Dick Morris said the other night that by the end of 2009, Obama's approval rating will be 25 percent.

Why are we looking forward to see those ratings fall? Yes, disagreements about health care and so on will always be there. But that doesn't necessarily mean Obama will lose much support..

"Obama's approval rating will fall. 70+ percent of the country doesn't agree on all that much. "

Eisenhower managed to keep sky high approval rating for much of his administration.

I've been operating on the assumption that Obama is essentially a reincarnated Eisenhower, and will maintain high approval ratings as a national unity figure.

The implications of all this for the left and for Democrats are not good, but most of the left won't figure this out for years.

And surely I wasn’t the only person who winced at reports about the luxurious beach house the Obamas have rented, not because there’s anything wrong with the first family-elect having a nice vacation, but because symbolism matters, and these weren’t the images we should be seeing when millions of Americans are terrified about their finances. - Paul Krugman

This post reminds me of one Ezra wrote toward the end of the Democratic primary. I may be flubbing the details, but my memory of it was that its main point was that Obama's superior favorability advantage over Hillary was irrelevant because the GOP hadn't taken on Obama yet and that, once they did, his ratings would resemble hers. Now, of course, we know that Ezra was mistaken. Despite the GOP's many and varied attempts to tar him as a radical socialist who pals around with terrorists, Obama brushed it off, stayed largely above the fray and won the election with 56% favorable/39% unfavorable ratings (vs. 49/44 for HRC at the end of May).

That's not to say that Ezra's going to be wrong again here; Obama's 70% approval ratings will surely fall. But I wouldn't be so quick to overlook Obama's unique likeability and the way in which he achieves it (namely, by respecting the other side and being more inclusive). It's a trait that I expect will serve his Presidency -- and, by extension, moderate liberalism -- well.

"They sit atop that peak not because he's managed to defuse the debates that split our country, but because he's not had to engage them yet. "

This statement can not be disputed. He keeps trying to play both ends against the middle. That has a limited shelf life. Whether it is Warren, healthcare or other issues, the reality is that his approval ratings will go down because reality will set in. Right now, he can play the same role he played in the election- act as the Rorschach blot. Once in office, we are no longer comparing rhectoric against rhectoric. In office, we are comparing actions. With Warren, I am becoming concerned that he believes his own hype. The danger of Bush was not just that he had bad policies and evil henchmen, but also that he believed his own hype. Obama seems to be of the same kind of personality. That's a dangerous quality.

"The danger of Bush was not just that he had bad policies and evil henchmen, but also that he believed his own hype. Obama seems to be of the same kind of personality."

How did someone stupid enough to come up with this comment ever learn how to type it?

Petey,

Eisenhower succeeded because he kept FDR policies in place.

Obama, on the other hand, has been clear in stating he doesn't think FDR policies are appropriate for the times we live in. Instead Obama's cabinet picks appear to indicate that Obama thinks a reworked neo-liberal economic policy similar to the past 30 years is the answer.

Given the ever increasing economic disruption caused by the cessation of FDR's policies and the declining real income of average Americans, I think Obama spends too much time listening to those who have benefited from the neo-liberal's economic policies of trade/budget/tax imbalance. I would be very surprised if Obama breaks with the economic policies set forth by Jarvis, Milton & Reagan. Obama's a tweaker, not a visionary like FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson...all of whom worked to make government work for the people.

The current crop of presidents are far too beholden to their masters to walk the line with giants.

BTW,

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/brainiacs/eisenhowerinterstate.htm

Why President Dwight D. Eisenhower unnderstood We Needed the Interstate System

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, liked highways, had built roads when he was Governor of New York, and took a personal interest in the early studies of the Interstate System. He signed the law in 1944 that called for selecting an Interstate System, and he wanted the program ready for construction after World War II so there would be lots of jobs for soldiers when they came home.

[I] n 1950, just as things were calming down and President Truman finally could have done something about the Interstate System, the United States joined the United Nations in a military action in Korea, and so the country had to shift again to wartime.
The Interstate System just couldn’t catch a break!

That’s where President Eisenhower came in. He had some unique experiences that gave him a special understanding of how important roads are.

The first was in 1919 he heard about the U.S. Army’s Cross-Country Motor Transport Train. The plan was to send a convoy of 80 or so trucks and other military vehicles across the country. The convoy would take the most famous road of the day, the Lincoln Highway, which ran between New York City and San Francisco, California. The Army wanted to know if motor vehicles, which had been used in combat on since 1916, could stand the trip.

Sixty-two days after leaving Washington, the convoy reached San Francisco on September 5, crossed San Francisco Bay on two ferries, then paraded through that city to Lincoln Park. Everyone received a medal—and listened to more speeches before being dismissed. (Today, a cross-country trip on the Interstate System takes about 5 days.)

Eisenhower remembered this experience his whole life. He called the trip “difficult, tiring, and fun.” President Eisenhower said:

The old convoy had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land. This was one of the things that I felt deeply about, and I made a personal and absolute decision to see that the nation would benefit by it.

Petey typed: "The implications of all this for the left and for Democrats are not good, but most of the left won't figure this out for years."

Doesn't matter. The relevant demographics, over a 10 to 20-year time frame, are entirely in the Democrats' favor. The GOP is now in the same death-sprial as the Whigs were. They're done.

"Doesn't matter. The relevant demographics, over a 10 to 20-year time frame, are entirely in the Democrats' favor. The GOP is now in the same death-sprial as the Whigs were. They're done." - George Smiley

Unless of course an alternative for the left arises...like a truly liberal third party, in which case everything the "experts" predict will be wrong. But what the hell, Democrats should keep dissing the left, running ever more right wing policies/politicos and see what happens.

I mean what could go wrong?

Brew:

I am goign to humor you for a sec to see if yo are just as troll or dick.

Well, you must be brilliant. So let me flesh it out for the rest.

Con artist , for example, often suceed at what they do because they are only able to lie, but are smart enough to realize they are lying. Politicians are con artists. Part of their job is lying to people to weld political power.

If you disagree with this statement, then I realize I am not dealing with someone political intelligent. Do you disagree with the the idea that politicians must lie, Brew?

Like the con man, the politician knows he is running a con. A con man will not invest in his own ponzi scheme or not do so in a fashion that will cause him to actually lose his ill gotten gain.

Politicians may do it for a good reason- the public good and all that- but there is little difference about the truthiness of what they say.

Let's discuss the other part of my prior post.

Hyping policy that turns out to be bad.

Bad people (and good) are able to recover from bad policies if they know that they are hyping policies, and when the shit hits the fan, they adjust accordingly because they knew they were hyping policies that turned out to be bad.

Now, for your brillance what happens with the con man believes his con or the person implementing bad policy does not admit that he was hyping?

Thus, the danger of Obama believing his own hype. You are far more brilliant than I. Still, I imagine in the real world, and not the one where men like Obama walk on water, there is nothing stupid about the idea that if people believe their own hype they can fuck up.

Warren is the perfect example of this. Rather than thinking through his decision before hand. He based it on "I like this guy" What does he do to sell the guy? He uses "we can disagree without being disagreeable." The tone deafness of that comment is where I point out Obama is in danger of buying the hype he's peddling. Warren is not merely disagreeing with progressives. Warren is disagreeable.

This was a minor mistake by Obama. The problem becomes when he allows , brilliant idiots such as yourself to keep piling up more mistakes by telling up he can walk on water.

Getting elected was about the lesser of two evils. Now it becomes about his actions alone.

By the way, let me explain why 'We can disagree without being disagreeable" regarding Warren was a miscalculation in media terms.

Obama, like McCain used to have, has a great relationship with the press. However, he should not assume that honeymoon is going to last for ever. And, the response can not be to think he will continue to able to use the approach he ran with as candidate Obama. He is no longer candidate Obama. The hype involved in that is over. I supported the guy. That does not mean we need to put on blinders like some of his more "zealous" supporters like Brew does.

Here's that practical example of a guy who thought Obama could walk on water, and, for whom, the Warren situation, and Obama's subsequent response took off some of the glow. glow. This is just one small mistake. but what happens if they start to add up to many small mistakes, and it becomes death by small cuts? That's why believing your own hype becomes dangerous.

Let me allow one of the Media Village Superstar types to sum it up:

"[Obama said] "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice. But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.

Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201848.html

In other words, he is telling Obama he's not believing the hype. The question is does Obama believe his own hype? Does he think he will be able to solve issues of fundamental civil rights by splitting the baby like Solomon? or Solomon like statements like "we can disagree without being disagreeable?"

I don't know the answer to that question. But, Brew says I am stupid for being concerned about it. Hopefully for all of us- Obama will ignore random posters like me and Brew, but will pay attention to the MSM.

One final point. Forgot to say, I agree with Brennan's post here. Brennan can be way over the top at times. But here we agree. My fear is a left leaning economic with right leaning social issues party. By not paying attention or showing leadership or believing his own hype, obama opens the door for this sort of party to rise in 2012 or 2016 if the American people remain unhappy with us, and have given up on the GOP (which I think the later will happen because the GOP as it presently stands- I don't see how that coalition continues).

Well, just let me say that on a very deep level - what is said by one, in someway, describes oneself, OR, one's perception of oneself. So to make it more clear, If I call someone "brilliant", it means that on very deep levels I am describing myself.

Needless to say, if I send out a NEGATIVE utterence at or about someone else, I am telling the world about ME - judging myself, so to speak.

We all have work to do in this regard - to stay above engaging in criticism and judgement, especially on this blog, so we all can express ourselves.

Enough said....

godplay, your premises are all true, but bizarrely you've somehow managed to reach the wrong conclusion--

1) Economy in desperate straits. extreme, radical action needed. right.
2) DEMs need to deliver on their economic promises if they want to stay in power. Right.
3) Strong resistance to radical action from neoliberal DEMs, GOP. Right.
4) Obama doesn't walk on water. He must fight for his promised agenda. Right.
5) Obama has to be smart. He needs to come up with a political strategy that will allow him to push through radical action to save the economy. Must neutralize neoliberal DEMs, GOP. right.
6) obama=politician=con artist. Lying part of his political strategy. Right.
7) GOP coalition crumbling. split between social and economic conservative wings. right.
8) Space for an alliance between GOP social conservatives and DEM economic progressives. if DEM cards are played correctly, critical mass of social conservatives may get on board with DEM economic initiatives. right.

Okay, so these are your premises. The obvious conclusion is that Obama should try to peel off enough social conservatives to neutralize the opposition while pushing through an ambitious economic reform agenda. That is a dominant DEM political strategy. part of the strategy involves building up rep as a bipartisan uniter who transcends petty culture wars--the Rick Warren maneuver--and then lying about the political calculations behind said maneuver.

again, this is the extremely obvious conclusion that follows from your premises. it's not clear to me how you managed to reach the opposite interpretation of events. go be angry at obama for picking rick warren or throwing gays under the bus or whatever, but objectively he came out of the "controversy" stronger than ever. It played out exactly the way obama wanted it to play out.

p.s. if you want to hear Obama lay out the strategy in his own (carefully chosen) words, read this speech:

http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

Brack Obama is president of most of America. To be president of all would include me an mine. And we know how "controversial" that is.

Raft:

You are another example of the believe your own hype crowd.

If Obama wanted to avoid controversy, thus ignoring his own hype that he can save us all, the solution was to choose a non-controversial evangelical. Instead, he choose a guy with the same problems as Wright - a la foot in mouth disease.

I supported him on Wright because at least that was coming from just being Obama's minister. Now, here, he shows he is willing to do this for politics, but his political instincts are off because he gains neither evangelicals or liberals with this.

There is only confusion if you somehow think Warren was his only choice. Once you realize that he was not the only evangelical in the country, you realize Obama's fuck up.

Obama could have used the chance to promote a new, evangelical voice more favorable to himself and to his theme of raising America up.

Instead, he choose someone divisive because as I said- he may believe his own hype regarding his ability to bridge the world through his own rhectoric. He thought saying "we can disagree without being disagreeable" was going to work some magic mojo. thus, making me think- "wait, so does he not get it?"

The best choice were he trying to bridge differences was a boring, non controversial evangelical- perhaps someone fairly young- discussing issues that everone agrees on like the environment and some vague moral statement on the social issues. That's bridging the gap.

Instead, what he did was to choose someone controversial, and assume that as long as he hyped it right- no one would notice. Thus, he believed his own ability to overcome the real differences between Warren's community (which does not even rep younger evangelicals) and his base.

It was a bone head decision that only makes sense if he's living in his own version of a bubble. In bubbles peopel come to believe they are above it all because others tell them so.

The people he is choosing for his cabinet, while competent, will not have his back. This is why he needs to be his own check on what's reality. They are all used to be the power brokers.

If you think that's contradictory of my first few posts, then you don't understand my posts.

What I am doing is taking Obama and his acolytes on their own terms, and, asking the hard question- is the problem that you believe you can magically do anything just because you believe it?

The Warren decision would seem to indicate, and, your post as well, that you think you can.

The scary part is thatyou continue not to get it. The campaign is over. Governing begins. that means thinking beyond the personal or even the rhectorical. A statement like "we can disagree without being disagreeable" would have been fine in a campaign, not out fo the mouth of the President -elect. When the President-elect says it- it's only compared to what else that President elect says and does.

My hope against hope is that he does not believe his own hype. That he will realize that rhectoric is not going to be enough. That when he makes choices he will be called on it in ways that the GOP President was not.

I can go on to other issues, but I have made my point.

Ps

Unlike yourself, I am not interested in hearing everything Obama has to say as if it has some mystical power.

I am interested in watching the repercussion of his actions- as I am doing with both how Warren his reacting with his flock in predictable ways, the press is reacting poorly to Obama's decision and Obama's people are having to use a lot of talking points. That's how I judge a strategy. Not how Obama alone thinks he will suceed. That only again reinforces my fear that you don't get governing. He's not in a campaign anymore. His words a lone are not enough. Even on the economic front- as someone else recently stated (kos I believe)- the proof is in the results now, not the rhectoric. He can't win discussions anymore by rhectoric. Get it?

godplay,

You might give Obama an actual chance to be president before you declare him a dimsal failure. If you wait until he actually does something wrong and then criticize that wrong action you will have a lot more credibility and won't risk boy who cried wolf syndrome.

Sean,

You may want to take a closer look at the mob that is now surrounding this man.

Obama will be made or broken by his cabinet and by their actions. No one man can rule this huge country and fight entrenched financial and ideological interests at the same time.

Holder, if approved, will make or break Obama on the Justice front, just as surely as Obama will judged by Clinton's actions at State, and particularly if Obama buys into the increasingly bellicose ramblings of Zbigniew Brezezinki as applies to the India/Pakistan issue, which looks like a ploy for proxy war.

Obama will have my support until the day he loses it. Until then I have high hopes for him, but I am not truly partisan. I want to see justice done for the excesses of the Bush/Cheney cabal, and if convicted I want to see them punished.

He has lost my support and ther's nothing partisan about it. I'm gay. Therefore my purpose has been served (Ie. my vote) and he now feels free to toss me and mine on the ashpile.

Not that anyone else gives a shit.

He has my support for those policies I voted for him to enact. I did not elect Barack Obama. I elected interests to be met.

Who says obama wanted to avoid the controversy? When dumbasses attack a guy like Warren for saying a prayer, it isn't Warren or Obama that comes out of that looking bad, in fact they come out looking good.
As already pointed out, Obama's popularity is at it's highest and higher than any president elect in a long time.
Sucks to be used as a pawn in a political game, but until the progressives learn how to better play the press, this is what's going to happen.

i am trying very hard to stay very optimistic, but....
to ask a spiritual leader to deliver an invocation at this most spiritually meaningful inauguration.....a spiritual leader who would not allow a whole group of people who worked and supported obama, to join his church....is unprincipled.
it is not about concessions or friendship...it is purely about principles and integrity.
~~~~i feel similarly that having gates, holder and clinton in their respective appointments violates principle and integrity.
maybe the change we were talking about meant different things.
i thought it meant that if you were looking for a candidate who ran primarily on not supporting or voting for the war in iraq, you were not expecting an administration with gates and clinton.
i thought that change you could believe in meant that people like eric holder would not be the attorney general.
it meant that people who had accepted large amounts of money from the rich and powerful oil producing countries, would not be secretary of state.
i thought it meant that we would never see an evangelical leader who would not welcome ALL people into his church, delivering the invocation at the inauguration.
i thought that change we could believe in meant agreeing disagreeably, but also not violating our beliefs about what is essentially right and wrong.
i also think that no-one in the country deserves a vacation more than barack and michelle obama, but to spend it in a pleasuredome, when so many people are truly suffering this christmas lacked the spiritual symbolism of the transformative compassion and change we were working for....the image of the community organizer, in touch with the congregation at the church of jeremiah wright...
maybe a leader who understood the humility and concept of the towel and the basin.....
i hope all of these choices achieve the goals he is working toward.
maybe what i think doesnt really matter anymore. the campaign is over.

it may be change.
but it is not really the kind of change i believe in.
if you are going to talk the talk....
then walk the walk.
i just dont believe that the end always justifies the means.

in the meantime, many friends and relatives had had the pleasure of saying," i told you so."

still hoping and praying for the kind of true equality and spiritually transformational change....the only kind of change i can believe in.

if all of us are not protected and honored, none of us are protected and honored.

I don't want to overstate my case here. But, I do want to make something clear before adding a final point:

When you got to start saying things like "well , but this is what he intended all along when , in fact, you know that's not what Obama does (this is man who shies aways from controversey), then you should questioning your worshippiing of Obama. In fact, the more of some of you write in defense the more I am certain the problem for Obama is his own hype.

Let me end this way, I am willing to wait to see what he does. That's not the point of these posts I have written. The point of the posts is to point out some character flaw dangers that I am now starting to appreciate. Many of them during the general election , I thought, were just campaign strategies. Now I m concerned- the hype bout his miracalous powers to never screw up in the minds of some of his suppoters , mostly because those powers don't exist. I am only concerend about whether he understands it. That he , like Bush, tends to make mistakes withour course corrects due to believing his own press releases. I hope I am wrong. This was just one minor mistake- the warren situation- but its the very way its been spun that concerns me.

godplay, i want to see you back up your assertion that Barack Obama/his advisers didn't realize the Rick Warren pick would be controversial. that is the linchpin of your whole argument and it is wrong. the controversy was the point.

obama triangulates against his far-left base in favor of the more powerful center all the time. this isn't even the first time he's thrown gays under the bus (symbolically) in order to court social conservatives (on economic issues). so again i don't why you resist the obvious conclusion that 1) obama has a political strategy and 2) he is executing it. "Bridging differences?" No. He is building coalitions to push progressive legislation through congress. there is nothing magical about it.

raft

If you want to act retarded, do it on your own time. You want me to prove your theory that Obama wanted this controversy? Jesus, defend your own damn argument. I am not here to disprove or prove your arguments especially given your argument is Obama is right when he's right and Obama is right when he's wrong. It's essentially a "well he's a great guy so he's right argument."

Your blah, blah, blah over the far left is something I m ignoring. You just come across as a putz. This is not a debate of the far left- unless one is using Warren as the comparator. And if you are, that says a lot about how far of reality you are since he's 15 percent at best of the population with regard to his influence. 15 percent being the percentage of the population that's evangelical. 15 percent is not the majority just in case you are too stupid not to realize it.

"No. He is building coalitions to push progressive legislation through congress." - raft

LIKE THIS:

"Obama, a big promoter of "CLEAN COAL" had made the burning of coal a cornerstone of his energy policy. Obama's plan to take the US back to coal burning that was popular early in the 20th century before pollution concerns, may now be in jeopardy from the toxic revelations of collapsed pond in the Watts Bar Reservoir in Tennessee."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=toxic-ash-pond-collapses

Despite industry efforts to promote clean coal, answers to the problems of coal ash are lacking
By David Biello

"The residue of millions of tons of coal burning at Kingston Fossil power plant in the Watts Bar Reservoir in Tennessee burst the bounds of the pond in which it was contained, burying as many as 400 acres of land in up to six feet of sludge....The collapsed pond is one of three on the site.

...Such slurry worries environmentalists and public health activists because it is the residue of coal burning. The burning concentrates the impurities in the coal, including arsenic, lead and mercury, among many other potentially toxic contaminants. Coal ash is also radioactive.
But dealing with the 129 million tons of coal ash produced in the U.S. every year is not easy. Some 25 million tons of it is dumped in old coal mines, and some companies incorporate it into cement. The rest is typically dumped in landfills or stored in large coal-ash ponds like the one that collapsed. But many environmentalists argue for only disposing of it in lined landfills, to prevent contaminants from leaching out.

"A risk assessment released by the U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] revealed that coal ash poses extremely serious threats to human health and the environment when disposed in waste ponds and landfills," says Lisa Graves Marcucci, a founding member of the Jefferson Action Group, a Pennsylvania environmental group that is among 38 environmental organizations calling for the incoming Obama administration to review coal ash disposal rules. "Significant pollution from mine disposal has been documented in New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, as well as Pennsylvania."

again, i don't know why it's controversial to claim that Obama likes triangulating against the left. he does it all the time.

If you want to argue that rick warren is an odious extremist, his selection is a betrayal of the gay rights movement, etc., fine. My simple claim is that warren is part of an intentional strategy of triangulation which, taken on its own terms, has been highly successful. i don't think that's a particularly controversial claim--my sense is that people are pissed off at obama partially because the warren pick is so nakedly political.

OTOH, you want to assert that Obama is a sort of a naive fool--he didn't intend to triangulate against the left, he just did it accidentally. doesn't make too much sense, does it?

my argument is that your argument believes its own hype. you don't for a second question whether what you are saying is indeed what's happening. that's the scary part. repeating what obama is trying to do is not the same as understanding that he may not suceed at his strategy because the world is not as static as you and (I fear) he thinks it is. if you still don't get it: you aren't a smart as you think you are. no one is.

The "h" word appeared in a column by Rich's editorial for the New York Times over Obama's pick of Warren: Hubris.

This is exactly the admonish of my posts here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28rich.html?_r=1&hp

" But for the first time a faint tinge of Bush crept into my Obama reveries this month.

As we saw during primary season, our president-elect is not free of his own brand of hubris and arrogance ..."

What ever you think, raft, Obama was trying to do. That's not the effect of what people perceive. That's my point about believing your own hype. That if Obama says it, others will simply believe him. That's the danger of your thought processes.