Boost For Obama In Polls After Bin Laden Killed–And Why It Could Last

The first polls show a bump in Barack Obama’s approval following the killing of Osama bin Laden. The Washington Post shows overall approval up to 56 percent, up nine points from April. There were also increases in other areas of the poll which were relevant to this news, such as a career high 69 percent on handling of terrorism. CNN also showed increased approval on the handling of terrorism but less of an increase in overall approval.

These results were widely expected but, as I noted yesterday, there is disagreement as to whether there will be long-term political benefits for Obama. One recent analogous situation was with George H. W. Bush  who defeated Iraq following their invasion of Kuwait. Bush appeared unbeatable after the first Gulf War, but wound up losing, largely due to a weak economy. This does provide warning that if the economy does not rebound further Barack Obama could be in trouble, with many voters likely to vote for the party which created the economic crisis as opposed to voting for an incumbent.

There are also major differences between Bush and Obama. George H.W. Bush had a great military victory, but it was still a response to the invasion of another country. In contrast, Obama’s victory was over someone who had attacked the United States and was still seen as a threat to our country. George H.W. Bush beat soldiers who turned out to be unprepared to fight a major power but did not remove Saddam. The killing of bin Laden represents a more dramatic victory for Obama. Further victories over al Qaeda will further strengthen his position.

Whether this will all matter in 2012 depends upon how well the Democrats do in reshaping the political discussion. This victory represents a graphic demonstration that Democratic ideas on handling terrorism have been more successful than Republican ideas. Congressional Republicans blocked Bill Clinton’s attempts to fight al Qaeda. When the Clinton Administration passed on their plans for fighting al Qaeda to second Bush administration, the Bush administration ignored the plans. Even worse, George Bush ignored warnings of the 9/11 attack. In contrast, Bill Clinton’s government took the warnings of the planned Millennium terrorist attack seriously and prevented the attack.

After 9/11, George Bush continued to mishandle the efforts against al Qaeda. He used the attack as an excuse to attack Iraq, while failing to pay sufficient attention to Afghanistan. Bush had an excellent opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora but failed to execute an effective attack. Bush mocked John Kerry for discussing the importance of intelligence and police work, as well as military action, in fighting terrorism. Repeatedly we have found that Kerry was right and Bush was wrong as it has been intelligence work and police action, not war or torture, which has provided us with the most significant accomplishments. Barack Obama continued with this approach and accomplished our greatest victory to date over al Qaeda.

Despite the overall failure of Republican ideas, as compared to Democratic ideas, on fighting terrorism, Republicans have claimed a superiority on national security issues. The killing of bin Laden, following repeated failings by Republicans in handling terrorism, provides evidence to the contrary. Republicans did not hesitate to play politics with terrorism after 9/11, and Democrats now must be willing to present their case. While a Republican such as George H. W. Bush had limited upside potential from a military victory, there is far more potential for Democrats to increase their support.

Another common Republican argument has been that Barack Obama has not been up to the job of being president. While the argument has been counter to reality all along, this demonstrates that Barack Obama is quite capable of handling the 3:00 a.m. call, or any other challenges of the presidency. Suddenly the 2008 candidate whose inexperience was an obstacle is now the most experienced of all the potential candidates in carrying out the duties of Commander in Chief.

There is another comparison to consider besides that of the first Gulf War. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was doomed after the failure of a raid to free the hostages in Iran. Success by Obama could very well have the opposite effect.

Please Let This Be A Hoax, Donald

Donald Trump is promoting the most absurd right wing lines around: There can’t be global warming because it is cold outside. Obama not born in the US. Now he’s repeating the claim that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams Of Our Fathers. I’m just hoping it is a massive publicity stunt and in the final episode of Apprentice he tells all the wing nuts they should be fired for actually believing this crap. It’s not like his current statements are at all consistent with what he’s said in the past, as even many conservatives realize.

The whole Birther issue is basically thinly veiled racism stemming from the fear and distrust of many conservatives of people who do not look like them. It is certainly plausible that a person could be spreading the Birther nonsense about Obama without necessarily being a racist. I do doubt that this actually occurs in the real world. It didn’t take Donald Trump long to move from bringing up the Birther nonsense to outright appealing to the racism of the right wing as he blames “The Blacks” for getting Obama elected.

Quote of the Day

“‘Hustler’ publisher Larry Flynt has written a book about the sex lives of American Presidents. The highlights are the chapter on Jefferson, the chapter on Garfield and the first 125 chapters on Clinton.” –Conan O’Brien

Quote of the Day

Bill Clinton is writing the introduction to a novel by a former college roommate. He says, “Thanks for always respecting the sock on the doorknob, bro.” –Jimmy Fallon

David Letterman’s “Top Ten Little-Known Facts About United States Presidents” & Other Presidents’ Day Jokes

It’s a little late, but here’s some highlights from Presidents’ Day.

David Letterman’s “Top Ten Little-Known Facts About United States Presidents

10. William Howard Taft was so fat, he’s considered our 27th and 28th presidents
9. Teddy Roosevelt answered the phone, ‘Hellosevelt?’
8. The K in James K. Polk stood for Kanye
7. Like the cartoon cat, James A. Garfield loved lasagna and hated Mondays
6. To conserve energy when possible, Jimmy Carter would travel via pogo stick
5. During one of his fireside chats, FDR accidentally burned down the map room
4. John Tyler was the only president to work his way up from the mailroom
3. Zachary Taylor’s vice president was a cocker spaniel named Angus
2. Our only unmarried president, James Buchanan was fond of posing as his own first lady
1. George W. Bush was not born in the United States

And some bonus Presidents’ Day jokes:

“Bill Clinton recently revealed that he only sent two e-mails while he was President. Then he added, “And it turns out those pills are just a scam.” –Jimmy Fallon

“Happy Presidents Day. This is a day when we celebrate history by getting great deals on mattresses.” –Craig Ferguson

“President Taft was so fat that before he was elected to the Oval Office it was square.” –Craig Ferguson

“I’m glad we have a day for the presidents, but shouldn’t we have a day for Congress when the Senate and the House can kick back and not worry about getting anything done? Oh, wait.” –Craig Ferguson

Comparing Democrats and Republicans On The Economy

Numerous comparisons between the economic outcomes of Democratic and Republican controlled governments have clearly showed that the economy tends to thrive under Democrats and stagnate under Republicans. This makes this analysis by Chuck Spinney partially redundant, but still worth pointing out considering the number of people in this country who regularly vote against their economic self-interest.

Spinney does add one important contribution to the numerous studies which compare the outcomes of Democratic and Republican governments. Many look at just who occupied the White House while this study also takes into account the percent as to which the party controlled entire government. The results are in this table (with the two paragraphs below the graph also from Spinney’s comments). Click on the graph if you need to enlarge it.

As Spinney pointed out, the Democrats easily win this comparison. Other than for Carter, Democrats provided stronger economies when they controlled the White House. The next best situation was generally to have Democrats controlling the Congress when there was a Republican president. It is too early to rank Obama, but regardless of where he winds up ranking he deserves praise for the manner in which he kept the country out of a depression after inheriting a disaster from George Bush.

This comes as no surprise, based upon both multiple similar comparisons in the past as well as the philosophical differences between the two parties. This is a simply a sign of victory for the party which supports capitalism. Despite all their rhetoric, the Republicans actually support oligarchy and their policies have been hostile to rational market policies. Policies based upon transfer of wealth to the wealthy and opposing regulations necessary for the market to operate properly ultimately are not the policies which are good for growing the economy.

Obama and the Left

Greg Sargent has posted comments from David Axelrod made to a group of bloggers regarding movement talk of Obama moving towards the center:

I’m not going to change the nature of this town and the nature of our politics….But we tend to sit on the back of the truck and look at what happened before, and then define what’s happening now in the context of what happened some other time.

So, Bill Clinton repositioned himself to the center, and that’s the prescription for what you do and so on. I guarantee you, as God is my witness, we have not had a repositioning discussion here. We have not talked about, “let’s move three degrees to the right.” That’s not the way we view this.

It is true that we have to go back to first principles and really think about what it is that drives us and what it is that has been so central to Barack Obama’s public life and outlook. Because some of that has been sort of ground down in the minutia of day-to-day governing here…

I mean, there’s nothing that the President said last night that I couldn’t draw a straight line from to speeches that he has made way back to 2004.

I got a reporter’s inquiry, `the President seemed very optimistic and he seemed to be talking about American exceptionalism last night, and is this a reaction to the elections?’ And I said, go back to his convention speech in 2004.

When the President got the call that he was going to give the keynote speech at the convention in 2004, I was with him. We were driving in a car in downstate Illinois, on some dark road somewhere with bad cell service. So we had to call back and confirm that he actually was going to be the keynote speaker, because the call got dropped. And the first thing he said was, “I think what I want to do is wrap my story in the larger American story and talk about what it is that makes us who we are.”

And it’s something that he believes deeply in, and it’s what he talked about last night…I mean, there’s no doubt he is progressive in his outlook and that’s what he believes in. But he has never been particularly dogmatic…His fundamental view is you don’t have to agree on everything, or even most things, to work together on some things. And so there was no sort of grand repositioning…

But I’m not going to defeat this. I had a politician in this town say to me, after the speech in Tucson, “Boy, that was a great speech. I can see he is really thinking about re-election.” And I’m thinking, “What are you talking about?” Because I spoke to the President before and after that speech, and I’ll tell you what he was thinking about more than anything else. He was speaking about a nine-year-old girl who was about the same age as his girl. And he was pretty broken up about it. And all he wanted to do was speak to that moment.

But everything in this town gets evaluated in that way, and that’s just the way it is. Anybody who says that, I will give them a volume of Barack Obama speeches going back many, many years, and I will defy them to say, where has he changed? Where is he different? Where is his basic approach different than it was when he started on this journey five and six and seven years ago?

Yes, the Obama who gave the State of the Union Address is the same Obama who served in the Senate and campaigned for president. One reason some might see a difference is that Obama was forced by the economic conditions present upon taking office to change his priorities and propose more government spending than he otherwise would have. Of the two big government programs which Obama might have desired upon taking office, health care reform and addressing climate change, one was accomplished and the other is not currently achievable in Congress.

It is rather absurd to concentrate upon labels such as whether Obama is a centrist or a progressive as opposed to evaluating the policies on their merits. He is a centrist based upon international standards, but is also far to the left of where the Republican Party is. As for his policies, there are definitely areas where I wish he was more liberal, but these are not the areas where he has been receiving criticism from many on the left recently. Increasing American competitiveness is a reasonable and liberal goal when it means calling for improving our infrastructure and educational system. Evaluating regulations to determine whether they are needed and effective while ensuring that we have the regulations we need to prevent abuses is such a common sense approach that I cannot believe that some on the left see this as a betrayal.

SciFi Weekend: The Cape; A Baby Timelord; Torchwood Casting and Filming News; The Voldemort Effect

With the limited number of genre shows on this season, and No Ordinary Family taking a lighter approach to super heroes, there has been considerable anticipation for the premiere of The Cape. The show has been billed as a more serious and realistic superhero show. While there is a limit to how realistic such shows can possibly be, we have seen excellent results with such an approach with Iron Man and the latest Batman movies. Unfortunately it is unlikely that television will match the qualities of  Iron Man or The Dark Knight.

Like Iron Man and Batman, The Cape is an ordinary guy who learns tricks and utilizes gadgets as opposed to having true superpowers. The Cape learned his skills from a gang of criminal circus performers. Unfortunately we had all we wanted of mixing a circus and superheroes in the final season of Heroes.

The story would probably have been stronger if they used the full two hours of the premiere as an origin story instead of cramming in a weak follow up story. It is hard to judge shows such as this entirely by their first episodes as there is often room for improvement after initially setting up the situation. Even the last few episodes No Ordinary Family have been much better than the initial stories.

The best thing about The Cape is the return of Summer Glau as super-hacker Orwell. While I welcome her presence, I also fear that her character risks providing easy solutions to any problems. There is also an exaggerated view of the powers of technology in the show. Besides Orwell’s hacking abilities, having Vince Faraday (The Cape) have a card which opens multiple safes and is never canceled was far-fetched.

Besides Orwell, the show provides other supporting characters such as Faraday’s wife. Faraday is forced to take on a secret identity when framed for crimes committed by Chess/Peter Fleming, and when Fleming threatened Faraday’s family. While I can accept the situation of having Fleming keep secret the fact that he is still alive from the public and from Fleming, there is no reason why he can’t secretly see his wife.

Both Faraday and Fleming were pretty careless with their secret identities. The worst mistake was for Fleming to continue to appear as Chess after making it appear not only that Faraday was Chess but that he had been killed.

It is hard to evaluate the show without seeing future episodes. The weekly format of the show does place limitations on it, such as the need to keep Peter Fleming around  for further episodes as opposed to resolving that conflict as a stand alone movie might. James Frain, who plays the title role,  has provided hints as to where the series is going:

Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, Frain teased that Vince (David Lyons) and Peter will be involved in a number of confrontations in the future.

“They have to go head-to-head,” Frain said. “Vince has to confront this guy but he’s in a very unusual position of not being able to destroy him.

“The obvious thing to do is to take your revenge and go get the guy who framed you, but he can’t do that. He needs to keep this guy alive because he can’t prove his real identity without him, and so he realises that to really be free, he has to frame this guy and flip the tables on him. And so it’s not just a straightforward combat – it’s more psychological warfare.”

Frain also suggested that viewers will learn more about Peter as the series continues, saying: “We start to find out that Peter is a little bit more of a ladies’ man than we first thought. As the show goes on, the guy who he is by daytime, the guy who he is in the mask, becomes more and more separate and this conflict starts opening up.”

He added: “There’s going to be some action with a young woman that comes up that’s very interesting.”

I am glad that they will be expanding more upon Peter’s character. Having him be the head of a corporation who turns out to be evil was far too much of a television cliche.

Series creator TomWheeler has provided more background on where he wants to go with the series:

Wheeler says that the cape in The Cape also has its own backstory, and it will be explored throughout the life of the series. “In episode three, you get a big chunk of it,” he says. “One of our writers is getting his doctorate in mythology, and one of the things we talk about is the cape has a lot of primal symbolism. There’s the blanket you tie around your neck as a kid. That’s your first contact with being a superhero, so as a symbol, the cape connects you to childhood. But there’s also the cape in Jungian mythology/psychology that represents the shadow. So we are setting up a history for the cape that is quite dark. Even though the cape has no supernatural ability to do something to the wearer, we do get into what it means to embody your shadow; we explore the question ‘Do you wear the cape or does the cape wear you?’ That becomes an issue. We will be planting clues and mysteries along the way about the cape because there’s a big story to be told about the cape and what Vince is destined for.”

Another aspect of the superhero mythos that The Cape indulges is the super-villain. We’re not talking garden-variety crooks–we’re talking diabolical masterminds and high strange baddies. Wheeler’s ambition is to give The Cape a large rogues gallery, though Vince’s ongoing conflict with Chess provides the narrative spine of season 1. “Chess is a psychotic James Bond and we deal a lot with him and his alter-ego, Peter Fleming,” says Wheeler. “But we will see that while Peter is awful, he has a complicated life. In total, we’ll introduce seven new villains in the first season, including one that’ll be the center of a two-parter in the middle of the season.”

Wheeler says viewers can expect a show that will span a range of genres. There’s an episode that’ll be more sci-fi. There’s an episode that’s more “gothic” and scary. He believes non-geeks will be able to connect with emotional heart of the show–a story of a husband and father trying to reconnect with his wife and family. For all its old fashionedness, Wheeler believes The Cape is as entertaining as other state-of-the-art superhero action fantasies–even the ones of the grim and gritty stripe. “I think there’s a thirst out there for something that can marry the old and the new, something everyone to sit down and watch together as a family,” he says. “But we are very aware of the other entertainments that are out there and we believe we can be a compliment to them. God willing, we can be considered a branch on the tree of the great things Chris Nolan is doing or Zack Snyder or Jon Favreau have done–all the great adult stuff that’s out there.”

More from Wheeler here.

Doctor Who, which has had many inconsistencies during its near fifty-year run, has both had stories stating both that Timelord children do and do not exist. If the British tabloids are to be believed, we might have a Timelord child born on Earth this spring. Reportedly Georgia Moffat, who already has an eight year old son, is pregnant. News was recently released that Moffat is engaged to David Tennant. Tennant played the tenth Doctor, including staring in The Doctor’s Daughter where he met Georgia Moffat. Besides playing the Doctor’s daughter in the 2008 episode, Moffat is the daughter of Peter Davison, who played the fifth Doctor from 1981 to 1984.

There will be another reunion of cast members from Doctor Who. John Sim (who has played The Master, in addition to staring in the BBC version of Life on Mars) will be staring with Marc Warren (Elton Pope in a 2006 episode of Doctor Who entitled Love & Monsters) in Mad Dogs:

Woody (Beesley), Quinn (Glenister), Baxter (Simm) and Rick (Warren) have been friends since sixth form. The fifth member of their gang is Alvo (Ben Chaplin, Dorian Gray), a risk-taking opportunist who, having made his fortune in property, leads a luxurious lifestyle in Majorca.

Now in their 40s, they’ve all taken different paths in life with varying degrees of success. When Alvo flies them to his extravagant villa to celebrate his early retirement, they enjoy a trip down memory lane.
However, all does not go to plan and they find themselves entangled in a web of deception and murder involving beautiful police women, large yachts, Speedos and a rather short assassin in a Tony Blair mask…

Continuing Sky 1 HD’s dedication to homegrown high definition drama, Mad Dogs is a dark and twisted comic tale in which four ordinary guys discover how easily the line between friend and foe can be blurred.

The Doctor Who News Page has a report on the first week of filming Torchwood: Miracle Day. TV Squad has more information from Russel T. Davies on the series.  Lauren Ambrose, who played Claire Fisher on Six Feet Under, has been added to the cast. She will play Jilly Kitzinger, “a sweet-talking PR genius with a heart of stone who’s just cornered the most important client of her career … and maybe of all time.”

Julian Sanchez has blogged about The Voldemort Effect:

…as Harry’s sage mentor Dumbledore notes at one point, it was Voldemort’s choice to regard Harry as his predestined foe that made it true.

There’s a similar phenomenon in American politics, which I long ago mentally dubbed The Voldemort Effect. Maybe it’s always been this way, but it seems like especially recently, if you ask a strong political partisan—conservatives in particular, in my experience—which political figures they like or admire, and why, they’ll enthusiastically cite the ability to “drive the other side crazy.” Judging by online commentary, this seems to be an enormous part of Sarah Palin’s appeal. Palin herself certainty seems to understand this. Her favorite schtick, the well to which she returns again and again, is: “Look how all the mean liberals are attacking me!” Weekly Standard writer Matt Continetti even titled his book about the ex-governor “The Persecution of Sarah Palin.” Perversely, liberals end up playing a significant role in anointing conservative leaders.

This is, I think, a bipartisan phenomenon everyone at least subconsciously recognizes: A political figure—though more often a pundit than an actual candidate or elected official—gains prominence largely as a function of being attacked or loathed with special vehemence by the other side. Which means it’s crying out for a convenient shorthand so we can talk about it more easily; I propose “The Voldemort Effect.”

Matthew Yglesias responded:

I think the equivalence here is not only mistaken, but actually 180 degrees off base. You do see this Voldemort Effect in a lot of conservative thinking, but if liberals go awry it’s more likely to be in the reverse way—a lot of Team Blue’s thinking about politics is dominated by a kind of desperate search for leaders who won’t drive the other side crazy. Hence Bill Clinton, southern good ol’ boy. Hence John Kerry, decorated war hero. Hence calm, rational compromising Barack Obama instead of polarizing meanie Hillary Clinton. And that goes back to war hero George McGovern, southern good ol’ boy Jimmy Carter, Massachusetts Miracle technocrat mastermind Michael Dukakis, etc. In retrospect all of these people are hated by the right and “obviously” represent just another strain of out of touch liberalism, but in advance each and every one appealed to the rank and file as somehow “different” from his predecessors in some key way.

Bernie Sanders Spoke For Over Eight Hours Opposing Tax Deal

Generally when there is a planned filibuster the Senators are not required to actually take the floor unless there are sixty votes to stop them, but Bernie Sanders took this seriously. He spoke on the Senate floor for over eight hours. At times the Senate chamber was empty but “Senate video servers had shut down after more than 12,000 people tried to tune in to his speech on their website.”

When Bill Clinton decided to campaign in favor of the deal, who would have guessed someone would wind up talking even longer than him.

I’m sure glad that both Houses of Congress passed the Medicare “doc-fix” before Sanders started speaking. 

Who Is Responsible For The Deficit? (Hint: Conservative Republican Presidents)

As I’ve pointed out many times in the past, if you want to reduce the deficit you should vote Democratic as, despite conservative rhetoric, it is conservative Republicans and not Democrats who are responsible for the deficit. James Fallows presented further evidence of this, taking data compiled by deficit hawk Chuck Spinney. Spinney compared the records of all presidents since Harry Truman, looking at both the change in the debt burden and how much overall federal debt grew, or shrank, as a share of gross domestic product during each administration. Here are his results:

The presidents responsible for the increased debt burden are in red: Reagan, Bush and Bush.

James Fallows

James Fallows – James Fallows is a National Correspondent for The Atlantic. A 25-year veteran of the magazine and former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, he is also an instrument-rated pilot and a onetime program designer at Microsoft.

James Fallows is National Correspondent for The Atlantic. He has worked for the magazine for more than 25 years, based in Washington DC, Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and most recently Beijing. He was raised in Redlands, California, received his undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Harvard, and received a graduate degree in economics from Oxford. In addition to working for the Atlantic, he has spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, two years as the editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot.

Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction and has been an Emmy nominee for a documentary “Doing Business in China.” He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His two most recent books, Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards from Tomorrow Square (2009) are based his writings for The Atlantic. He is married and has two sons.

Where Did Our Debt Come From?

Thumbnail image for SpinneyTime.jpgChuck Spinney