(UPDATE II) This Just In: Barack Obama Kills Osama Bin Laden, Ron Paul Kills Iowa Caucuses
Barring a major development, this will be my last post of 2011, and I thought I would go out with a bang as well as a bit of back patting.
While the Democrats and President Obama have not always covered themselves in glory, the bang is a one-word description of the historic mess that the Republican Party has made of things during the year. This is a toxic cocktail of disdain for the middle class and an open loathing of minorities, seniors, the poor and those in ill health who cannot afford health insurance. It is reflected in the words and deeds of the party’s congressional leaders and most of the presidential wannabes as they slug it out in the few remaining days before the Iowa caucuses.
The pat on the back is because I have predicted early and often that despite a punk economy, the 2012 election would be Barack Obama’s to lose. This is because while the GOP may be stuck on stupid, most Americans are not.
These realities are reflected in the latest CNN poll which reveals that Obama’s approval rating has rebounded to a respectable 49 percent, the highest since it hit 54 percent as after he ordered that the Al Qaeda chief be taken out, while voters’ approval of the occupants of the Republican clown car has plummeted from 49 to 43 percent. Worst yet for the GOP, voters by a 50 to 31 percent margin say they have more confidence in the president than in congressional Republicans to handle the major issues facing the country. Obama held a much narrower 44to 39 percent margin in March.
And, for what it’s worth, the poll indicates that Obama remains personally popular, with three-quarters of respondents saying they approve of him as a person.
There was a major earthquake yesterday on the editorial page of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, which is the closest thing to a war room for Obama-hating conservatives.
It is an indication of how badly the Republican Party has screwed up that the Journal, in belaboring the obvious is noting that it’s bad politics to raise taxes on 160 million workers and cut off jobless benefits to three million idled workers going into a presidential election year, would publish these words:
“The GOP leaders have somehow managed the remarkable feat of being blamed for opposing a one-year extension of a tax holiday that they are surely going to pass. This is no easy double play.
“Republicans have also achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter, although he’s spent most of his Presidency promoting tax increases and he would hit the economy with one of the largest tax increases ever in 2013. This should be impossible.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell finally weighed in on the imbroglio today and in a face-saving gesture proposed that the House pass an extension of the tax break while Senate Democrats commit to forming a negotiating committee to reach a long-term agreement that would include construction of a new shale oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico that is an environmental disaster in the making.
There was no immediate reaction from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, while the concept of a negotiating committee seems laughable considering that the Republicans refused to play ball on the debt ceiling supercommittee, which will trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts starting in 2013, with half coming from national security budgets.
With the Iowa caucuses less than two weeks away, the Republican establishment is in open panic. This is because barring a miracle, and a political party so disdainful of everyone except the rich — oh, and the smell of its own hole — cannot expect anything approaching a miracle, although Republicans are certain to find coal in their Christmas stockings.
A miracle in Iowa for the party establishment would be a Mitt Romney victory, which is counter intuitive considering that he has consistently polled behind the Republican Flavor of the Moment, be it Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and now Ron Paul, and is widely viewed as a moderate in conservative’s clothing.
While the darling of many Republicans, Paul brings almost as many skeletons to the table as Gingrich.
At a time when the global economy overall is outperforming the American economy, Paul wants the U.S. to withdraw from many world affairs. He is chockablock with other nutty ideas (and some very good ones that will make conservatives blow their stacks like legalizing marijuana and prostitution and ending aid to the thuggish Netanyahu regime in Israel).
Paul is against war, which conservatives are for, and he is against torture, which conservatives heart, and it is difficult to image the GOP walking the plank by nominating a candidate who published a racist newsletter for years and has deep associations with the lunatic fringe far right.
Even a victory in Iowa would not give Paul enough of a bump to win the following week in New Hampshire, where Romney has campaigned endlessly, but if the two contenders trade primary victories well into 2012 the chances of a dread brokered nominating convention grow.
Could happen to a nicer bunch of guys. You too, Michele.
30 Responses to “(UPDATE II) This Just In: Barack Obama Kills Osama Bin Laden, Ron Paul Kills Iowa Caucuses”
“At a time when the global economy overall is outperforming the American economy, Paul wants the U.S. to withdraw from all world affairs.”
I think you have a very poor understanding of Dr. Paul’s foreign policy. Or perhaps you just watch too much fox news, which falsely describes Paul as an ‘isolationist’.
He is the OPPOSITE of an isolationist. Paul wants to conduct free trade, travel, and open commerce with EVERYONE. PAul is against sanctions on Iran. Paul wants to open up with Cuba. Paul is the only one who appreciates how trade and commerce helped to foster better relations with China and Vietnam, and made them prosperous and the U.S. prosperous at the same time. Paul wants to quit wasting trillions of dollars bombing foreign countries that have never attacked the United States. Paul wants an end to the BUSH wars of aggression. Paul read bin Laden’s fatwah, which said that the saudi and other ‘terrorists’ were motivated by US occupation of the arabian peninsula, and indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians in the Middle East, having nothing to do with America being Free, or prosperous, or ‘christian’.
Jeb Bush? Provide that Bush magic that has done so much for the nation. Thousand points of light, the Iraq wars, the worse recession since the great depression. The Republicans advertise themselves as the party of Reagan. In truth they are more the party of the Bushes. Second and third generation Old Money, without which they would have been people of no great accomplishment. The best arguments ever for a high, confiscatory inheritance tax.
@Shaun
What Paul is advocating is a withdrawal from war. Have you always been pro-war, or this is just tribalism as usual?
bascii:
Thank you for the . . . er, clarification. And no, I do not watch Fox News.
Merkin:
Jeb Bush certainly would be one of the go-to guys in a brokered convention and while I think it is unfair to tar him with his brother’s wretched legacy, I don’t see him answering the call.
The economy is showing signs of shaking off its lethargy. We’re out of Iraq and planning to get out of Afghanistan. Overall, the Obama foreign policy has been a great success even if he has been a failure when it comes to civil liberties, something most American’s don’t give a spit about.
I just don’t see Jeb being competitive.
Some of Paul’s foreign policy ideas makes sense, but I don’t think its possible to return to pre-WWII isolationism. The Holocaust would have been mitigated if FDR had been able to get the country involved earlier in defeating Hitler. What would RP have done?
Ron Paul is a fun character to throw into the mix, and when compared with some of the other sideshow candidates the contrast makes him seem almost credible, but how real can someone be who has declared almost everything relating to federal govt to be unconstitutional? Time for the Paul fans to be honest with themselves. Next saviour please…
[...] This Just In: Obama Kills Bin Laden, Ron Paul Kills Iowa Caucuses (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
ProfElwood when a Democrat enters the White House, Democrats become hawks.
Paul reminds me of Kucinich in that I respect him for his intellectual consistency while 90% of politicians are mainly interested in what’s politically expedient. Unfortunately his ideas are extreme and some of them yes, nutty. I would vote for him over most of the GOP candidates though.
Goat– I’m not sure which is nuttier trying to remain isolationist when a lot of kooks have nukes, or trying to remake the Middle East in our own image.
One thing is for sure though– the neocons in the GOP and the pro-Israel Repubs will never allow Paul to be the nominee. If he somehow wins in Iowa- he’ll be eaten the same mega-sharks that are currently devouring Newt!
If you think that non-interventionism is kooky, insane, etc, then search for “blowback” or watch this.
There’s a reason that terrorists are attacking this nation and not other western democracies, and why they’re almost all Muslims, and why Paul is so popular with active military personnel.
Bluebelle the belief that the best way to handle countries that don’t like us is to quit provoking them unnecessarily used to be fairly popular among liberals, and that’s essentially what Paul is saying. I think he takes it to an extreme but I don’t think the concept is nutty. I agree with Paul that Muslims don’t hate the US because we “love freedom”, they just want us to stay out of their business.
I also agree with bascii that Paul does not want the US “out of all world affairs” as Shaun says, he just wants the primary focus to be economic engagement and not military. I think he takes that to an extreme but again there is nothing wrong with the concept.
Shaun
Obviously I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t trying to tar Jeb with his brother’s legacy, I was tarring the entire Republican party with it. Perhaps you could point out which of W. Bush’s policies the current Republican candidates have repudiated. To me they seem to be promoting the same ones.
Let’s go down the list. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Suppressing the wages of the non-wealthy. War instead of diplomacy. Increased spending for defense and security. More deregulation, especially for the financial industry. Looting of the Social Security Trust fund. Mideastern war, Iran this time. Recriminalization of abortion.
The only ones that I can think of are comprehensive immigration reform and acknowledging, but not doing anything about, global climate change.
merkin:
We’re talking past each other here. I did not think you were dissing Jeb, while you cover the Dubya waterfront of misachievements well. I would only add Katrina, torture, the rank politicization of the Just Ice Department and lowering America’s standing in the world.
As for accomplishments, Dubya can’t even claim immigration reform because his own party was against it.
I grow tired of defending President Obama to fellow Democrats. It is not President Obama that can “lose” the election. It is fellow Democrats whom, in their dismay of not getting everything they want right now and without delay, decide they will stick their butt’s in the air with a protest vote, or, just not vote at all, as some sort of stupid “cut off nose to spite face” dummy action. Every time you do that, the Republican party lives yet another day to oppress you. You deserve it.
First you have to root out the republicans then you root out the blue dogs. Otherwise you will always be disappointed.
Play around and play around and Paul or worse maybe our next President. The day will come that you will watch the sweeping of bodies of the old, unemployed, and, otherwise poor off the streets in garbage trucks.
Ah yes, Allen, and remember that nasty Republican fear mongering too.
prof-
It’s called fact mongering prof.
The Salvation Army wishes you a Merry Christmas.
Fact mongering? We never had those things happening before the government got involved, so I think your “facts” would be called “assumptions”. Assumption mongering I could agree with.
The people are the government.
If you have a problem with government, it is because people that out number people like you that are telling the government what to do. Apparently you are not convincing enough, because you seem to be unhappy with government.
@Allen
I agree; I am not convincing enough. The corporations, however, appear to be very convincing. I find that to be a problem, but hey, the SC says that I should stop being a bigot and embrace my fellow people, the corporations.
Rcoutme-
I was replying to prof, but I appreciate your answer.
I am also concerned that corporations are now legally people. I am certain the founding fathers are rolling in their graves over that one. Lobby reform was once an issue, but not since John McCain was beaten into the ground by his own party for suggesting it. I believe that if conservatives had their way, corporations would have far more political power over the individual, maybe even a fourth branch of government, and, are actively transforming our representative democracy into a corporate republic, the apparent goal of the right wing.
I do agree that it makes no sense to antagonize our enemies– the Iraq War was a huge foreign policy error. 9/11 to some extent was caused by our friendship with Israel and our unwelcome military presence in Saudi Arabia– but Paul goes way too far. Try telling Jewish voters that you’re going to stop sending foreign aid to Israel and see how far you get!
His domestic policies seem off the wall too– I actually would like the government to protect me and my fellow citizens from unethical businesses,unsafe imports,etc and expect it to protect the civil and voting rights of minorities. We tried it the other way and it doesn’t work.
@Bluebelle
If they end the even greater aid to their enemies, plus cut US control over their actions, I think Israel might not mind.
Prof!
I can’t believe you. Cut U.S. Control? What kind of traitor propaganda is that? There are always concessions made by any country for receiving any other country’s AID! Always.
There would be no Israel today had it not been for the United States. A little respect would go a long way but instead we get manipulations and LIES from their government!
If he even attempted to cut it, he would be branded as anti-semetic. His letters from the 90′s wouldn’t help the situation and
AIPAC would make mincemeat of him. You might not like the situation– but its the reality.
The neocon faction of the GOP want to attack Iran to protect Israel- a war we could never afford.
What a weird array of candidates they have running this year.
They are making Obama seem sane and reasonable by comparison.
Several things:
1) Semites include quite a few non-Jews (Lebanese for instance), so try to come up with another name for people who may not agree with the extreme pro-Israel lobby, please.
2) According to our enemies (Al Qaida), our presence in Saudi Arabia is what spurred the 9/11/01 attacks. Given that 17 of the attackers were from that country, I am willing to take them at their word.
3) Ron Paul (although apparently being unmoved by scientific facts) has at least been consistent in his proposals. As mentioned above, some of them are pretty good. Of course, one of the major problems with our current economic condition is mercantilism. Ron Paul’s suggestions might end the mercantilism being waged against us, but at what cost? We would likely all be either a) poorer or b) dead.
4) Suggesting that we could ‘never afford’ a war is ludicrous. We could easily afford it–we just have no real economic or political reason to pay the price! We wiped out Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Thailand, and Japan (which controlled and obtained troops from Korea) in WWII. Granted, we had help, but then again, we had help in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of unreasonableness. A stopped clock is right two times a day, etc.
@Rcoutme
How would disabling economic leaches make us poorer?
RC– We couldn’t afford the last one we got in— and war with Iran would be ridiculously more expensive and even more futile. We had to borrow money from China to pay for the Iraq War because Bush wanted to give his big donors a big tax break while we were fighting it. We’ll be paying for Iraq and Afghanistan for the foreseeable future – for negligible results.
If we had to go to war we could but the cost would outweigh the benefits just as it did with Iraq and Afghanistan– it ruined our prosperity along with the mortgage crisis and all the wall street fiascoes. So, that’s about the only thing I agree with him on–
His domestic positions seem absolutely ludicrous to me- it would be like trying to have Americans go back to 1930 before the New Deal. The only one I agree with him on is his proposal to stop spending on the war on drugs and decriminalize drug users.
bluebelle-
They can try to label the President anything they like, but Israel is pretty much the arsewipe of the world right now. They have few friends and those are not true friends and it’s there own fault.
Allen- They may have few friends– and I happen to agree that a lot of it is their own fault– but they have a very powerful lobby in this country. Any hint of a cut in aid or any attempt to play a fairer role in the ME is punished.. Many Jewish voters in this country will change their vote based on this one issue alone.
Why do you think those in Congress basically take a hands off approach to aid to Israel??
With all of this talk of deficit reduction has it even been brought up as an option?
To be fair, though, I do think the US needs to help defend Israel- we helped to create the country and it is totally surrounded by enemies. But I also believe in a two state solution. The problem of course, is that the Israelis refuse to stop the spread of their settlements.