We all remember Hillary Clinton's campaign advertisement in her primary contest with Barack Obama. It is 3 a.m. and the phone is ringing in the White House. There is an emergency brewing. "Who do you want to answer that phone?", asks Hillary. Someone who knows the world leaders and has been there (i.e. Hillary Clinton), or someone who does not (i.e. Barack Obama)?
Events are moving quickly in the West's nuclear stand off with Iran, and it is becoming more likely that the White House phone will soon be ringing. Iran's recently revealed second nuclear site facility and its weekend missile tests bring an Israeli military response much closer in time. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's tough and uncompromising speech at the United Nations with reference to Iran and the threat Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world, leaves no doubt where Israel stands. Should the up-coming October 1 talks between Iran and six global powers not produce real results, i.e. meaningful Iranian concessions or sanctions "that bite" (to use President Obama's own words), the timing of a military response, although there will never be a "good" time for such an action, could not be better from the Israeli perspective. The recent revelation of the new site, Iran's deception, and its missile launch tests, will likely bring Israel some global support in its desire to remove the Iranian nuclear threat.
So how will the phone call go? The caller will be Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will be informing President Obama that Israel is planning to launch military action against the Iranian nuclear sites in a few hours. American political support and possibly financial or military assistance will be sought. What will President Obama say?
It is my prediction that President Obama will support Israeli action. Why do I say this?
First, the President has been clear in his support for the State of Israel. He has never wavered in this, although there of course have been disagreements, for example over the continued settlement expansion.
Second, he has been firm in his resolve to prevent an Iran which has nuclear weapons. Once he determines that this cannot be accomplished through diplomatic routes, or through sanctions, which is his and everyone's preference, the military option is the only one left.
Third, I think President Obama is very tough minded. Although granted he has never been tested to the extent that he will be if the 3 a.m. telephone call comes, his resolve in dealing with other issues has been very strong. The bold economic moves which he pushed through including the bail outs and huge stimulus spending illustrates to me that when he thinks he is right, it is full steam ahead. He does not like to be embarrassed or undermined by others. When those, whether friends or not, become a political liability, they are gone. This has been true down from Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones, and most recently Governor David Patterson of New York. I recall the President's tone of voice when he was once questioned about Israeli self-defense actions against those firing rockets into Israel. He said something to the effect that if his two daughters were being threatened, he would take all necessary steps to protect them. There was a determination in his voice, one which told me that you do not fool with this guy. He is an iron fist in a velvet glove.
No-one wants the phone to ring at 3:00 am in the White House ever. But that is not the world in which we live. Let us see if I am right in predicting how President Obama will handle it.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
With Friends Like These
So, President Hugo Chavez thinks that the podium at the United Nations "doesn't smell like sulphur" now that the devil George Bush is not President of the United States. It "smells of hope".
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi also has high praise for President Obama wishing that he could stay as President of the United States "forever".
Now I cannot lay blame on President Obama if foreign tyrants admire him. After all, the President is widely liked and respected by all sorts of people. I do not know if the President feels some discomfort over the fact that sworn enemies of the United States are attracted to him, almost as if he personally stands apart from the county and the citizenry who elected him and who he represents. I will not question the motives of Chavez, Gaddafi, Ahmadenijad and others who effusively praise Obama, knowing perhaps that this praise cannot much help the President's standing with his own fellow countrymen. Perhaps the President himself has somewhat encouraged their devotion by so frequently publicly acknowledging how much has to be done to repair the United State's image abroad and to restore its credibility and honour. But I will not speculate as to that.
I would hope, however, then when world "leaders" of the calibre of Chavez and Gaddafi insult a past President and by implication the country that twice voted him into office, Obama will stand up and shout:
"Enough. I do not want your support and praise. I resent your condemnation of my country and those leaders who have led it before me. How dare you malign my country and my predecessor, as you do. In wishing that I become President for life, you better be careful for what you wish, because I am no friend of yours".
I would like to hear that speech, and in case I have missed it, I am glad that it was made.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi also has high praise for President Obama wishing that he could stay as President of the United States "forever".
Now I cannot lay blame on President Obama if foreign tyrants admire him. After all, the President is widely liked and respected by all sorts of people. I do not know if the President feels some discomfort over the fact that sworn enemies of the United States are attracted to him, almost as if he personally stands apart from the county and the citizenry who elected him and who he represents. I will not question the motives of Chavez, Gaddafi, Ahmadenijad and others who effusively praise Obama, knowing perhaps that this praise cannot much help the President's standing with his own fellow countrymen. Perhaps the President himself has somewhat encouraged their devotion by so frequently publicly acknowledging how much has to be done to repair the United State's image abroad and to restore its credibility and honour. But I will not speculate as to that.
I would hope, however, then when world "leaders" of the calibre of Chavez and Gaddafi insult a past President and by implication the country that twice voted him into office, Obama will stand up and shout:
"Enough. I do not want your support and praise. I resent your condemnation of my country and those leaders who have led it before me. How dare you malign my country and my predecessor, as you do. In wishing that I become President for life, you better be careful for what you wish, because I am no friend of yours".
I would like to hear that speech, and in case I have missed it, I am glad that it was made.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Polarization In Washington
Anyone who has been following the health care reform debate in the U.S. will be aware of how deeply divided and polarized the United States currently is. The debate has gone from discussing the issues of health care reform to analyzing the motives of those who are opposed to parts of the reform. There are some, like former President Carter, who attribute racism to some, if not much, of the opposition. The media of course loves this. Discussing racism is much more interesting to viewers than going through the provisions of a 200 plus health care reform bill. So the same panelists are dragged out every night on CNN ( David Gergen, James Carville, Mark Williams, Roland Martin etc.) to engage in a "knock em out, sock it out" argument about racist Americans. It's like a school yard fight. Students are much more interested in watching the fight and cheering on the combatants, then paying attention to reading, writing and arithmetic.
I find the racism charge somewhat overblown. Of course there are some persons in the United States who are racist and who do not like the President for this reason alone. This is similar to the argument that there are some people who are anti-Semites and who do not like Israel for this reason alone. But the argument that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is akin to the argument that all of those who oppose the President are racist. The fact that the President was elected by millions of white Americans and had a personal approval rating of close to 70% at one point seems to belie the racist theory. Did their approval of the President drop about 20 points because these people suddenly became racists or are they simply not happy with the President's performance?
There might be several reasons for the current polarization in the United States and it is undoubtedly not a new phenomenon. I would suggest one possible reason, and it is something I have commented upon before. It is President Obama's own rhetorical style or message. If you have been a follower of President Obama both during the primaries, the campaign and now his Presidency, you will realize that a major talking point of his is "change". Well change from what? To paraphrase the President from a variety of his speeches (and I do this from memory) it is change from the "failed policies and phoney arguments of the past". It is about cleaning house, getting rid of the " corrupt culture of Washington", getting rid of "corruption", "special interest group influence", lobbyists, tired old politics as usual, old distractions, political games, and so on. It is about "repairing" America's image abroad, and undoing the mistakes of the past. It's about fixing the disasters "inherited" from those who have gone before.
Now if you happen to be one of those people responsible for the bad old America, you are unlikely to take these comments well. If you were part of the previous Administration, or even part of the earlier Congress, which got America into its mess, you are unlikely to be pleased. If the President was looking for your support in fixing all the things that you had broken, he can forget it. As a previous administrator, I can tell you that the last thing you want to hear from your successor is how terrible a job you did and how the institution you led is now corrupt, bankrupt, and in need of major repair.
There is another way of course. You can be a bit more humble, gracious and if nothing else politically savy. The successor can talk about building on the strengths of the institution he inherited, on its past successes, on the important reforms which had been brought in, on the institution's excellent reputation and so on. You can congratulate and commend your predecessors for their hard work, rather than demean them either overtly or implicitly by pointing out how bad things had become under them and how hard they made it for you to get things back on track.
Unlike what some of you may think, I do not "hate" Obama. I think he is intelligent, a gifted orator, has some good policies, and is well-intentioned in terms of doing what he thinks needs to be done. However, I find his style of debate, in terms of the types of messages he sends, annoying, self-indulgent, arrogant, and, worst of all, counter-productive. America finds itself deeply divided and I do not think the President's message is likely to bring people together.
I find the racism charge somewhat overblown. Of course there are some persons in the United States who are racist and who do not like the President for this reason alone. This is similar to the argument that there are some people who are anti-Semites and who do not like Israel for this reason alone. But the argument that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is akin to the argument that all of those who oppose the President are racist. The fact that the President was elected by millions of white Americans and had a personal approval rating of close to 70% at one point seems to belie the racist theory. Did their approval of the President drop about 20 points because these people suddenly became racists or are they simply not happy with the President's performance?
There might be several reasons for the current polarization in the United States and it is undoubtedly not a new phenomenon. I would suggest one possible reason, and it is something I have commented upon before. It is President Obama's own rhetorical style or message. If you have been a follower of President Obama both during the primaries, the campaign and now his Presidency, you will realize that a major talking point of his is "change". Well change from what? To paraphrase the President from a variety of his speeches (and I do this from memory) it is change from the "failed policies and phoney arguments of the past". It is about cleaning house, getting rid of the " corrupt culture of Washington", getting rid of "corruption", "special interest group influence", lobbyists, tired old politics as usual, old distractions, political games, and so on. It is about "repairing" America's image abroad, and undoing the mistakes of the past. It's about fixing the disasters "inherited" from those who have gone before.
Now if you happen to be one of those people responsible for the bad old America, you are unlikely to take these comments well. If you were part of the previous Administration, or even part of the earlier Congress, which got America into its mess, you are unlikely to be pleased. If the President was looking for your support in fixing all the things that you had broken, he can forget it. As a previous administrator, I can tell you that the last thing you want to hear from your successor is how terrible a job you did and how the institution you led is now corrupt, bankrupt, and in need of major repair.
There is another way of course. You can be a bit more humble, gracious and if nothing else politically savy. The successor can talk about building on the strengths of the institution he inherited, on its past successes, on the important reforms which had been brought in, on the institution's excellent reputation and so on. You can congratulate and commend your predecessors for their hard work, rather than demean them either overtly or implicitly by pointing out how bad things had become under them and how hard they made it for you to get things back on track.
Unlike what some of you may think, I do not "hate" Obama. I think he is intelligent, a gifted orator, has some good policies, and is well-intentioned in terms of doing what he thinks needs to be done. However, I find his style of debate, in terms of the types of messages he sends, annoying, self-indulgent, arrogant, and, worst of all, counter-productive. America finds itself deeply divided and I do not think the President's message is likely to bring people together.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
"YOU MISSPEAK!"
Apparently the U.S. House of Representatives is poised to pass a Resolution expressing its "disapproval" of Representative Joe Wilson's behaviour during President Obama's speech to Congress last week. (UPDATE: IT HAS BEEN PASSED). As you will recall, Joe Wilson called the President of the United States, dare I write this word, "a liar".
Washington has been in quite a tizzy over this shocking breach of decorum. At times, the media seems far more concerned about it then the contents of the President's speech itself and the whole Health Care Reform, yet unseen, bill. And for good reason. After all, Representative Wilson called the President, if you can believe it, a "liar".
I was wondering whether there would have been such an outpouring of shock and dismay if Representative Wilson had used another word - you know, not the "l" word, but something else. A fashionable term these days is for people to say that they "misspoke", when something that they said is simply not true. For example, the President's Press Secretary, when confronted with the President's false statement that the AARP endorsed his Health Care bill, simply conceded that the President "misspoke". You hear the word a lot these days, when people are confronted with not having told the truth. So what if Joe Wilson simply yelled out "YOU MISSPEAK"?
Somehow "misspeaking" does not have the same pazzazz as "lying". If one were an academic studying this, one may say that lying is an "intentional" act of dishonesty, whereas "misspeaking" is only negligently or maybe even accidentally not telling the truth. The problem with this approach, however, is that the difference between an intentional untruth, a negligent untruth, or an accidental untruth, can be somewhat fuzzy. Moreover, how can one know for sure whether the untruth was intentional or not? Do we just take the liar/misspeaker's word for it? Way too complicated for me.
No, saying that someone "misspoke" rather than "lied" just doesn't do it. How does this sound, for example -
"You dirty, filthy misspeaker!"
"Don't you misspeak to me!".
"Misspeaker, misspeaker, pants on fire".
Doesn't work at all.
The incident drew contrasts with the Canadian Parliamentary system, where M.P.'s are hooting, shouting, laughing, and mocking each other all the time during debate. Congress, on the other hand, was a morgue during the President's speech, other than Joe Wilson's little outburst. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats were hooting it up, for sure, but the poor Republicans had to just sit there and take it. Never mind that the President was doing a pretty good job demeaning and insulting them for much of his address.
But even in Parliament, despite the general circus like environment, there are certain things Parliamentarians simply cannot say about each other. They certainly cannot call someone a "liar". But other forbidden insults have been "a trained seal", "a bag of wind", a "pig", a "sleaze bag", a "scuzzball", or a "pompous ass". It's not that these things can't be true characterizations - they just cannot be said.
So there you have it. While the United States is agonizing over health care reform, an incredibly gigantic debt, the war in Afghanistan, and is becoming an increasingly and disturbingly polarized country, Congress is worried about the President being called a "liar" and passing resolutions about it. Go figure.
Washington has been in quite a tizzy over this shocking breach of decorum. At times, the media seems far more concerned about it then the contents of the President's speech itself and the whole Health Care Reform, yet unseen, bill. And for good reason. After all, Representative Wilson called the President, if you can believe it, a "liar".
I was wondering whether there would have been such an outpouring of shock and dismay if Representative Wilson had used another word - you know, not the "l" word, but something else. A fashionable term these days is for people to say that they "misspoke", when something that they said is simply not true. For example, the President's Press Secretary, when confronted with the President's false statement that the AARP endorsed his Health Care bill, simply conceded that the President "misspoke". You hear the word a lot these days, when people are confronted with not having told the truth. So what if Joe Wilson simply yelled out "YOU MISSPEAK"?
Somehow "misspeaking" does not have the same pazzazz as "lying". If one were an academic studying this, one may say that lying is an "intentional" act of dishonesty, whereas "misspeaking" is only negligently or maybe even accidentally not telling the truth. The problem with this approach, however, is that the difference between an intentional untruth, a negligent untruth, or an accidental untruth, can be somewhat fuzzy. Moreover, how can one know for sure whether the untruth was intentional or not? Do we just take the liar/misspeaker's word for it? Way too complicated for me.
No, saying that someone "misspoke" rather than "lied" just doesn't do it. How does this sound, for example -
"You dirty, filthy misspeaker!"
"Don't you misspeak to me!".
"Misspeaker, misspeaker, pants on fire".
Doesn't work at all.
The incident drew contrasts with the Canadian Parliamentary system, where M.P.'s are hooting, shouting, laughing, and mocking each other all the time during debate. Congress, on the other hand, was a morgue during the President's speech, other than Joe Wilson's little outburst. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats were hooting it up, for sure, but the poor Republicans had to just sit there and take it. Never mind that the President was doing a pretty good job demeaning and insulting them for much of his address.
But even in Parliament, despite the general circus like environment, there are certain things Parliamentarians simply cannot say about each other. They certainly cannot call someone a "liar". But other forbidden insults have been "a trained seal", "a bag of wind", a "pig", a "sleaze bag", a "scuzzball", or a "pompous ass". It's not that these things can't be true characterizations - they just cannot be said.
So there you have it. While the United States is agonizing over health care reform, an incredibly gigantic debt, the war in Afghanistan, and is becoming an increasingly and disturbingly polarized country, Congress is worried about the President being called a "liar" and passing resolutions about it. Go figure.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Remembering The FLQ Crisis
Reading the news that portions of the "manifesto" of the Front de Liberation du Quebec (the "FLQ") will be read out during the commemoration of the Battle on The Plains of Abraham brings back vivid memories of living and working in Montreal during the FLQ crisis.
As I noted in my posting of February 16, 2009, the Battle on the Plains of Abraham between the French and British occurred 250 years ago. The British won and gained France's possessions in eastern North America. This year's event which was to commemorate this historic event included a dramatic re-enactment of the Battle. This outraged a group of separatists in Quebec, and the re-enactment was cancelled. The separatists did not want to be reminded of this "profoundly tragic" happening.
So someone came up with a better idea. Why not read some writings, some texts that have "shaped this corner of the world"? Included among these words are apparently excerpts from the "FLQ Manifesto". This document is the cornerstone of the FLQ crisis that gripped Canada, and particularly Quebec, in 1970. The FLQ claimed that although "not an aggressive movement", its goal was to purge Quebec society "for good of its gang of rapacious sharks, the big bosses who dish out patronage and their henchmen, who have turned Quebec into a private preserve of cheap labour and unscrupulous exploitation". It was time for Premier Bourassa to "get what's coming to him: 100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized!". The FLQ asserted that it had "had enough of promises of work and of prosperity, when in fact we will always by the diligent servants and bootlickers of the big shots...; we will be slaves until Quebeckers, all of us, have used every means, including dynamite and guns, to drive out these big bosses of the economy and of politics, who will stoop to any action however base, the better to screw us". It promised that "the day is coming when all the Westmounts of Quebec will disappear from the map". They were "prepared to go all the way" to achieve victory.
During the FLQ crisis, a British trade official (James Cross) was kidnapped, and a Quebec Cabinet Minister, Pierre Laporte, was murdered. The War Measures Act went into effect, army tanks were in the streets, hundreds were arrested. The crisis ended in a few months with the release of Cross and the deportation of the FLQ criminals to Cuba.
This was an interesting chapter in Canadian history. Having been born and raised in Montreal, I was a law student in McGill from 1967 - 1970 and was articling in a small law firm during the FLQ crisis. The air of crisis and terror was palpable. Pierre Laporte was a friend and client of the senior partner of the firm and his death was particularly shocking for us. I was a student during the March 1969 "Operation McGill Francais" when thousands of people marched to the gates of the university demanding that McGill become a Francophone university. I recall that the windows of the university buildings were boarded up, and everyone was evacuated from campus, in anticipation of potential destruction and violence. I recall soldiers with guns on roof tops, and searches before we could enter the court house. There was no love loss for Anglos, even from otherwise moderate persons, and the expression "maudit Anglais" (damned English) was an expression heard by me much too frequently.
The Province of Quebec, City of Montreal and Nation of Canada have come a long way since the FLQ Crisis. Montreal is a vibrant, fun, and international city. McGill is a great university which continues as an English university attracting students from all over Canada and the world. Both of our children, born and raised in Alberta, chose to go there for one of their degrees.
I haven't thought too much about the FLQ Crisis since I moved away from Quebec in 1972. The current "FLQ Manifesto reading" controversy has brought back some of the memories. Ironic, isn't it, that re-enacting the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was too painful for the separatists to bear, but reminding us all of the FLQ crisis and what the FLQ stood for and did, is just fine.
As I noted in my posting of February 16, 2009, the Battle on the Plains of Abraham between the French and British occurred 250 years ago. The British won and gained France's possessions in eastern North America. This year's event which was to commemorate this historic event included a dramatic re-enactment of the Battle. This outraged a group of separatists in Quebec, and the re-enactment was cancelled. The separatists did not want to be reminded of this "profoundly tragic" happening.
So someone came up with a better idea. Why not read some writings, some texts that have "shaped this corner of the world"? Included among these words are apparently excerpts from the "FLQ Manifesto". This document is the cornerstone of the FLQ crisis that gripped Canada, and particularly Quebec, in 1970. The FLQ claimed that although "not an aggressive movement", its goal was to purge Quebec society "for good of its gang of rapacious sharks, the big bosses who dish out patronage and their henchmen, who have turned Quebec into a private preserve of cheap labour and unscrupulous exploitation". It was time for Premier Bourassa to "get what's coming to him: 100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized!". The FLQ asserted that it had "had enough of promises of work and of prosperity, when in fact we will always by the diligent servants and bootlickers of the big shots...; we will be slaves until Quebeckers, all of us, have used every means, including dynamite and guns, to drive out these big bosses of the economy and of politics, who will stoop to any action however base, the better to screw us". It promised that "the day is coming when all the Westmounts of Quebec will disappear from the map". They were "prepared to go all the way" to achieve victory.
During the FLQ crisis, a British trade official (James Cross) was kidnapped, and a Quebec Cabinet Minister, Pierre Laporte, was murdered. The War Measures Act went into effect, army tanks were in the streets, hundreds were arrested. The crisis ended in a few months with the release of Cross and the deportation of the FLQ criminals to Cuba.
This was an interesting chapter in Canadian history. Having been born and raised in Montreal, I was a law student in McGill from 1967 - 1970 and was articling in a small law firm during the FLQ crisis. The air of crisis and terror was palpable. Pierre Laporte was a friend and client of the senior partner of the firm and his death was particularly shocking for us. I was a student during the March 1969 "Operation McGill Francais" when thousands of people marched to the gates of the university demanding that McGill become a Francophone university. I recall that the windows of the university buildings were boarded up, and everyone was evacuated from campus, in anticipation of potential destruction and violence. I recall soldiers with guns on roof tops, and searches before we could enter the court house. There was no love loss for Anglos, even from otherwise moderate persons, and the expression "maudit Anglais" (damned English) was an expression heard by me much too frequently.
The Province of Quebec, City of Montreal and Nation of Canada have come a long way since the FLQ Crisis. Montreal is a vibrant, fun, and international city. McGill is a great university which continues as an English university attracting students from all over Canada and the world. Both of our children, born and raised in Alberta, chose to go there for one of their degrees.
I haven't thought too much about the FLQ Crisis since I moved away from Quebec in 1972. The current "FLQ Manifesto reading" controversy has brought back some of the memories. Ironic, isn't it, that re-enacting the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was too painful for the separatists to bear, but reminding us all of the FLQ crisis and what the FLQ stood for and did, is just fine.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Burn After Signing
The latest in a number of dubious Obama high level appointees is Mr. Van Jones. Obama's so-called "green-jobs czar" resigned his position with Obama's Administration due to controversy surrounding his signature on a 2004 "911 Truth Statement" petition, as well as some choice words directed at Republicans.
I find the petition controversy the most interesting. In 2004 a so-called "alliance of 100 prominent Americans", as well as 40 family members of 9/11 victims, called "for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur". The Statement demanded "real answers about 9/11". The 12 questions suggested a "Bush administration cover up", and generally implied that the 9/11 tragedy may have been deliberately allowed to happen by "people within the current administration", "perhaps as a pretext for war".
Van Jones, who was executive director of the "Ella Baker Center for Human Rights", signed the "Truth Statement". Other well known signatories (at least well known to me) included actor Ed Asner, Daniel Ellsberg, Janeane Garofalo, Richie Havens, and Ralph Nader.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong about individuals questioning whether people in the US Administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. The idea that US Administration officials wanted thousands of Americans to die in a terrorist attack is abhorrent to me, but hey, in America people can believe whatever they want. Go for it. So if Mr. Van Jones wanted to put forth a 9/11 "conspiracy theory" along with others, that was his right.
But what is Van Jones' reaction to the news that he signed the petition? Did he stand by it, and explain why he felt that way at the time?
Oh no. He now states that he does not agree with the 9/11 truth statement and in fact he never did, even when he signed it. He evidently "did not carefully review the language in the petition before signing", according to an Obama source.
Give me a break! The Statement is as clear as day. Did he never read it? Does a person sign a short and concise highly provocative statement limited to 100 prominent signatories and posted on a web site without bothering to read it?
It's one thing for a person to express one's controversial views. It's another for that person to run and hide from them when they become inconvenient and embarrassing.
I find the petition controversy the most interesting. In 2004 a so-called "alliance of 100 prominent Americans", as well as 40 family members of 9/11 victims, called "for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur". The Statement demanded "real answers about 9/11". The 12 questions suggested a "Bush administration cover up", and generally implied that the 9/11 tragedy may have been deliberately allowed to happen by "people within the current administration", "perhaps as a pretext for war".
Van Jones, who was executive director of the "Ella Baker Center for Human Rights", signed the "Truth Statement". Other well known signatories (at least well known to me) included actor Ed Asner, Daniel Ellsberg, Janeane Garofalo, Richie Havens, and Ralph Nader.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong about individuals questioning whether people in the US Administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. The idea that US Administration officials wanted thousands of Americans to die in a terrorist attack is abhorrent to me, but hey, in America people can believe whatever they want. Go for it. So if Mr. Van Jones wanted to put forth a 9/11 "conspiracy theory" along with others, that was his right.
But what is Van Jones' reaction to the news that he signed the petition? Did he stand by it, and explain why he felt that way at the time?
Oh no. He now states that he does not agree with the 9/11 truth statement and in fact he never did, even when he signed it. He evidently "did not carefully review the language in the petition before signing", according to an Obama source.
Give me a break! The Statement is as clear as day. Did he never read it? Does a person sign a short and concise highly provocative statement limited to 100 prominent signatories and posted on a web site without bothering to read it?
It's one thing for a person to express one's controversial views. It's another for that person to run and hide from them when they become inconvenient and embarrassing.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Obama's Approval Ratings Tumble
I have pointed out in earlier postings how President Obama's personal approval ratings were much higher than approval of his policies, and wondered when this gap would be narrowed. Would Americans continue to strongly approve of the President's performance even though they did not like his policies as much? It appears that the answer to that question is "no".
Polls indicate a steep drop in the President's job approval by Americans. The Rasmussen poll shows for example that only 45% of those polled approve of the President's job performance while 53% disapprove. Gallup Daily tracking shows the President's job approval at 50%. This is a drop of 19% from his high of 69%. The Zogby Interactive Poll shows that 48% disapprove of the President's performance with only 42% approving. Zogby also points out that the sharp drop came from Democrats and from young voters.
The drop in Obama's job approval rating is particularly serious for him because he has yet to deal decisively with two huge problems - health care reform and the war in Afghanistan. One might have thought that with the economy apparently improving and the country backing away from the brink of depression, Obama's popularity would still be high. Not so. The health care reform proposals floating around, especially the public insurance option, are not popular with voters. So if Obama proceeds to push them through, assuming he even can, this should add to his negative numbers. The war in Afghanistan is "Obama's War". He has been campaigning for an aggressive US involvement there even before he became President. Yet it seems that popular support for this military engagement is not strong. So what is Obama to do? Back away from his war, or go full steam ahead?
Here is some trivia. Answer the following questions before you check out the figures.
One:
How long did it take George W Bush to fall below 50% after getting elected?
(a) 6 months
(b) two years
(c) three years
Two:
If Obama falls below 50% before November (and some polls already show him to be well below that), how would this compare to previous Presidents since World War II?
(a) it would place him in the average range
(b) it would be the fastest drop to below 50% ever
(c) it would be the third fastest drop to below 50% ever
Three:
What is the average time it takes to drop below 50%?
(a) 12 months
(b) 18 months
(c) 23 months
For answers, see the Gallup Poll.
Polls indicate a steep drop in the President's job approval by Americans. The Rasmussen poll shows for example that only 45% of those polled approve of the President's job performance while 53% disapprove. Gallup Daily tracking shows the President's job approval at 50%. This is a drop of 19% from his high of 69%. The Zogby Interactive Poll shows that 48% disapprove of the President's performance with only 42% approving. Zogby also points out that the sharp drop came from Democrats and from young voters.
The drop in Obama's job approval rating is particularly serious for him because he has yet to deal decisively with two huge problems - health care reform and the war in Afghanistan. One might have thought that with the economy apparently improving and the country backing away from the brink of depression, Obama's popularity would still be high. Not so. The health care reform proposals floating around, especially the public insurance option, are not popular with voters. So if Obama proceeds to push them through, assuming he even can, this should add to his negative numbers. The war in Afghanistan is "Obama's War". He has been campaigning for an aggressive US involvement there even before he became President. Yet it seems that popular support for this military engagement is not strong. So what is Obama to do? Back away from his war, or go full steam ahead?
Here is some trivia. Answer the following questions before you check out the figures.
One:
How long did it take George W Bush to fall below 50% after getting elected?
(a) 6 months
(b) two years
(c) three years
Two:
If Obama falls below 50% before November (and some polls already show him to be well below that), how would this compare to previous Presidents since World War II?
(a) it would place him in the average range
(b) it would be the fastest drop to below 50% ever
(c) it would be the third fastest drop to below 50% ever
Three:
What is the average time it takes to drop below 50%?
(a) 12 months
(b) 18 months
(c) 23 months
For answers, see the Gallup Poll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
