A prime time yawner
Wednesday, September 1st, 2010
A televised Oval Office address typically has several purposes – to inspire, to reassure, to educate, and, perhaps above all, to strengthen the president's political support. By those measures, particularly the latter one, Barack Obama's prime-time address on Iraq was a flop.
The midterm elections are less than nine weeks away, and voters are overwhelmingly focused on the moribund economy. Iraq's importance notwithstanding, it is now a second-tier bummer. Obama spent much of August signaling that the combat mission was over; his vice president did the same. In the Oval Office last night, Obama needed to focus solely on the economy – not tack it onto the back end of another Iraq riff. In domestic political terms, every precious minute spent addressing the American people about Iraq is one less minute spent addressing the topic that's foremost on everyone's minds.
It won't help the president's party on election day if voters perceive that the president is insufficiently attuned to the prevailing public mood. This is particularly true among the independent swing voters whose party allegiances are weakest, whose behavior in November is arguably driven most by the health status of the economy. Obama didn't talk about the economy, about the besieged middle class, until the closing minutes of his address – by which point, it's safe to assume, the majority of viewers had already checked out – and he offered no specifics anyway. Probably because, as I noted here yesterday, the two parties are gridlocked on what to do next.
This, at least, was an interesting passage: "We must tackle those (economic) challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for."
He appeared to be suggesting that those who obstruct his economic prescriptions are therefore dishonoring the troops. I doubt that this insinuation will inspire the Republicans to cooperate.
Independent swing voters aside, Obama last night also needed to stoke his under-enthused Democratic base; if liberals stay home in droves on election day (as the polls suggest may happen), a lot of congressional Democratic candidates are toast. But his remarks – especially with respect to Iraq – may well have inspired more liberals to skip the midterms.
Ninety percent of the Iraq passages could have been delivered verbatim by George W. Bush. There was lots of talk about building a nascent democracy "in the cradle of civilization," seemingly straight from the neoconservative handbook. There was a glancing reference to his past disagreements with Bush about the war, but it might have reassured the liberal base (and, frankly, most Americans) if he at least had pledged that America on his watch will never launch another war of choice on the basis of specious or phony intelligence. Or if he had somehow revisited his campaign assertion that the war in Iraq had made America less safe. Does he still believe that, or not?
Worse yet, he appeared to channel his predecessor by sugar-coating the current realities in Iraq. For instance, this passage: "This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place, as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt. The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not…What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner."
Those remarks are most notable for what they omitted. Those "credible elections" in Iraq were staged nearly six months ago, yet the Iraqis still haven't formed a government. Why? Because the two largest Shiite parties have been feuding, because neither has been able to make a deal with the Kurdish parties, nor with the Sunnis – who supported the party that finished first in the voting, but who may wind up powerless if the Shiites and Kurds finally come together. And the longer they all dither, the greater the threat of a dangerous security vacuum. And Obama, by his own admission, can only "encourage" the formation of a government.
Meanwhile, Obama's liberal base undoubtedly spotted the loophole in Obama's pledge to Iraq ("What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner"). He also insisted that "it's time to turn the page," but can that truly happen if we're pledging further "support?" What are the limits of "support?" Assuming that the Iraqis manage to cobble together a coalition regime, how will Obama respond next year when Iraqi leaders – as widely expected – formally request that a sizable number of American troops remain in Iraq, beyond the deadline set for the residual 50,000? As "a friend and a partner," could America say no?
All told, Obama and his party gained nothing last night. And the clock to November is ticking.
Sorry, I meant to post this here.
SMike, I agree the whole Global Warming thing is starting to look like a political campaign but there is a bigger issue here.
How about if we change the marketing strategy and call it Global Climate Change instead? Does anyone believe it's harmless to put carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone into the atmosphere? If so, would they be willing to suck on the tailpipe of an automobile or better yet, a cud chewing cow? My bet is no because it likely wouldn't be "healthy" for them. Not healthy for them, not healthy for society.
Maybe greenhouse gasses affect our climate, maybe they don't. I'm willing to concede that it's still open to debate. My point is that it doesn't really matter whether there is a such thing as Global Warming. Does anyone think that our climate isn't changing? If so I'd like to know what you're basing your opinion upon. From what I know (I have a degree in Biology with a minor in Math and Chemistry), from what I've read and from anecdotal evidence, things just aint' right. Maybe our climate is on a course to change, human contributions be damned. I'm willing to accept that argument. Does anyone out there think it's a good idea to ignore what's going on and hope it goes away? I think we should be doing everything we can to understand "Climate Change" and take whatever measures we can to deal with it. I don't think anyone would argue that smog, pollution, acid rain, etc. are good things so whether Global Warming is real or not those issues need to be addressed. Spend some time in Linfen China, Norilsk Russia, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania or Mexico City Mexico and get back to me afterward, I'd like to know how your lungs feel…
So make cars that run fast, can hold lots of people, are inexpensive and run on cheap fuel. There you go-problem solved. But the left's solutions increase the cost of our energy which makes it tough on people who are already trying to make ends meet
That may help to marginally improve a small part of the problem but my post is really about climate change in general. My point is that regardless of whether there is a such thing as Global Warming we should be doing everything possible to understand the climate, how it changes and what impact humans have on that, if any. It may turn out that Greenhouse Gasses really don't do that much and the bigger impact is deforestation and water shed management or some other human activity. Maybe we're just screwed and no matter what we do mother nature will do what she wants. I just think we should be looking at how we impact the earth based on what we know today which, in my opinion, is better than ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away. Yes, there is a good chance that our assumptions today are not perfect and that they will evolve over time but you can't wait for the perfect solution. Are computers today better than 1970? Of course. Will they be substantially better in 10 years? Of course. My point is don't wait for 10 years to buy a computer
Climate changes. Hard as this might be to believe, 20 thousand years ago the Great Lakes didn't exist and most of North America was under ice caps that exceeded a mile in thickness. There really was a Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago where temperatures were at or above today's temps. And approximately 400 years ago there really was a Little Ice Age which saw temperatures below those of today. All these climatic changes occurred even though mankind had yet to discover fossil fuels. Climate changes, and will continue to change regardless of what man attempts to do to try and arrest it. It is the nature of a dynamic system.
Absolutely, the earth has undergone substantial climate and geographic changes over many thousands of years. I just think we should be looking at the impact human activities have on the earth based on what we know today which, in my opinion, is better than ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away. Maybe we're just screwed as you point out and no matter what we do mother nature will do what she wants. But if there are any human components we should do what we can to help lessen the impact. Eventually the sun will die and the earth will stop spinning so it doesn't really matter
but if we can minimize our impact between now and then we should. We owe it to the future generations. I know there are a lot of people who only care about today and themselves (James Watt comes to mind) but I'm one of those old school people who believe that part of my purpose here is to make it better for future generations, not suck the earth dry and say "best luck to my kids"…
See if we can roust up Still Independent………..What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers — and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ#ixzz0yNBQxF8W
SMike, I agree the whole Global Warming thing is starting to look like a political campaign but there is a bigger issue here.
How about if we change the marketing strategy and call it Global Climate Change instead? Does anyone believe it's harmless to put carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone into the atmosphere? If so, would they be willing to suck on the tailpipe of an automobile or better yet, a cud chewing cow? My bet is no because it likely wouldn't be "healthy" for them. Not healthy for them, not healthy for society.
Maybe greenhouse gasses affect our climate, maybe they don't. I'm willing to concede that it's still open to debate. My point is that it doesn't really matter whether there is a such thing as Global Warming. Does anyone think that our climate isn't changing? If so I'd like to know what you're basing your opinion upon. From what I know (I have a degree in Biology with a minor in Math and Chemistry), from what I've read and from anecdotal evidence, things just aint' right. Maybe our climate is on a course to change, human contributions be damned. I'm willing to accept that argument. Does anyone out there think it's a good idea to ignore what's going on and hope it goes away? I think we should be doing everything we can to understand "Climate Change" and take whatever measures we can to deal with it. I don't think anyone would argue that smog, pollution, acid rain, etc. are good things so whether Global Warming is real or not those issues need to be addressed. Spend some time in Linfen China, Norilsk Russia, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania or Mexico City Mexico and get back to me afterward, I'd like to know how your lungs feel…
I watched the speech and was struck by a few things. 1) I have to commend Obama for calling George Bush and for mentioning it in the speech. Obama could've used his speech to villify the Iran war (as he did on the campaign trail) but instead he used the speech as a positive act of closure. I think the legacy of the Vietnam War was at work there–the troops who fought in that needless war were treated with disdain, and it was clear that Obama did not want the troops who fought in the needless Iraq war to be treated the same way; 2) I was disappointed by his lack of specifics on the economy ; 3) Why isn't there anything on his desk? The photos in the background were nice, but the empty desktop looked odd. At least a leather desk organizer or something. Now, of course, I know that conservatives could jump on this line and say that there are not surprised by his empty desk, taking that as a sign of an empty administration. I'm speaking more in terms of the public relations impression it creates, though.
Obama seems lost. Trying to take credit for fulfilling a campaign promise, when he had absolutely nothing to do with the troops success or the Status of Forces Agreement that enabled him to fulfill that promise. He also seems shellshocked about the economy, as if he is stunned that his policies have not delivered the success he envisioned. Recall that when asked about campaigning after voting for healthcare he told one Democrat Congressman "you'll have me". Recall how he also told Eric Cantor "elections have consequences, and I won". Now he looks completely lost and way in over his head.
"His policies" have not been implemented. There should have been a much larger stimulus, but Republicans would not go along with that, so we got a half-stimulus. What magic button will Republicans have if they take the House? Big tax breaks for the wealthy? I have yet to hear any actual ideas from that side of the aisle, other than Obama is a Muslim who is somehow also like Hitler.
Yes, Schnail. If only we had a budgetary deficit $3 trillion per year rather than $1.5 trillion everything would be hunky dory.
Quite a narrative you have going on there. Republicans didn't have the votes to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do so if your " stimulous " was enough perhaps a look in the mirror is in order. The magic button the Republicans will have if they take the house is the same one they had when Clinton was President. Reign in the spending and save Obama from his awful policies of card check and cap and trade. Have a nice day!
Let's just give everyone a $million and call it quits.
Ya because George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, and Calvin Coolidge never were lost and in over their heads. They always projected an aura of knowledge and strength.
Logathis: I thought Ford did a solid job as the Chief Executive. He just screwed up when he became Chief Pardoner…
Of course Obama's speech was a lackluster "yawner." How could it be anything else? Obama the candidate believed the war was lost. Obama the candidate wanted all the troops removed from Iraq as he insisted the surge would fail. As a senator Obama wanted to defund the war effort. Candidate Obama continued to insist the surge had failed even as its growing success was apparent to all.
Polman writes " it won't help the president's party on election day if voters perceive that the president is insufficiently attuned to the prevailing public mood. "……………………. But what it will do is give our government some balance, save Obama from his horrific policies of cap and trade and card check, and probably insert some lacking certainty into the private sector so they can begin to hire again.
I'd agree with you more if the 'Pubs had someone in the House to run The Show other than Boehner. The only public mood he seems attuned to is the one at his Country Club's bar.
Given his job, I guess Polman has no choice but to watch Obama's speeches. As for me, I've tuned Obama out. I'll read a transcript of his speech, but simply can't tolerate listening to the man. It took nearly seven years before I reached this point with Bush, so way to go Obama!
HGTV seemed a better option to me last night than Obama's speech. In house hunters a woman was looking for a house in Palm Springs Ca.
Heck, I thought Bush's LAST year was his only good one. Finally took his head out of his keister & stopped listening to Cheney.
Well, for one thing he's trying to take credit for something that he didn't do. All he actually did was follow the agreement that Bush worked out with Maliki before leaving office and renege on the promise that he himself made before taking office.