Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama’s chief spokesman, got into hot water this week for daring to speak the truth – that the Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November. But it could be even worse than that.
Contrary to pretty much every projection until now, Democratic control of the Senate is also starting to coming into question. While Mr Obama’s approval ratings have continued to fall, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the fate of his former colleagues in the Senate looks even worse.
“If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” says Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, who has been predicting for months the Democrats could lose the House. “Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.”
Chart: Obama job approvalThe direction of the data could hardly be worse. According to Democracy Corps, a group headed by Stanley Greenberg, a liberal pollster who is a close friend of Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, a majority of US citizens see Mr Obama as “too liberal”.
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr Obama. “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and,
short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
Was the font increase your doing? If so, you are using a line liberals loved to use during the last administration, and that is just sad.
It was passive political analysis demonstrating that the man is not seen as a leader, and leaders can be demonstrated on the domestic front and the foreign policy front. Since his domestic policy leadership has been severely questioned, his foreign policy leadership already lacking in the eyes on many, it would take dramatic turnaround (through him or through external forces) to change the outcome.
He's not calling for one. You're only making that assumption because of your misguided, kneejerk assumptions about what liberals think.
Oh, you're that guy.
Neocons contributed to 9/11. I seem to remember this conversation with you.
Anyhow, this thread probably does not belong here anymore.
Oh, you're that guy.
Neocons contributed to 9/11. I seem to remember this conversation with you.
Anyhow, this thread probably does not belong here anymore.
Why not?? I just put the articles quotes up there... the comments could have focused on Obama's dwindling approval rating... hell, some of you have all but agreed with Shapiro's statements anyway, so I don't see how your claim this 'does not belong' is valid.
No, they did not. And no, he is not.
You are spreading your conspiracy theorist crap all over the thread. It was not a thread discussing how Obama is in a credibility crisis, it was you who bolded the letters, and asked your cryptic question. I even predicted you would bring up PNAC (incorrectly, as always), and you did not fail.
No. I have the entire PNAC website downloaded to my hard drive, I have many PDF documents of the writers in question, I own dozens of the authors' own texts, and have spent most of the previous decade researching them. You are incredibly wrong.
This thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.
This is an unintelligent argument, the point is obama is losing some popularity. Hes not going to stage a 911...I think anyone here knows that.
Ok, the explain it to me then... tell me what was being said when they wrote : "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
Ya... financial times... conspiracy theorists... That's almost as good as when Reuters articles were called conspiracy theories. Wow...what some people will do to stifle debate.
Especially when YOU are the one changing his quotes to have it mean what YOU want it to mean... and I'm taking his statements for what they ACTUALLY SAY, and I"M THEORISING??? Come on...
"For the moment, the U.S. Navy enjoys a level of global hegemony that surpasses that of the Royal Navy during its heyday. While the ability to project naval power ashore is, as it has always been, an important subsidiary mission for the Navy, it may not remain the service’s primary focus through the coming decades. Over the longer term –
but, given the service life of ships, well within the approaching planning horizons of the U.S. Navy – the Navy’s focus may return again to keeping command of the open oceans and sea lines of communi- cation. Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age."
[...]
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.
[…]Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs.[…]Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.[…]
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in
military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies
are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of
U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation
strategy that would decouple American and allied interests.
A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?