Lame Duck

Greed

Star
Registered
Obama losing the confidence of key parts of the coalition that elected him
By Karen Tumulty
September 11

Kimberly Cole was part of the coalition that voted in 2008 to make Barack Obama the 44th president and gave him another four years in 2012 to deliver on his promises of hope and change.

Now, the 36-year-old mother of three young children in Valencia, Calif., is among the majority of Americans who have lost confidence in Obama’s leadership and the job he is doing as president.

“He’s been faced with a lot of challenges, and he’s lost his way,” Cole said in an interview. She worries that Obama lacks the resolve needed at a time when things at home and abroad are looking scarier.

On the other side of the country, Karlene Richardson, 44, once counted herself a “very strong supporter” of the president. But now she feels much the same as Cole does.

“Honestly, I just feel that what I bought into is not what I’m getting,” said Richardson, an author and motivational speaker who teaches health-care administration at a community college in Queens. “I’m starting to wonder whether the world takes us seriously.”

Both Cole and Richardson were surveyed in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll and represent one of its most striking findings: the degree to which the president’s approval has slipped among key parts of the Obama coalition — the women, youth and Latino voters most responsible for putting him into office.

Women surveyed said they disapprove of Obama by a 50 percent to 44 percent margin — nearing an all-time low in the poll. It’s almost the reverse of the 55 percent to 44 percent breakdown for Obama among female voters in 2012, according to exit polls.


His approval rating among women has slipped four percentage points from a year ago and 16 points since his second inaugural in January 2013, when his approval was 60 percent among the group.

Among younger voting-age Americans, Obama’s approval rating stood at 43 percent. That marked an 11-point drop since June among those 18 to 29 years old. Voters younger than 30 supported Obama by 60 percent to 37 percent in 2012.

Meanwhile, support for Obama among Hispanics stood at 57 percent, which is down markedly from the first half of 2013, when approval among Latinos soared to about 75 percent.

Obama’s support remains solid among African Americans, with 87 percent approving of his job performance. That is a modest erosion from the 93 percent of black voters who supported his reelection.

Of all of those groups, women are traditionally most likely to be swing voters — and the two parties have fought fiercely for their loyalties, with the Democrats coming out ahead in recent election cycles. At slightly over half the electorate, they are not a monolith, of course. Single women tend to vote more solidly Democratic; married women, more Republican. There are also ethnic differences in their electoral behavior.

But there is fresh and growing evidence that many women’s faith in Obama has turned to misgivings — possibly making it more difficult for his party to retain their support in this year’s midterms and beyond.

Virginia Wilson, 60, of Charleston, W.Va., is another disillusioned Obama voter.

“I can’t blame it all on him,” she said, but added, “There was going to be a change, that we would see people coming together, instead of falling apart.”


Suburban women’s concerns, in particular, change from election to election, and over the years, pollsters and political strategists have come up with different labels to describe this crucial slice of the electorate.

In the 1990s, these middle-class women were known as “soccer moms,” and President Bill Clinton won reelection in part because of how well he related to their harried lives.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, there were “security moms” — a term coined by then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). This group was seen as a major reason why, in 2002, George W. Bush became the first Republican president in a century to see his party pick up seats in a midterm election. But by 2006, as the country had soured on the Iraq war, they swung back to the Democrats.

About five years ago, with economic insecurity rising to the top of their concerns, the political shorthand for swing-voting women became “Wal-Mart Moms.” The retail giant began commissioning a pollster from each party to jointly conduct regular focus groups of women who shopped at its stores.

On Tuesday night, two of those focus groups met in Little Rock and Des Moines. Both represent states with tight Senate races that could help determine whether the chamber remains in Democratic hands.

Neil Newhouse, the GOP pollster, said that the groups are usually focused on “economic anxiety” but that the main concern has shifted to security issues in the wake of atrocities committed by the Islamic State terrorist group ascendant in Iraq and Syria.


“There was a sense that their personal safety and security was threatened,” Newhouse said, adding that the threat posed by the terrorist group “has these moms concerned, and these are women who don’t naturally gravitate to international issues.”

Margie Omero, Newhouse’s Democratic partner in conducting the focus groups, agreed, noting that the women had also cited crime in their communities and unrest after the police shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old in Ferguson, Mo.

“It was more pronounced than concerns about the economic downturn,” Omero said. “There was a lot more concern about crime and international unrest than we’ve seen in the past.”

The two pollsters wrote in a memo summarizing their findings from the focus groups: “Regardless of their 2012 vote, moms’ opinions of Obama have dulled. At best, some feel sorry for him.”

The beheading of two journalists by Islamic State terrorists does appear to have been a galvanizing event for many Americans. A newly released Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 94 percent had heard news of the murders — “a higher level of public attention than given to any of 22 news events” tested since 2009, the journal wrote.

In the Post-ABC poll, Obama’s handling of international affairs loomed as a significant problem with women. Just 37 percent said they approve of the job he is doing, which is his lowest rating on this issue among women in Post-ABC polls and nearly matches his 38 percent approval among men.

When called back for follow-up interviews, some of the women who responded to the Post-ABC poll said they, too, had been unsettled by the beheadings — and by Obama’s decision to play golf just minutes after giving a statement expressing his revulsion at the death of journalist James Foley.


Cole, the California woman, said it seemed to her that Obama was “very nonchalant. . . . The personal side of it, that he has feelings, is gone.”

And Richardson — interviewed before Obama gave a prime-time speech Wednesday laying out plans to target the Islamic State with airstrikes — said “he just made these promises that he doesn’t go through with” related to the terrorist group.

How much effect this will have on the midterm elections is unclear.

The two pollsters who conducted the Wal-Mart Moms focus groups wrote that it will be indirect with those voters: “While he may be a player in how moms perceive the dysfunction in Washington, they will not have President Obama directly in mind when casting their vote in November.”

Newhouse predicted that the shift in sentiment away from the president is likely to have more implications in 2016. He said voters are likely to be looking for someone they think has more foreign policy experience and a stronger leadership style.

But at the moment, some say they are just feeling burned and unsure whether they can put their trust in any candidate.

Wilson, the West Virginian, said her father was an immigrant from Yugoslavia, whose experiences there had impressed on her the importance of voting.

“It’s almost like I don’t care any more, and don’t want to support anybody,” she said. “And that’s really a shame.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...a1c2da-391b-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html
 
Ex-US officials criticize Obama 'micromanagement'

Ex-US officials criticize Obama 'micromanagement'
AFP
7 hours ago

Simi Valley (United States) (AFP) - Leon Panetta and Robert Gates, two former directors of the CIA and Defense Department, on Saturday criticized President Barack Obama's "micromanagement" of the military.

"For the past 25 to 30 years, there has been a centralization of power in the White House," Panetta said during a panel discussion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation.

"Because of that centralization of authority at the White House, there are too few voices that are being heard."

Without naming the Obama administration, Panetta said that "by the time you get to the White House, the staff has already decided" what should be done.

Panetta served the Obama administration as head of the Central Intelligence Agency between 2009 and 2011, and Defense Department chief between 2011 and 2013.

Robert Gates, director of the CIA under former president George H.W. Bush and secretary of defense under George W. Bush and Obama from 2006 to 2011, directly criticized Obama's White House.

He said there was a long history of disagreement between the president and military advisers but that "micromanagement" of the military sets the Obama administration apart.

"My concern in terms of this relationship of the White House and the military is not on the big issues," Gates told an audience at the presidential foundation in Simi Valley, California.

"It's in the increasing desire of the White House to control and manage every aspect of military affairs."

He compared the Obama administration to that of Lyndon Johnson, who "personally chose" military targets in the Vietnam war.

"It was the micromanagement that drove me crazy," Gates said.

The former defense chief said Obama's administration stands in contrast to both Bush administrations, where once a decision was made, there was "no micromanagement."

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-us-officials-criticize-obama-micromanagement-042358024.html
 
Re: Impeach Obama

140G4.AuSt.91.jpeg
 
Dems on ObamaCare: Was it worth it?

Dems on ObamaCare: Was it worth it?
By Alexander Bolton
12/04/14 06:00 AM EST

Influential Democrats who have strongly defended Obama-Care for years are now publicly questioning whether the law was worth the political fallout.

Passage of the Affordable Care Act marked the start of a political unraveling for the Democratic Party, which lost huge majorities in Congress and control of a majority of state governorships in the last four and a half years.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, said last week that ObamaCare was not worth the political cost. And he’s not alone.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, told The Hill that Democrats should have enacted a single-payer healthcare system or a public option. In retrospect, Harkin said, Democrats should have not passed the bill they did. While he says the ACA enacted some good reforms, he bemoans its daunting complexity.

Schumer’s and Harkin’s recent remarks are quite different than in prior years. After the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare’s individual mandate, Harkin hailed the ruling as “great news for America’s families, businesses and our economy. The Affordable Care Act moves us forward where every person has affordable, quality healthcare in America.”

Schumer, meanwhile, in 2010 said, “I predict … by November those who voted for healthcare will find it an asset; those who voted against it will find it a liability.”

But the law has struggled to gain traction with the public and has been a boon to the GOP politically. In short, many Democrats are tired of waiting.

The public criticism of the law, the centerpiece of President Obama’s legacy, has ignited a debate within the Democratic Party.

Democrats are arguing among themselves about whether to focus on the poor, who are not reliable voters, or the middle class, who have started to turn to the Republican Party.

Schumer argued at a speech at the National Press Club that Democrats “blew the opportunity the American people gave them” by passing healthcare reform in 2009 and 2010 instead of working on economic legislation designed to help middle-class voters.

He estimates that uninsured Americans who were the primary beneficiaries of healthcare reform made up only about 5 percent of the electorate in 2010, when Republicans captured the House.

ObamaCare was a huge rallying cry of Republicans in the 2010 midterms, which helped them rack up support from white, middle-class voters. In 2014, ObamaCare was less front and center, though it certainly helped the GOP.

Harkin, who co-authored the law and is retiring at the end of this Congress, said, “We had the power to do it in a way that would have simplified healthcare, made it more efficient and made it less costly, and we didn’t do it, So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all.

“What we did is we muddled through and we got a system that is complex, convoluted, needs probably some corrections and still rewards the insurance companies extensively,” he added.

These critiques have spawned a sharp debate among Democrats.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), another architect of ObamaCare, hailed the law as a historic achievement and strongly disagreed with Schumer and Harkin.

“Healthcare has been a subject of debate in this country for a hundred years, and when you had the opportunity to rationalize the system and to get people covered who were never covered, you have to take that opportunity,” he said.

Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this cycle, said he agrees with Schumer that the party should focus on the middle class.

“But I do not believe that we should relitigate the political strategies in passing the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

Miller, who is close to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said people approach him “every day” to thank him and relate their personal stories of gaining access to healthcare.

He noted that reform-minded presidents throughout the 20th century — including Bill Clinton, Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt — have called for expanding access to healthcare.

“Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t do it, when he had the balls of a gorilla,” said Miller, who noted that Democrats also failed to reform healthcare when they had 61 seats in the Senate and controlled the White House in 1977 and 1978.

Schumer’s analysis elicited a pointed response from Pelosi.

“We come here to do a job, not keep a job. There are more than 14 million reasons why that’s wrong,” Pelosi said in a written statement, referring to people who gained health coverage through the law.

Some Democratic lawmakers sympathize with both arguments.

“I certainly agree with the sentiment that the timing was tough due to the economic crisis that was gripping our country. On the other hand, I think if you were to ask the president, I would assume the president would counter, ‘I did it when we could,’ ” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.), the incoming chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee , applauded Schumer’s message to the party that it needs to focus more on the needs of middle-class voters.

“I think, moving forward, he’s spot on,” he said. “I think we need to focus on the middle class, the economy, and opportunity and prosperity.”

But Miller said it’s wishful thinking to believe Democrats could have passed another economic stimulus package in 2009 had they skipped pushing healthcare reform.

“The idea that you could have traded that for stimulus? Remember, we had a stimulus package. They cut the stimulus in half. They put half of it in tax cuts which lowered the stimulus amount,” he said of leadership negotiations with Republicans and Democratic centrists.

Harkin believes Democrats could have created a government-provided insurance option by working harder to win over three centrists: former Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

“The House passed [a] public option. We had the votes in the Senate for cloture,” he said.

“There were only three Democrats that held out and we could have had those three,” he added. “We could have had all three of them if the president would have been just willing to do some political things, but he wouldn’t do it.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who backed legislation to create a public option, questioned whether Obama could have moved Democratic centrists.

“I never saw that opening and I’m a keen supporter of the public option and wish we had it, but I just didn’t see the votes,” he said.

But Whitehouse, along with many Democrats, agrees that bending over backward to assuage the political concerns of Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and other moderates didn’t pan out.

“I don’t think it would have been any more politically fraught if it had passed,” he said of the public option.

Tester voiced a similar view.

“We certainly wouldn’t have gotten any more criticism,” he said.

Other Democrats say it’s too painful to play the what-if game.

“The law is the law, and whatever Schumer or anybody else thinks about what we should have done, we did it and it’s done. We’ve got to move on,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/225959-dems-on-o-care-was-it-worth-it
 
Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal
The damage from Tom Cotton’s letter has been contained, lawmakers of both parties say.
By Burgess Everett
3/15/15 1:02 PM EDT
Updated 3/15/15 8:05 PM EDT

Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal.

And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP’s letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement.

Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal.

That presents another complication for the administration ahead of a rough deadline of March 24 to reach a nuclear agreement with the country.

“The letter’s incredibly unfortunate and inappropriate,” said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, a centrist Democrat who voted for the sanctions bill in committee and is a sponsor of the congressional approval legislation. “That doesn’t diminish my support for the legislation that we introduced.”

The president’s challenge in Congress on the issue isn’t limited to the 47 Republican senators who signed last week’s missive arguing that a nuclear agreement could be revoked by the next U.S. president. In a letter released Saturday, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough implored Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) not to push for a vote on his bill that would give Congress 60 days to reject or approve of any deal.

McDonough argued that Corker’s measure, which has nearly a dozen Democratic supporters, “goes well beyond ensuring that Congress has a role to play in any deal with Iran.” And he asked Corker, who’s sought to maintain a cordial relationship with the White House, to let the administration finish its negotiations with Iran, indicating it may take until the end of June. A framework is expected by the end of this month.

Corker shrugged off the request in response. And in an interview late last week, he said he hasn’t lost the support of any Democrats despite the turbulent atmosphere surrounding Iran politics.

“Let a couple days go by. We think there’s going to be really ignited momentum,” Corker, who did not sign the Cotton letter, said on Thursday. “Nobody’s dropping out. We’ve had reaffirmed commitment” from Democrats.

Indeed, a day after the controversy over Cotton’s letter erupted, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado co-sponsored Corker’s congressional review bill, the 11th Democrat to signal support.

Though the White House has seized on the GOP’s “open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” in an effort to shift the politics of the nuclear negotiations in its favor on Capitol Hill, there’s no evidence it’s working so far. Nearly all of the 54 Republicans and more than a dozen Democrats in the Senate remain at odds with the president on the issue.

Meanwhile, the House will hold hearings this week to grill administration officials on Iran, a potentially troubling sign for the administration, considering the chamber passed a strict Iran sanctions bill in 2013 by a vote of 400-20 — far above the veto override threshold.

“The letter was simply unacceptable, and it brought hyperpartisanship to an issue that we need to maintain our bipartisanship in,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), a supporter of sanctions that would not take effect unless talks fall apart or Iran backs away from the terms of any deal. “That doesn’t change my support for that bill. … I stay firm.”

A group of 10 Democrats wrote to President Barack Obama this month and vowed not to support the bill that would allow Congress to reject a nuclear deal until after March 24. That followed a similar deadline set by 12 Democrats in a January message to Obama regarding the conditional sanctions bill. Aides in both parties put their vote counts for the bills in the mid-60s, but they’re confident that if either comes to the floor, additional Democrats will back them.

The administration now appears to be asking for even more time: McDonough said in his letter to Corker that if a framework is reached this month and a “final deal by the end of June, we expect a robust debate in Congress.” GOP leaders appear determined to move much sooner than that.

For a moment, Cotton’s letter appeared to shake the bipartisan foundation undergirding both of the Iran bills. Democrats warned of a backslide into partisanship on a foreign policy issue that’s united Congress for years. Capitol Hill has long pressed for additional economic penalties on Iran in hopes of forcing it to the negotiating table with global powers.

But Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who backs the sanctions bill, said, “The fundamentals for bipartisan action ought still to be there.”

“This is a sad day in America when people are trying to kill negotiations that are underway,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said of the Cotton letter. But would he back away from Corker’s congressional approval bill?

“No,” he answered, adding with apparent satisfaction: “I’m an original co-sponsor.”

The Republican stewards of Iran legislation, who have jockeyed for the support of the party leadership, said several Democrats reiterated their support privately last week after the letter uproar. Corker’s bill that would allow Congress to vote to override Obama’s Iran deal is seen as the one Republican leaders are most likely to schedule for action on the Senate floor, probably sometime in April.

Another bill, proposed by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), could also be an option if Congress begins to doubt Iran’s commitment to finalizing a deal or upholding one. Kirk’s bill would trigger sanctions if Iran walks away from talks or reneges on a deal. He said 68 senators have signaled support for it, a number he predicted would grow “once we actually vote.”

The White House and Obama administration officials are shrugging off Congress’ still-strong bipartisan desire for weighing in on the delicate talks with Iran, and they declined to say whether the president will renew veto threats on either Iran bill after March 24. The view from Obama’s orbit: firmly focus on making sure there’s a deal first, regardless of the speculation on Capitol Hill.

“The administration is focused on achieving a deal that prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” a senior administration official said. “If a deal is reached, we will make the case to the Congress and the American people as to why the deal we are negotiating is in the national security interests of the United States and our international partners.”

In sharply divided Washington, it’s possible that the bipartisanship on the bills won’t last. In just the past month, the GOP enraged Democrats by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress about Iran without input from Obama. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) infuriated Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) by trying to vote on Corker’s bill before it had passed committee, causing Democrats to turn on their own legislation.

And the Cotton letter, of course, further ratcheted up foreign policy tensions in Congress. Some are warning that any further divisiveness could cause support for the Iran bills to dissipate.

“I’d like to see them stop politicizing this issue,” said Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, “and start talking about the merits.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-white-house-on-iran-nuclear-deal-116088.html
 
Back
Top