Why American Spectator Gets It Wrong On Obama
Poking around the net I found this gem in which Peter Ferrara declares that the GOP is going to sweep to a historic victory in 2012.
Now I am certainly not going to deny that both the President and the Congress have low approval ratings and that anything is theoretically possible next year. Then again it is theoretically possible that I could win the lottery and retire to an island with a bevy of suitors. But I’m not counting on it.
The first flaw in Ferrara’s analysis is his adoption of phrases like ‘ultra liberal’, ‘Marxist’ (yeah he went there) and so on.
In the first place I see no more validity in this argument than in the reverse offered by some Democrats that label the GOP as ultra conservative/Nazi/etc.
I agree with Obama on some issues and disagree with some. In some cases I stand to his right (some economic issues for example) and in others to his left (Iraq, marriage equality, etc). But there is no rational argument to say Obama is an ultra liberal marxist.
I’m sure some readers will disagree on that, but then I’m sure others would disagree if I made the same argument about the Republicans being ultra right wing Nazis.
So his first argument fails.
I also find only marginal validity in the ‘The Senate is bad for not passing everything the House did’. Once again I could point out that this is no more rational than the reverse.
Just because one chamber passes bills does not mean the other is somehow obligated to pass them too.
This doesn’t mean that there are not good bills in the House that the Senate should pass (or that there aren’t good ideas in the Senate too).
But the public is fairly evenly divided on most of these issues, so even if some voters are mad at one chamber or the other for not passing what the other chamber did, it doesn’t translate into a big sweep for one side
Indeed, I suspect most people who are 100% behind the House agenda would vote GOP anyway and vice versa.
Now the one thing the writer does get right is the fact that the math is bad for the Senate Democrats in 2012. When you have twice as many seats up for grabs than the other side it just doesn’t bode well for you.
On the other hand I could (and later will) make the argument that good news for Senate Republicans may be bad news for the GOP Presidentia ticket.
I enjoy a good political analysis as much as any political junkie, and I don’t mind if they go contrary to my own views. It’s why I can surf from Daily Kos to Red State without problems.
But the arguments need to have some solid basis in fact, and with respect I don’t think this one does.
9 Responses to “Why American Spectator Gets It Wrong On Obama”
If the GOP does “sweep to a historic victory in 2012″ it will pretty much be the last nail in the coffin of any hope for an electorate with the slightest clue (apologies for speaking the obvious). That said, I hope my personal view of human nature is a little too harsh.
I enjoy a good political analysis as much as any political junkie, and I don’t mind if they go contrary to my own views. It’s why I can surf from Daily Kos to Red State without problems.
Then I have to question your definition of the word “good”.
Since I like to actually bet on political contests, there are only 3 blogging sources I can be influenced by……Nate Silver, Charlie Cook or Jay Cost.
And you needn’t even trouble yourself with surfing over to Kos. You can read Allen here and get the same level of reliable information.
I used to really like Jay Cost, but he went from non-bias number cruncher to right leaning pundit.
Not that I mind right leaning, but I used to really like his non-bias number crunching.
@CO
The site you mention are polling, statistical sites which tend to avoid policy analysis. To say ALL KOS or RedState posts are bad is your problem, not the author’s.
I already know what RedState and Kos are going to say before I go there so there isn’t much point visiting either site.
Ferrara makes the mistake many partisans do in believing his thoughts reflect mainstream thinking.
rudi, since the post is about electoral prognostication, I’d say in reply the problem lies with your reading comprehension.
I can enjoy a good liberal political rant in its own context, but Moulitas (sp?) is ultimately a villager deep down. Digby and Hamshee I respect for being walk the walk liberals…..ready to burn bridges with the Obamacans at a moment’s notice.
CO, you actually go over to Redstate??? Watch out, those people will turn your head into mush. (angry and paranoid mush that is)
Nice to see you have respect for Digby though. She is no shrinking violet, but she’s the real thing.
Nobody has to worry about a GOP ‘sweep’ in the elections of 2012.
It ain’t happening.
Spectator’s a partisan rag-that’s their schtick, like Newsweek’s or Daily Kos or Redstate (or Fox/MSNBC), like any partisan rag, they’re going to cheerlead like it’s the superbowl.
What most of us can hope for, is a divided government- either another 4 years of Obama with a partisan-hack Congress and Senate opposed to him at every turn, or a Republican in the White House with a Congress deep in the DNC’s camp.
Why? because that combination means only the really critical legislation gets passed, the stuff both sides are forced to agree must be done-nobody gets any candy.
Bush’s worst mistakes were done, when he had a supportive Congress, Obama’s worst mistakes were with a Supportive Congress.
Clinton’s best years were the years he had to wrestle with a congress that despised him-he got more work done, that benefitted more americans, while his opponents were trying to lynch him over a blowjob, than he could have, or likely would have, had the Speaker remained Tom Foley.
Similar can be said of Reagan (a hero of the right), or Eisenhower, (and it could be argued of Truman as well).
It’s my own opinion, mind, but it seems to me that so long as neither the Left, nor the Right, can have everything they want, the rest of us are pretty much safe from their excesses.