The Worst Week
"Worst Week" screams the headline on the Drudge Report, right above President Obama's picture.
Not so fast.
It is certainly true that Rasmussen Reports is showing the president's approval rating hitting a new low of 40 percent. It is certainly true that incumbent presidents hoping to be re-elected need approval ratings closer to 50 percent, and that numbers below 40 percent are the kiss of death. It is certainly true that the president has his work cut out for him.
It is also true that Iowa Republicans handed the president his biggest win of the week when they handed the victory in the Iowa straw poll to Michele Bachmann.
I don't know Bachmann. She might be a perfectly nice woman. But she is never going to be president. Not only that, but the better she does the worse it is for the Republican Party.
It is no secret that the process of selecting presidential nominees — on both sides — is pretty much a complete mess, designed to give activists more say than their numbers would ever merit and to reward candidates for their ideological purity rather than their electability. You can spend weeks or months — in fact, I spend most of a semester — analyzing how it happens that parties that should be focused on winning spend so much time, energy and money on contests that are more likely to reward losers.
But there it is. More people watched Bachmann on television last weekend than vote in Iowa. Seriously. Certainly more than would ever vote in a straw poll or even a caucus. That's great if you're an activist trying to make a point. It's nothing less than terrible if you're a moderate (of either party) trying to win an election.
On the Democratic side, it took a string of losses in the 1980s for the party to decide that electability should count for more than ideology. (Hello, Bill Clinton.) The problem Republicans face — in addition to the fact that the ideologues have all the energy on their side, as well as the money, the volunteers and the rest — is that they haven't lost enough. Two terms of Clinton followed by two terms of Bush. Obama looks too weak for them, so they think they can mess around with Bachmann.
Now the Republicans have a number of potentially attractive candidates such as Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman (at least if anti-Mormonism doesn't kill them). But the better Bachmann does the more the others have to imitate her. A party dominated by Bachmann and Sarah Palin is not a party that will produce a winner in November. Iowa in August, sure. Maybe even in January. But not when the great majority of Americans, who don't think about elections 16 months away, finally get around to thinking about for whom they will vote.
I know many Democrats damn the tea party in words I wouldn't use in a general interest publication. Not me. I say drink up. The president's poll numbers may be low, but approval of the tea party is even lower. I would hope that by next November, Obama would actually win the election. But if that doesn't work, second choice is that the Republicans lose it.
And that's why it was a good week for Obama. He may not have come closer to victory, but the opposition party came closer to defeat. Given where the economy is and where it appears to be headed, perfect is the enemy of the good, and the good may be good enough.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
16 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Didn't like my post about ugly, nasty, dumb liberal women. Figures! I should have known it would have been blocked as it was to nice and intelligent!
Comment: #1
Posted by: Charlie
Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Our worst week: The week Obama got elected! Write about that!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Early
Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:44 AM
|
|
|
|
I've been voting for Democrats since 1980. I felt great on Election Night 2008. And I can't fault your logic in this column.
But I've lost any enthusiasm about Pres. Obama. All I've got is cold fear of somebody like Bachmann ever having real power. Even when the Democrats do get a win, what do they do with it? They don't seem to be willing to ever take a risk in support of the policies they should be fighting for.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Steven Doyle
Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:11 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Charlie
This site's "Comment" software is horrible. One has to be very careful that every step in submitting a post was correct.
Copy your post just incase it "gets lost".
Then verify your post was received after you believe it has been submitted.
IF the post does not appear in the comment section, try again and verify again.
Comment: #4
Posted by: SusansMirror
Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Susan says “electability should count for more than ideology”. The truth and danger to all of that statement was hammered home in the time leading up to the Nov 2008 general election when the national liberal media refused en masse to investigate Obama in any way, shape or form (and continues to so refuse) and agreed en masse to embark upon a crusade of investigation and dirt digging on any potential opponent. Already the national liberal media, upon the marching orders from its master in the Whitehouse, is gearing up to paint another false idyllic picture of the America hater in Chief (Obama) and to embark upon a vicious jihad on all opponents. Indeed the national liberal media must treat the dangerous buffoon Obama as does the parent of an unfortunately severely mentally handicapped child, by constantly giving him a pass and in effect collectively expressing relief that he did not actually soil himself in public on any given day. Had Obama's Marxist, redistributionist, leftist, anti American ideology been explored at all prior to Nov 2008, the worst week for the Republic in living history, the enemy within would never have been elected. The false premise of “hope and change” was electable but Obama's true incompetence, his true extreme leftist ideology was not and is not. Fortunately Obama now has a record of demonstrable contempt for America, for the Republic, for the Constitution, for the rule of law, for small business owners, and for a sizeable majority of the American people (tea party or otherwise) who disagree with him and his economy wrecking policies for which they are branded enemies and terrorists in public by the Whitehouse controlled media, by Bozo the VP and by Obama and it seems also by Estrich in private.
The time has come for a fiscally and socially conserative ideology and love of this Republic to determine for whom votes should be cast and not a false media created persona or false electability that shrouds a hatred of all things American.
Comment: #5
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Just back from a wonderful week at Saratoga amid some of the richest people in America...I use the word rich not necessarily to characterize their money but their optimism. Those people know how to live and how to enjoy their surroundings. They are undaunted by the vagaries of politics, although they are certainly very aware of politics and politicians. One politician they do not like is Michele Bachmann. They all seemed to regard her a a joke.
I personally agree with that assessment of Ms. Bachmann. Her statements that she would abolish president Nixon's EPA and also the FDA as just too expensive for America ignores what brought both of these agencies into existance. I remember all too well the footage that played on the evening news for many days of the Cuyahoga river in Ohio burning from all the sludge and toxic waste that unregulated big business had dumped in that waterway. People screamed at their Congressmen and at pressident Nxon to put an end to the pollution. Thus the EPA was born. I am not sure that having 17,000 employees and a billion dollar annual budget is what is needed , but I am CERTAIN that going back to the old days of unchecked toxic waste dumping is not the solution either. As for her expressed desire to also destroy the FDA, I am sure that if big business could sell us dog food as cereal, they would, We need the FDA to assure the safety of our food and drugs. A mother of five and foster mother of 23 should be more protective of the future health of the environment those 28 kids will live in. Sorry but not all govenment is bad. Ms. Bachmann is a dangerous person for America. Her gender does not concern me, It is her policy stance that is frightening. It is time to give her agenda closer scrutiny. The media seems more concerned about poll numbers of today's politicians and have not properly vetted the policy beliefs of these candidates. Perhaps you can do a series of columns highlighting the POLICY beliefs of various candidates. Very few of the other pundits seem willing to do that.
Comment: #6
Posted by: robert lipka
Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Please explain. If an extreme liberal like Obama can get elected, why can't an extreme conservative like Bachman get elected? Obviously, it has nothing to do with racism! So is it liberal sexism?
Comment: #7
Posted by: Early
Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:18 AM
|
|
|
|
[robert ipka writes]
"Those people [the rich] know how to live and how to enjoy their surroundings. They are undaunted by the vagaries of politics, although they are certainly very aware of politics and politicians."
Wow, the "rich" have few worries? Image that. Look, Obama is not taking wealth already earned, he is taxing INCOME. Income taxes only keep the poor from getting rich (the rich are alrady rich).
I wold love to see these "rich" people's faces if Obama just started taking their property and calling it taxes. All those carefree days would end in a hurry. That is what Obama is doing to workers income, just taking it.
Federal Taxes should be collected through sales tax ONLY. The income tax rate shold be zero. The Corporate tax rate should be zero.
Look, remember this: Corporations do not pay taxes, people do.
When the government spanked the "cigarette companies" who really got spanked? Ask the people paying $10 for a pack of cigarettes and they will tell you.
Corporations do not pay taxes, they collect taxes. When the government increases taxes on corporations, the government is increasing the taxes on the customers of that corporation. So why should the rich worry here?
"Experience" is often just a fancy word for the mistakes that we belatedly realized we were making, only after the realities of the world made us pay a painful price for being wrong. Those who are insulated from that pain-- whether by being born into affluence or wealth, or shielded by the welfare state, or insulated by tenure in academia or in the federal judiciary-- can remain in a state of perpetual immaturity. Should we be surprised that the strongest supporters of the political left are found among the young, academics, limousine liberals with trust funds, media celebrities and federal judges? [Thomas Sowell]
Obama, is simply the New FDR.
"During the first year of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, he called for increasing federal spending to $10 billion while revenues were only $3 billion. Between 1933 and 1936, government expenditures rose by more than 83 percent. Federal debt skyrocketed by 73 percent. Roosevelt signed off on legislation that raised the top income tax rate to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent. Hillsdale College economics historian and professor Burt Folsom, author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?", notes that in 1941, Roosevelt even proposed a 99.5 percent marginal tax rate on all incomes more than $100,000. When a top adviser questioned the idea, Roosevelt replied, "Why not?" " [Walter Williams]
if we allow the Democrats to stay in power, at least one, and probably more, generations of Americans will live during an almost hopeless time where opportunities are few and government oppression is great, all come from the party of "hope and change". Go figure.
Comment: #8
Posted by: SusansMirror
Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Susan's mirror,
If , as you say, Obama is the new FDR, you had better get ready for four more years of this administration. The American public liked FDR so much, they elected him four times. There is a law now to limit terms to just two so that won't happen. But my point is that RICH PEOPLE PROSPER NO MATTER WHO IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE...how do they do that???? They use their brains to keep on increasing their share of the pot.
Some of the rich do it by putting politicians in their back pockets and getting favorable legislation or getting a governor or two to sell them state assets at pennies on the dollar. It is up to the public to see that this does not happen often. The public usually needs the help of inquiring reporters doing their jobs to head off much of the crooked dealings and sleight of hand. The problem comes when the public gives a pass to one party and bashes another just because they have either an (R) or a (D) behind their names. One has to be vigilant of ALL politicians.
A vast majority of the rich get that way by getting a solid education and using it. The one thing any government cannot do is tax an education out of existance. A good college education is not everything that is needed, a smart person ADDS to that college education by constant additional study. Learning the ins and outs of any business becomes a solid UNTAXABLE asset. I met a fellow last week who claimed to have started and failed at seven businesses before he finally started his current business and made it a success. He manages other peoples money and takes a per centage of their profits. (not a Ponzi scheme like Madoff he takes no money from clients to invest ,they write their own checks) He told me he would not care if a baboon were president, he would make money for his clients and thus for himself. One thing most of these rich people have is OPTIMISM......PURE UNADULTERATED OPTIMISM. I was surprised at how many of them also were solid in their faith in GOD. Maybe we have sold these people a little short. It was good to be around them for a week and to drink the waters at the fountain at the end of Union Avenue ( drinking from the SPA waters is said to add years to your life) The rich are not our enemies but we should NOT be building a Plutocracy in this country where the wealthy are allowed to make their own rules and dictate their own tax rates. FDR was , of course, joking about the 99 per cent tax rate but many of the rich could do very well even if the tax rate they pay was double what it is today. They would still have much more than they could ever spend in their lifetime.
Comment: #9
Posted by: robert lipka
Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:57 AM
|
|
|
|
"The American public liked FDR so much, they elected him four times."
Thanks to the lack of real education in this country (all with have is a system of payouts to teachers for teaching trans in return for votes for the Democrat Party), such may be true.
However, the people that voted for FDR were just as clueless as the people who support Obama.
Consider the following, which unfortunately sounds just like Obama.
Roosevelt had more plans for the economy, namely the National Labor Relations Act, better known as the "Wagner Act." This was a payoff to labor unions, and with these new powers, labor unions went on a militant organizing frenzy that included threats, boycotts, strikes, seizures of plants, widespread violence and other acts that pushed productivity down sharply and unemployment up dramatically. In 1938, Roosevelt's New Deal produced the nation's first depression within a depression. The stock market crashed again, losing nearly 50 percent of its value between August 1937 and March 1938, and unemployment climbed back to 20 percent. Columnist Walter Lippmann wrote in March 1938 that "with almost no important exception every measure (Roosevelt) has been interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of wealth."
Comment: #10
Posted by: SusansMirror
Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: robert lipka
Obama is simply the new FDR in that FDR was also a liberal fascist, who cared nothing about wrongly confiscating the property of others for statist redistributive purposes as Susan's Mirror was illustrating in her penultimate paragraph. The people were not then wise to FDR but are wise and becoming wiser to Obama and his dishonest corrupt statist clique. Lipka posits that "The public usually needs the help of inquiring reporters doing their jobs to head off much of the crooked dealings and sleight of hand" That statement, perhaps the first by Lipka to actually make sense, is entirely supportive of the proposition put forward in my earlier post that the national liberal media en masse chose not to do their job and chose en masse not to investigate much less report upon the anti American anti Constitution anti Republic anti business background and ideology of Obama.
Lipka goes on "The one thing any government cannot do is tax an education out of existance" It does not have to. Sadly, what today passes for education in public schools and in the institutions that call thenselves colleges or universities is not education at all but simply forced indoctrination in liberal dogma, revisionist history and the churning out of liberal ideology doused drones incapable of actually thinking for themselves.
Again it is agreed that a Plutocracy is unacceptable. However the way to avoid the exercise of governance by the wealthy by right of that wealth is the adherence to the principles of governance set forth in the Constitution. What we have now is not a Plutocracy but an Oligarchy comprised of this corrupt Administration and a cadre of unelected czars, federal regulators and those appopinted to the FED.
The greatest service this or any future Congress could do for the Republic would be the elimination of the job killing EPA, the useless federal Dept of Education , the IRS, and the prime accomplice in the destruction of the economy the FED
Comment: #11
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: SusansMirror
I totally agree about the software problem, yet I find most of the comments are negative towards Ms. Estrich Liberal beliefs, and really wonder if it is a software problem.
Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #12
Posted by: Dennis
Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Early
Excellent point. You can add President Bill Clinton to the extreme Liberal column too.
Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #13
Posted by: Dennis
Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Ms. Estrich & Fellow Readers,
[Hello Bill Clinton] Duh, Ms. Estrich knows full well President Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) was elected in 1992 because Ross Perot siphoned off 20+ % of the vote. Every Liberal voted for President Clinton, leaving only the Independent and Conservative vote to be split between Perot and President Bush. In 1996 poor Bob Dole wouldn't have won against a dead horse in the road.
Ms. Estrich also knows it doesn't matter what President Obama poll numbers are, he has a lock on the Liberal and Black vote.
Nuff Said...Dennis
Comment: #14
Posted by: Dennis
Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:02 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Nuff said Dennis,
You are exactly correct that Obama has a lock on 100% of the Black and Liberal vote But there are OTHER demographics that need to be considered. First of all, are Hispanics.
Not one republican candidate for presidnt felt the need to attend the recent gathering of Hispanic-Americans at their recnt convention. The President went and spoke to them. This slap-down of Hispanics who many Republicans wrongly tie together with illegal immigrants will go a long way to making it impossible for a Republican candidate to win the upcoming election. You can't keep kicking someone in the face and not expect a backlash. Each of the Republican candidates alleged that they had prior committments.....well if you want that vote, make a rational choice. The numbers just don't lie. Too many Republicans have treated the Hispanic vote like it does not matter. In fact, it will be the deciding factor in the next election. And get used to the idea that what are minorities now, in the near future will be the majority coalition in tis country. The birth rate differential is staggering. Blacks and Hispanics do not get abortions in the percentages that white women who can pay for them, do. That is just a stone cold fact. Therefore, the population disparity growsevery day. White will be a minority within two decades.
The Republican party just has not opened its arms realistically to Hispanics since Nixon tried to do that during his preisidency. It is one thing to be Conservative and follow that philosophy, but at some point pragmatism has to take control. A powerful coalition has been formed,,,not by the Democrats,,but by a very haughty Republican attitude that they do not need to concede some policy decisions to Hispanic interests.
Comment: #15
Posted by: robert lipka
Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:27 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: robert lipka
We are supposed to be a nation of laws not of pragmatism or of eletoral expediancy. An alien, Mexican, Morrocan, French, Irish, English, Swedish it matters not who is residing and working in the US in violation of immigration law no matter what the circumstances is residing and working here illegally and by dint of that is an illegal alien subject to the full force of the law and to deportation if that is what the law provides.
Liberals and Democrats care nothing for minorities legal or illegal and no matter what ilk save that to Democrats they represent just another potential underclass that can be kept as an underclass via welfare, hand outs and other incentive destroying and enslaving entitlement programs thus ensuring a misplaced loyalty and vote.
Education as to how liberals and democrats actually enslave minorities and ensure that they never free themselves from underclass status for their own political purposes is the key to breaking the bond not pragmatism which is simply code for concession to illegality.
Comment: #16
Posted by: joseph wright
Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
