Doc's Talk: Obama's Steep Uphill Reelection Battle

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Obama's Steep Uphill Reelection Battle

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought"
"Israel Hayom" Newsletter, November 17, 2011
http://www.theettingerreport.com/OpEd/OpEd---Israel-Hayom/Obama-s-Steep-Uphill-Reelection-Battle.aspx

Irrespective of the uninspiring slate of Republican presidential candidates, President Obama is facing a steep uphill reelection battle.

The predicament of Obama's presidency was highlighted during its best possible week – following the May 2, 2011 elimination of Bin Laden – which produced a meager, soft a short-term bonus of 6%, bouncing Obama to 52% approval rating, before sliding down towards 40%.

From a 69% approval rating "coattail President" on inauguration day, January 20, 2009, Obama collapsed to a 43% "anchor-chained President" on November 13, 2011, according to Gallup. From 44%, Obama's strong nucleus of support has shrunk to a meager 25%, while his strong nucleus of opposition has expanded from 14% to 40%, according to the "Rasmussen Report." Compared with the approval rating of recent US Presidents - during November of their third year in office – Obama is lagging behind, along with his role-model, one-term President, Jimmy Carter: G.W. Bush – 52%, Clinton – 53%, G.H. W. Bush – 55%, Reagan – 53%, Carter – 40%, Nixon – 49%, JFK – 58% and Eisenhower – 78%. In fact, President Obama's numbers are more concerning than those of non-elected President Ford, who zoomed to 71% upon replacing the impeached President Nixon, crashed to 50% upon pardoning Nixon and deteriorated to 47% following the 1974 midterm election, remaining at 45%-50% until his defeat in the November 1976 election.
Notwithstanding Obama's Nobel Prize for Peace and 63% approval rating on countering-terrorism, a victory in November 2012 depends, almost entirely, on his own domestic track record, rather than his Republican challenger's track record. An Obama victory would require a dramatic alteration of the current economic and political landscape in the USA, or an "October Surprise." Barring an exceptionally qualified, or disqualified, challenger, reelection campaigns are the incumbent president's to win or to lose.

While the power of incumbency provided sufficient tailwind for the reelection of 21American presidents, the only three presidents who have lost a second term bid since 1932 were hindered by a series of failures and/or mishaps, not nearly as dramatic as those confronting Obama.

G. H.W. Bush lost the 1992 reelection campaign, despite his glamorous foreign policy posture, the collapse of the USSR during his term and the astounding 88% approval rating following the 1991 Gulf War. He lost to Clinton, a largely unknown governor of a small state, because of an economic recession, 7% unemployment and $290BN deficit (4.7% of GDP), the broken pledge of "read my lips, no new taxes," the effectiveness of "it's the economy stupid," the rising violence in inner cities and his well-known preference of international - over domestic – issues.

Jimmy Carter lost his 1980 reelection campaign to Reagan whose qualifications were in doubt. Carter lost, regardless of his image as a global peacemaker, due to an economic slowdown which was intensified by a global energy crisis, surging inflation and interest rates, and a general sense of national despair and pessimism, fueled by Carter's own style and the humiliating hostage-taking of the US embassy staff in Teheran.

Gerald Ford lost the 1976 reelection campaign to "Jimmy Who?" (Carter), a semi-anonymous governor of a southern State. Ford lost in spite of ending the Vietnam War and advancing détente with the USSR and China. He lost due to his pardoning of Nixon, the adverse effects of the Nixon-caused national trauma, the depressed economy, high inflation and the chronic energy shortages.

Just like the three one-termers, during their fourth year, Obama has no lock on his reelection.

In 2008, candidate Obama ran as a centrist, and therefore carried the independent sector, which is the most critical voting bloc – about a third of the constituents. In 2008, he was supported by 62% of independents, compared with 39% in November, 2011. In 2008, Obama was supported by Collin Powell and other moderate Republicans, in 2011 he is perceived as a liberal, while most constituents are center and right-of-center. Self-identified conservatives outnumber liberals 2:1 and most Democrats are not liberal. In 2008, the turnout of young and Afro-American voters peaked as a result of peaked expectations. In 2011, the turnout is expected to diminish to the lower traditional levels, as a result of a peaked disappointment. In 2008, liberal constituents were charged with unprecedented enthusiasm. In 2011, Gallup documents the highest number of conservative voters since 1994, exceeding the number of moderates and twice as many as liberals. In 2008, 78% of American Jews voted for Obama. In 2011, there is a growing disenchantment among the Jewish electorate with Obama's policy, in general, and policy toward Israel, in particular. The 2010 reapportionment has netted the "McCain States" twelve electorates, in addition to the pick-up of two electorates by Florida, which could switch-over to the Republican column, along with other "battleground" states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and even New Jersey, where Obama's popularity is plunging.

Most importantly, "it's the economy stupid!" No American president has been reelected, since 1960, with unemployment above 7.2%, especially when experiencing a 9%+ unemployment, a "U-shaped" economic meltdown, a paralyzing sense of uncertainty, a possible double-dip, a collapse of the housing market, a staggering price at the pump, a shrinking disposable income, high inflation rates, a shaky stock market, no real GDP growth, an all time high debt, which approaches GDP.

Democrats on Capitol Hill constitute an effective barometer of Obama's electoral fortunes. They are reluctant to support his initiatives, since they are apprehensive about a possible reoccurrence of their 2010 midterm devastation, which was caused by the Obama-Effect.

Irrespective of the aforementioned steep hurdles on the path of Obama to reelection, he could still win reelection, provided that dramatic developments occur before November 2012.

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought: US-Israel Initiative"
www.TheEttingerReport.com

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk