 2 1/2 more years to report on.

.

From Main Street to News Media - This is What the Obama Polls Mean!

.

He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help.
Abraham Lincoln

Today the national and cable news is wondering how President Barack Obama can have a relatively high favorable rating when the general public is solidly against all the Obama policies. In fact the public believes the president is dead wrong on 10 of 12 national issues.

Well if the media ever got out of their ivory towers they would know the truth. The public elected the president to break one of the last racial barriers in America and prove to the rest of the world that we live by the Constitution that guarantees equal rights to all.

A favorable rating means little in terms of government policy and for the media eggheads in our nation's capitol who still believe the sun rises and sets in Washington, get real! The day Obama took office he had accomplished the mission most Americans expected of him, he became our first Black president. From that day on nothing more was expected.

As Obama settled into the role of "just another politician" and greased the flow of campaign money into the Democrat coffers the media and White House started misreading the tea leaves. Obama's agenda was never in touch with America, he placed a dozen social issues over the economy, jobs and the deficit.

The result was his poll numbers faded like that of all professional politicians. So why does his favorable rating seem abnormally high compared to the total rejection of the public of the Obama agenda? First of all, since his disapproval is higher than his approval I find it ridiculous that the media sees it as so high.

But the real story is this. After it became clear to the public that Obama had an agenda far removed from the will of the people, the people determined that his performance had no relationship to his favorable rating. They have no expectations of what he will accomplish because they know he is just another politician like the rest. If nothing more is expected you should have a favorable rating.

What our misguided media gurus really refuse to acknowledge is how little they understand the public. The media continue to compare the Democrats to the Republicans as if that is all there are in America when the public long ago rejected the two parties as representative of their mood. The media trashes any breach of their two party approach yet history tells us the people have never embraced just two parties.

In the last 50 years thanks to the media and professional politicians the two parties have been protected by the most discriminatory laws that still exist. Independents or third party movements face the most unfair, biased and discriminatory laws since Blacks were denied the right to vote. In the 150 years before the two party stranglehold on the American electoral process there were always three major parties and often there were four on the ballot.

Any effort by a Ross Perot or Tea Party to try and break through the political straight jacket is viciously attacked by the media acting as the surrogates for the political hacks that rule America. In most states the Independent voter is not eligible to vote in the primary because the primary is only for Democrats and Republicans. In the few states where Independents can participate they usually have to join one of the two parties for the day in order to vote.

The Independent voter in America is more disenfranchised than Blacks or Hispanics. Yet every year more and more Americans abandon the Democrats and Republicans and join the Independent movement that has been growing since Ross Perot nearly broke the stranglehold 18years ago. In truth, Perot is the Godfather of the modern Independent movement.

Yet modern Independents, who join parties like the GOP in order to even get on the ballot, are treated like second class citizens by the news media. Just today the liberal media was laughing about all the "odd ball" candidates that won primaries and are on the ballot come November 2. Odd balls? I thought any American citizen could run for office, not just the political elite. I thought grassroots candidates always were the best reflection of the mood of the people.

So why do the news media label them odd balls and try and undermine their efforts to get elected? It can only be because the media has such a cozy relationship to the professional politicians they want to protect the Obama, Pelosi, Reid and even Republicans who are card carrying members of the good old boy network.

Now here is the real insight from Main Street. There is a reason that the only group that approaches our politicians in Congress for the lowest favorable rating in America is, of course, the news media. There is a reason Main Street trusts the citizen bloggers more than the news media for getting the truth. And there is a reason Main Street knows the news media is driven by entertainment rather than truth, and by bias and polarization rather than facts.

Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and force a new one that suits them better.
Abraham Lincoln

The media elitists share the same bottom dwelling position as the politicians because long ago they lost their objectivity and choose ratings over truth, revenue over integrity and egos over honesty. I say good for America! The sooner we break the two party stranglehold and the news media domination of our nation's capitol the sooner we can have hope and inspiration for the future.

Odd Balls are American compared to elitists in the media and politics.  In fact, by today's standards Abraham Lincoln would have been an odd ball as he had no formal education, minimum social skills, was rather tall and gawky and was a candidate from a fourth party on the ballot.  We would never have had America's greatest president if odd balls weren't elected.  Elect Odd Balls - things can't get any worse!
.

Nation's Capitol Hit by Largest Earthquake Ever as Sarah Palin surges in Poll to tie Obama

.


The largest earthquake ever recorded within 30 miles of Washington, D.C. rattled the capital early Friday just as a Public Policy Poll was released showing Sarah Palin has now tied Obama for the first time in a head to head match up for 2012 with each receiving 46% of the vote.

This poll by a Democrat leaning organization showed all major GOP candidates tied or ahead of Obama as storm clouds on the election horizon continue to overshadow any achievements touted by the White House. It is not a good omen for the 2010 midterm elections as the Democrats tied to Obama are in danger of losing heavily, perhaps even losing control of the House and Senate.



As for the Palin quake, it hit at 5:04 a.m. ET with a magnitude of 3.6, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It was centered near Rockville, Md., the USGS National Earthquake Information Center said. NBC News reported that the quake was felt in the D.C.-area, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Amy Vaughn, a spokesperson for USGS, told WRC-TV that the quake was the largest recorded within 50 kilometers (31 miles) of Washington since a database was created in 1974.



In terms of the Public Policy Poll, the organization said every Republican candidate we polled this month saw a peak in favorability. In individual match ups the gap closed between Obama and his potential Republican competitors this month. This is the first month since we began polling on the 2012 election that Obama is behind or tied with a majority of the Republican candidates.

According to the poll, Obama "trails Mitt Romney 46-43, Mike Huckabee 47-45, Newt Gingrich 46-45, and is even tied with Sarah Palin at 46.



In yet another polling triumph Sarah Palin gave more reason for liberals to have a stress test as she was in first place among GOP candidates for President in her favorable rating at 76%, higher than those for Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Bobby Jindal. See the following Gallup Poll.

July 16, 2010

Palin's 76% Favorable Among Republicans Tops Others in GOP



PRINCETON, NJ -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the best known and most positively rated of five possible contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Her 76% favorable rating among Republicans is higher than those for Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Bobby Jindal.

Even more bad news. Among all voters in the US Palin continues to lead all Republican candidates in favorable rating and is tied with the Obama favorable ratings.



Frank Newport of Gallup says Palin has the strongest name identification and positives among Republicans at this juncture. Only 4% say they don't know enough about her to have an opinion, and, by more than 3-to-1, those opinions are positive rather than negative.

While it is early, way too early to project election impact in 2012, her position at the top of the charts for both Republican voters and the public at large is quite amazing.

With the national media suddenly realizing she continues to be a thorn in the side of Obama in spite of the fact she has never run for president, is not a candidate for any office and is not even a public office holder gives credibility to the Tea Party movement and the Palin appeal.

Stay tuned for more intensive efforts to trash Pain by the old boys network and the liberal left. Maybe one day the left will report on just Palin and her policy instead of every bit of trivia trash about her and her family they can manufacture or find no matter what the cost. Then the people can judge her fairly.

.

President Obama Popular but Policy Suffers in Polls. Why?

.


What is this dichotomy in the most recent polls? The popularity of Congress sinks to the lowest levels ever recorded while Obama remains in fairly safe territory. The top politician in America has separated himself from the Washington politicians, he's not one of them. A Democrat as president and Congress under the control of Democrats, yet Obama is not considered one of the politicians in the eyes of the public.

Politics being what it is, there is a never ending fascination with the polls and the meaning of polls which I have been just as guilty of as the next person. There may be a difference however. For several decades I have worked with polls, refining polls, adapting them between politics and use by the business community, and figuring out ways the public tricks the pollsters.



All the way back to the days I was involved with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and developed new ways to scientifically measure pockets of poverty in metropolitan areas. Then there was time with the Census Bureau and the development of the computerized census and address coding guide. Even to the initial testing of the technique of measured perception analysis for polling of focus groups or onsite campaign groups. I never tired of trying to reduce the range of probability in polls to the lowest common denominator.

If a poll is done right it can tell an incredible story. Most aren't. If the questions in a poll are truly unbiased and nothing is done to influence answers, meaningful results can be generated. But most don't do that either. Most polls serve a master, the one paying for the poll, and can easily be slanted to get the results desired. This is not to say there are no valid polls. Some pollsters have real, scientific methods they use to accurately collect data. Most don't.



Be that as it may, when many different polls serving many different interests give similar results, like the favorable rating of Congress hitting rock bottom while the favorable rating of the president from the same party (Democrat) as most members of Congress tracks at 43-50% favorable consistently, then there is likely some truth in the obvious conclusion. Simply stated, people like Obama as a person and think Congress stinks.



Now I didn't say just the Democrats in Congress stink, although I suspect Majority Speaker Pelosi may lead the pack in negative ratings, because most people don't distinguish between political parties when they think of the Congress, they just think all the politicians in Washington stink. So bad news for Republicans, if you don't do something to help fix this country now and prove you are not just more of the same old politicians in Washington, then you are going to sink right down to the bottom of the cesspool with your Democrat colleagues in Congress.



I think the recent poll on MSNBC by Gallup, I believe, most recently demonstrated that the Democrat liberals were looking for a way to prove their outrageous claim that the Republicans were to blame for the hatred and threats against members of Congress. They believed a quick poll showing the public did blame those nasty Republicans for the violence and threats would help the Democrats in the fall elections.

But the set up backfired when the public, in the liberal's own poll, showed the public indeed blamed the Democrats (49%) more than the Republicans (43%). In the eyes of the public clearly the Democrats suffered more because the public did not buy the liberal line.



Obama, on the other hand, has enjoyed a rather good favorable rating in spite of the turmoil and the bitter controversy around him. More important, it is in spite of the fact the majority of people don't like his policies. America, all of America and that includes the places outside the Washington beltway, is not liberal. If anything this country is moderate to conservative as a whole.

Right now the public links Obama policy with the left leaning liberal causes. But I'm not quite so sure. We know he is a Harvard guy, and we know that Harvard from the Ivy League has produced 8 US presidents. In all 13 presidents have come from the Ivy League with Yale in second place with 5 presidents. It was time for a change. Yale presidents have been in charge the last 20 years straight, it is time to give someone else a chance.



Harvard will not count against Obama (meaning the arrogant or silver spoon perception of the Ivy League in the public eye), though people are more than a little suspicious of the motives and means of Ivy Leaguers. This just means the Ivy League schools do not like their alumni to look bad and they have quite the extended support system to protect their reputation. We can usually count on a Harvard, Yale or Princeton to straighten out one of their own if the president doesn't get it.

Now Obama may be their best work to date. Not because he broke the historic racial barrier. Not because he came out of nowhere with some mighty powerful help. Not even because it seems the longer he governs the less he seems to espouse a distinct philosophical leaning and the more he seems to be willing to compromise in order to do what he thinks the country needs to do.



His attitude of avoiding controversy and refusing to champion liberal causes may have cost him the support of his active and extensive liberal base but could open the door to achieving success as president. It was a lesson that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Sr. and Clinton all mastered with great success. The old adage that a great compromiser is the one who, when he can't get what he wants, will take what he can get, is starting to fit Obama and a pleasant change that may be.



Today Obama announced he agreed with Sarah Palin's campaign battle cry, "drill baby drill," and said he would free up much of the waters on the East Coast, and tracts in Alaska and the Gulf for offshore oil drilling. It was a dagger to the heart of liberal environmentalists but music to the ears of moderate Americans who know we can achieve energy independence with our own oil and natural gas among other things.

Of course the policy reversal by Obama left both the liberal Democrats and Republicans sort of dumbfounded. Then the GOP fed us the standard, knee jerk reaction saying it was not good enough. On the other side of the aisle the liberal Democrats must have fumed at the news of their Chosen One agreeing with Sarah Palin but, at least they fumed quietly.



What Obama proposed did not address natural gas and should, but he never said it could not be changed to address what was missing, like natural gas. I mean he does have to keep a few bargaining chips on the table to demonstrate leadership and have a better negotiating position for getting the new energy policy into law. Still, what he proposed was a heck of a lot better than what we have today.



I figure Obama has offered two olive branches to the Republicans, with nuclear expansion and offshore oil drilling, to make up for kicking their butts on health care. Now if the Republicans just realized that Obama is willing to play the game of compromise and worked with the president instead of opposing the president, then Congress might actually accomplish more than health care the first two years and with a lot less whining by Congress.



Unfortunately, that might be asking for a lot. How entrenched is the GOP in the mantra "No" to anything the president may propose? It could be a golden opportunity for the GOP or a huge, lost chance to reverse their fortunes in the fall elections.



Is Obama sincere in wanting to work with the GOP and really willing to compromise, as it looks on the surface? If he reverts to being a partisan mouthpiece again like he has acted on occasion as president, there is little chance of success.

The need for action and reform is here and now. The scope of problems in need of action and reform is mind bending. Darn near everything our government does needs reform, often extensive. Some of our programs, including social programs, are beyond reform and need to be closed down. Long ago they outlived their usefulness.



Only a Democrat president like Obama will ever have the chance to take the needed actions and make the many reforms in the social and liberal areas. The strength of the special interests on the left far surpasses their low level of public support or success as a social experiment. Yet somehow they have stopped the Republicans, even when the GOP controlled Congress, from changing many liberal laws.

I suspect they will go along with Obama's radical move to the middle because they would rather have a friend in the White House than an enemy. If they were to have a flight of conscious and keep supporting their president even if he did not agree with them on everything, Obama could have good success.



Many momentous decisions are just ahead for the politicians in Washington. The public is watching with more than a little curiosity. Quite a few political careers could be on the line. It all depends on who makes the effort to listen to the public, living safely outside the beltway, and knowing that in the end, it is their vote that will determine our future, not the votes of Congress.

And that is the lesson in the polls. People are willing to give Obama a chance. For Pete's sake it is not in the nature of the American public to want their president to fail. It is only in the nature of the politicians and news media, yes those special interests, who need controversy to sell news. [I use that term loosely, "news", for it is about the strangest institution there is to define.]

Helping Obama get new laws and reforms passed that the Republicans agree with is not going to help the Democrats in the fall elections. The public does not see the president in the same dull light as Democrats in Congress. What such new laws do mean, on the other hand, is that this president does not think as a liberal, left-leaning ideologue but will put the good of the country above his own personal views.



It is an interesting new paradigm in politics. When a president can risk or even sacrifice the support of their own base to do what is best for America, it is a rare occasion in politics.

.