Gallup: Obama at 46%; Support From Independents Now Stands At Weak-Ass 38%

Down 18% with Independents since last July; also down to 81% among Democrats.

Obama's lower ratings come amid a still-struggling economy, the ongoing difficulties presented by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the recent change of command in the war in Afghanistan. Underscoring the challenge at hand, Obama's 44% approval rating in July 2-5 polling (Gallup did not interview July 4) ties his lowest three-day average to date.

There is big difference between political deliverables and general deliverables.

By the former, I mean easily-achieved partisan actions. Like imposing the Mexico City restrictions, or lifting them. Partisans and people concerned with that particular issue are pleased (and displeased) by such actions.

But they're easy, aren't they?

Obama's health care victory was a partisan legislative victory along these lines.

By a general deliverable, I mean something that almost everyone would perceive as a boon no matter what their politics. Successfully prosecuting a war with a low number of casualties. Presiding over a hot economy. Plugging the hole.

Obama ran not as a partisan, but as a centrist whose chief recommendation was his competency. In other words, he ran as someone less interested in political deliverables and more interested in (and more capable of) general deliverables, such as a strong economy, a successful (and less painful) resolution of the Wars we're fighting, and a general ability to move the bureaucracy in an intelligent, purposeful way, such as to... you know, plug the hole. Things of this nature.

The tough stuff, in other words. Not to demean ideology, but the stuff that most people care strongly about.

He has not delivered a single general deliverable. Quite the opposite, in fact -- he seems incapable of delivering anything at all, anything that almost all people would call an objective, nonpartisan boon.

He's a reverse Midas. Everything he touches turns base and devalued.

The only thing he can deliver -- indeed, the only thing he seems remotely interested in -- is the sort of cheap partisan stunting that he avowed to be beneath him.

People are noticing.

It is my belief that ideologies flourish not based upon argument or rhetoric, but when a party comes to power and then delivers the general deliverables. When a president or party is able to deliver objective goods, his ideology advances, not because people have become convinced by reason or rhetoric, but simply because they decide If they've got everything working smoothly, I guess that means they're probably right about these ideological points they keep talking about, too.

And I believe the contrary: Liberalism will suffer greatly due to Obama's Miserable Failure, the same as it did under Jimmy Carter.

Clinton: I should say I think Clinton greatly improved liberalism's image, or at least a centrist type of liberalism.

His successor should have won easily in 2000, except that the nation got a little sick of his drama and dishonesty, and his successor seemed to be just as corrupt but without the roguish charm.

But what Clinton built up, Obama is diligently tearing down.

I always reject this-is-just-how-they-intended-it conspiracy theories. I mean, how do you know when to stop?

For example: Is Obama actually a rightist put into place by a secret cabal of neocons with the express purpose of tarnishing liberalism forever and once and finally slaying the socialist dragon?

Because it sure seems like he's workin' hard at that goal.

posted by Ace at 02:50 PM

| Access Comments