NRA: Obama’s ‘Political Correctness’ Let Orlando Shooting Happen

Draw your own conclusions: seems truly odd. ~fls

NRA: Obama’s ‘Political Correctness’ Let Orlando Shooting Happen

Tjha9l6esbovjlw2qis5

AP Photo / Mark Humphrey

“The terrorist in Orlando had been investigated multiple times by the FBI. He had a government-approved security guard license with a contractor for the Department of Homeland Security. Yet his former co-workers reported violent and racist comments,” Cox continued. “Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s political correctness prevented anything from being done about it.”

Cox wrote that gun laws didn’t stop attacks in San Bernardino, Brussels or Paris.

“Repeating the same thing but expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Law-abiding gun owners are tired of being blamed for the acts of madmen and terrorists,” he said.

The FBI interviewed Mateen for two separate investigations, but both probes were closed when he purchased the guns use in the attack at an Orlando gay club that killed 49.

Gun Industry Describes Mass Shootings Like Orlando as a “Big Opportunity”

June 13 2016, 11:05 a.m.

IN RECENT CORPORATE PRESENTATIONS, leading gun makers celebrated the fact that consumers bought more firearms because of the December terrorist attack in San Bernardino. And, prior to the massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando on Saturday night, executives were telling investors to expect another big bump — because of the upcoming elections.

The surge in sales after mass shootings, as we’ve reported, is nothing new: Mass shootings lead to talk of gun control; the National Rifle Association — the gun advocacy group funded significantly by gun and ammunition manufacturers — uses its influence in Congress to block any legislative action; but gun owners, irrationally terrified that the government will restrict or ban firearms, rush out to buy more guns and ammo.

Sturm, Ruger & Co. Chief Executive Michael Fifer, speaking at his company’s annual meeting in May, noted that his company — the largest handgun manufacturer in the U.S. — saw a spike in demand that “was strongly correlated to the tragic terrorist activities in Paris and San Bernardino.” Sales eventually slowed down, but Fifer called that a “big opportunity for the distributors to step up and take on inventory” to be ready for election-related sales.

In February, on an investor conference call, Fifer had predicted that “we’ll see a step up of demand if a Democrat wins” the presidency. And if Democrats win control of the Senate, he added, gun sales will increase dramatically based on fears that a more liberal Supreme Court might restrict gun rights.

Stephen Nolan, executive vice president of Vista Outdoors, a gun distributor, said the election cycle might drive a “mini surge” in sales. Nolan, speaking at the RBC Capital Markets conference earlier this month, noted that “political reaction to the tragedy in San Bernardino” and the talk of “further gun control” appeared to drive recent sales.

Smith & Wesson Chief Executive P. James Debney, speaking at the UBS Global Consumer Conference in March, explained that recent terrorist attacks had pushed firearms “back into the world of politics, talking about increasing legislation in gun control,” which “no doubt” encouraged “a very strong buying period.” He speculated that the election cycle might be having an effect as well.

Following the mass killing on Saturday evening, a number of legislators stepped up calls for gun control legislation. “Congress has become complicit in these murders by its total, unconscionable deafening silence,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement.

But there is little hope for meaningful gun control legislation this year.

Meanwhile, as CNBC reports, “Shares of gunmakers Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger rose 9.8 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively, in premarket trading Monday following the massacre in Orlando, Florida.”

Related:

CONTACT THE AUTHOR:

Lee Fanglee.fang@theintercept.com@lhfang

Obama, in 2015 State of the Union, says crisis has passed and takes credit: Washington Post 1/21/15

OBAMA STATE OF UNION 2015

Judge for yourself. We think it couldn’t have been done much better, except possibly for a few Machiavellian struts on fighting terrorism. But hey, if he needs that!

Politics
Obama, in 2015 State of the Union, says crisis has passed and takes credit

WASHINGTON POST
Here are the highlights from President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union speech, including zingers on climate change and calls for tax reform.
By David Nakamura January 21 at 12:17 AM
President Obama, who took office six years ago amid a historic recession and two U.S. wars, declared unequivocally Tuesday that the nation had clawed its way out of those dire straits, praising Americans for their resilience but also pointedly taking credit for leading the way.
“America, for all that we’ve endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this: The shadow of crisis has passed,” Obama said in his sixth State of the Union address to the nation and a joint session of Congress in the House chamber.
After years of fighting with Republicans over where to take the country, Obama delivered an hour-long defense of his policies that at times sounded like a victory lap. He asserted that the brightening economic picture — including accelerating job growth, more people with health insurance and lower gas prices — had proved that he was right, and his adversaries misguided, all along.
The president had been cautious over the past two years not to gloat over news of fitful economic growth, mindful that the economy remained tenuous and public confidence uneasy. But with the jobless rate well below 6 percent, the stock market nearing record highs and his job-approval ratings rebounding, Obama on Tuesday night dropped his veneer of reserve and appeared to delight in having proved his critics wrong.
“At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious, that we would crush jobs and explode deficits,” he said. “Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health-care inflation at its lowest rate in 50 years.”
State of the Union 2015

View Photos
President Obama’s address focused on issues facing the middle class
“So the verdict is clear,” Obama said.
At times Tuesday, Obama chided Republicans to help improve Washington’s political discourse. He harked back to the themes of national unity that helped him get elected in the first place in 2008 and called for more bipartisan cooperation on key issues.
But in doing so, Obama also served to remind the GOP of the reasons their relationship is so fraught — pausing at one point from his prepared text to deliver a spontaneous, and quite partisan, barb. When Republicans jokingly applauded after Obama noted that he had run his last campaign, the president quipped: “I know because I won both of them.”
Obama took the spotlight in front of Vice President Biden and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) intent on proving that he would remain relevant in the final quarter of his presidency as the race to replace him next year begins.
Just two months after Democrats suffered a severe blow in the midterm elections, when voters handed control of both chambers to the GOP for the first time during his tenure, Obama’s speech came amid warnings from Republicans to avoid divisive rhetoric and policies.
“Tonight isn’t about the president’s legacy. It’s about the people’s priorities,” Boehner said in a video posted to YouTube on Tuesday. “Making the government bigger isn’t going to help the middle class. More growth and more opportunity will help the middle class, and those are the Republican priorities.”
But Obama had told allies that he would not kowtow to GOP demands despite the party’s new majorities. The president announced early in his speech that he would focus less on the usual laundry list of new proposals — the White House had revealed most of them ahead of time — and instead focus on the “values at stake” for the American people moving forward.
VIEW GRAPHIC
The Washington Post looks back at some of the top issues of 2014.
He framed portions of his address around a letter he received from a woman in Minneapolis named Rebekah Erler, who said that she and her husband struggled to pay bills during the recession shortly after they were married and had a son.
“We are a strong, tightknit family who has made it through some very, very hard times,” Obama said, quoting a letter from Erler, whom he visited during a trip to the Midwest last summer. She was among the guests in first lady Michelle Obama’s box.
The president said Erler’s story was a metaphor for the nation’s. “It’s been your effort and resilience that has made it possible for our country to emerge stronger,” Obama said. “Fifteen years into this new century, we have picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off, and begun again the work of remaking America. We have laid a new foundation. A brighter future is ours to write.”
In the wake of the GOP rout in the midterms, the president responded by announcing a series of aggressive executive actions, including measures toprotect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, to work toward reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and to strike a climate agreement with China.
The moves angered Republicans, who challenged the president to heed the message of voters.
Instead, the White House continued its strategy into the new year, rolling out the major proposals for the next year in a presidential tour ahead of the State of the Union address. Obama laid out proposals to revamp the tax code by raising taxes and fees on the wealthiest Americans and largest financial institutions — and using the money to pay for free tuition for two years of community college and for a $500 tax credit for married couples in which both spouses have jobs.
Though the White House knew the ideas have a slim chance of being approved by lawmakers, the point was to start a debate on Obama’s terms. And the president and his advisers were determined to begin to frame his legacy as having delivered on his promise to improve the lives of ordinary Americans.
On foreign policy, Obama sought to build on the idea, first enunciated during a lengthy speech at West Point last spring, of a “smarter kind of American leadership” in which the United States balances military intervention with diplomacy and coalition-building.
Obama has made the case in recent weeks, as he marked the end of U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, that the nation is safer after more than a decade of combat abroad — even though he authorized renewed U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria to combat the Islamic State militant group.
American leadership “is stopping ISIL’s advance,” Obama said, using an acronym for the group. But such a declaration seemed premature, set against images Tuesday of two orange-clad Japanese hostages kneeling in the desert before a black-robed militant.
Ahead of the speech, cable networks showed footage of U.S. Navy warships stationed in the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen, where the government was in danger of collapsing and the U.S. Embassy was potentially at risk, providing stark reminders about the threats to American values around the world.
In addition to the annual State of the Union traditions — such as Obama’s lunch with television news anchors at the White House — presidential aides noted that Obama spoke Tuesday with French President François Hollande about the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris two weeks ago.
“The State of the Union & the State of the World are far from alignment,” Ian Bremmer, president of the risk analysis firm Eurasia Group, observed on Twitter.
But Obama was determined to project an optimistic view of the nation’s future, and he maintained faith that the country could rise above its divisions. He alluded to his own diverse upbringing in Hawaii and Chicago and cited his keynote address as an Illinois state senator at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which launched him on the national political radar as a bright young prospect for higher office.
“A better politics isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine,” Obama said Tuesday. “A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears.”
The president acknowledged that he had heard the political pundits declare since he took office six years ago that he had failed to make good on his vision at a time when “our politics seems more divided than ever. It’s held up as proof not just of my own flaws — of which there are many — but also as proof that the vision itself is misguided, and naive.”
To the contrary, Obama insisted, as he pledged to keep working to change Washington, even as he was, in many ways, declaring victory over his rivals.
“I want this chamber, I want this city, to reflect the truth,” he said, “that for all our blind spots and shortcomings, we are a people with the strength and generosity of spirit to bridge divides, to unite in common effort.”

Politics
Obama, in 2015 State of the Union, says crisis has passed and takes credit
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Plus Share via Email More Options

Resize Text Print Article Comments 3589

Here are the highlights from President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union speech, including zingers on climate change and calls for tax reform.
By David Nakamura January 21 at 12:17 AM
President Obama, who took office six years ago amid a historic recession and two U.S. wars, declared unequivocally Tuesday that the nation had clawed its way out of those dire straits, praising Americans for their resilience but also pointedly taking credit for leading the way.

“America, for all that we’ve endured; for all the grit and hard work required to come back; for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this: The shadow of crisis has passed,” Obama said in his sixth State of the Union address to the nation and a joint session of Congress in the House chamber.

After years of fighting with Republicans over where to take the country, Obama delivered an hour-long defense of his policies that at times sounded like a victory lap. He asserted that the brightening economic picture — including accelerating job growth, more people with health insurance and lower gas prices — had proved that he was right, and his adversaries misguided, all along.

The president had been cautious over the past two years not to gloat over news of fitful economic growth, mindful that the economy remained tenuous and public confidence uneasy. But with the jobless rate well below 6 percent, the stock market nearing record highs and his job-approval ratings rebounding, Obama on Tuesday night dropped his veneer of reserve and appeared to delight in having proved his critics wrong.

“At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious, that we would crush jobs and explode deficits,” he said. “Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health-care inflation at its lowest rate in 50 years.”

State of the Union 2015
View Photos President Obama’s address focused on issues facing the middle class
“So the verdict is clear,” Obama said.

At times Tuesday, Obama chided Republicans to help improve Washington’s political discourse. He harked back to the themes of national unity that helped him get elected in the first place in 2008 and called for more bipartisan cooperation on key issues.

But in doing so, Obama also served to remind the GOP of the reasons their relationship is so fraught — pausing at one point from his prepared text to deliver a spontaneous, and quite partisan, barb. When Republicans jokingly applauded after Obama noted that he had run his last campaign, the president quipped: “I know because I won both of them.”
Obama took the spotlight in front of Vice President Biden and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) intent on proving that he would remain relevant in the final quarter of his presidency as the race to replace him next year begins.

Just two months after Democrats suffered a severe blow in the midterm elections, when voters handed control of both chambers to the GOP for the first time during his tenure, Obama’s speech came amid warnings from Republicans to avoid divisive rhetoric and policies.

“Tonight isn’t about the president’s legacy. It’s about the people’s priorities,” Boehner said in a video posted to YouTube on Tuesday. “Making the government bigger isn’t going to help the middle class. More growth and more opportunity will help the middle class, and those are the Republican priorities.”

But Obama had told allies that he would not kowtow to GOP demands despite the party’s new majorities. The president announced early in his speech that he would focus less on the usual laundry list of new proposals — the White House had revealed most of them ahead of time — and instead focus on the “values at stake” for the American people moving forward.

VIEW GRAPHIC
The Washington Post looks back at some of the top issues of 2014.
He framed portions of his address around a letter he received from a woman in Minneapolis named Rebekah Erler, who said that she and her husband struggled to pay bills during the recession shortly after they were married and had a son.

“We are a strong, tightknit family who has made it through some very, very hard times,” Obama said, quoting a letter from Erler, whom he visited during a trip to the Midwest last summer. She was among the guests in first lady Michelle Obama’s box.

The president said Erler’s story was a metaphor for the nation’s. “It’s been your effort and resilience that has made it possible for our country to emerge stronger,” Obama said. “Fifteen years into this new century, we have picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off, and begun again the work of remaking America. We have laid a new foundation. A brighter future is ours to write.”

In the wake of the GOP rout in the midterms, the president responded by announcing a series of aggressive executive actions, including measures to protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, to work toward reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and to strike a climate agreement with China.
The moves angered Republicans, who challenged the president to heed the message of voters.

Instead, the White House continued its strategy into the new year, rolling out the major proposals for the next year in a presidential tour ahead of the State of the Union address. Obama laid out proposals to revamp the tax code by raising taxes and fees on the wealthiest Americans and largest financial institutions — and using the money to pay for free tuition for two years of community college and for a $500 tax credit for married couples in which both spouses have jobs.

Though the White House knew the ideas have a slim chance of being approved by lawmakers, the point was to start a debate on Obama’s terms. And the president and his advisers were determined to begin to frame his legacy as having delivered on his promise to improve the lives of ordinary Americans.

On foreign policy, Obama sought to build on the idea, first enunciated during a lengthy speech at West Point last spring, of a “smarter kind of American leadership” in which the United States balances military intervention with diplomacy and coalition-building.

Obama has made the case in recent weeks, as he marked the end of U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, that the nation is safer after more than a decade of combat abroad — even though he authorized renewed U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria to combat the Islamic State militant group.

American leadership “is stopping ISIL’s advance,” Obama said, using an acronym for the group. But such a declaration seemed premature, set against images Tuesday of two orange-clad Japanese hostages kneeling in the desert before a black-robed militant.

Ahead of the speech, cable networks showed footage of U.S. Navy warships stationed in the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen, where the government was in danger of collapsing and the U.S. Embassy was potentially at risk, providing stark reminders about the threats to American values around the world.

In addition to the annual State of the Union traditions — such as Obama’s lunch with television news anchors at the White House — presidential aides noted that Obama spoke Tuesday with French President François Hollande about the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris two weeks ago.
“The State of the Union & the State of the World are far from alignment,” Ian Bremmer, president of the risk analysis firm Eurasia Group, observed on Twitter.

But Obama was determined to project an optimistic view of the nation’s future, and he maintained faith that the country could rise above its divisions. He alluded to his own diverse upbringing in Hawaii and Chicago and cited his keynote address as an Illinois state senator at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which launched him on the national political radar as a bright young prospect for higher office.

“A better politics isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine,” Obama said Tuesday. “A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears.”

The president acknowledged that he had heard the political pundits declare since he took office six years ago that he had failed to make good on his vision at a time when “our politics seems more divided than ever. It’s held up as proof not just of my own flaws — of which there are many — but also as proof that the vision itself is misguided, and naive.”

To the contrary, Obama insisted, as he pledged to keep working to change Washington, even as he was, in many ways, declaring victory over his rivals.

“I want this chamber, I want this city, to reflect the truth,” he said, “that for all our blind spots and shortcomings, we are a people with the strength and generosity of spirit to bridge divides, to unite in common effort.”

POLLING ON GOP LAWSUIT (IMPEACHMENT?) OF OBAMA

BOEHNER OBAMAPOLLS ON BOEHNER LAWSUITIMPEACH OBAMA POLLS

 

There are dozens of op-ed pieces, blogs, and related commentary out there on The Boehner lawsuit of the president, impeachment, Obama’s alleged reintroduction of the imperial presidency, his willful unilateral actions etc. To dip into paint-can’s and attempt to come up with something original or worth your time might well be a fool’s errand. There is already too much redundant “commentating” out there.

 

But what we can do, Must do, is make sense out of polls  that show that a substantial majority—say 65-70%– of the population oppose impeachment (yes it is a live issue) and a slightly smaller number 55-65% of people polled seem opposed to a lawsuit against the president. Whether or not these initiatives against the president are “frivolous” (Democrat line, and supportive moderate liberal commentators/politicians), we will ignore as well as the question of the validity of polls that may represent “venting” or something “remote, not to be taken too seriously”.  The conservative commentator/blogosphere and Fox News machine may well have created something out of nothing, or very little.

 

But these matters are not our concern. What we are fascinated by, especially in a blog that focuses on broad issues and longer term trends, and not short, gossipy, speculative “deadline fodder” is making sense out of why such a seemingly large minority of people favor either suing the president or impeaching him. For most Democrats and moderate independents, the fact that, say 35% of polled Americans seem to favor impeachment—i.e. slightly over 1 in 3—and perhaps 40% would seriously consider the Boehner House Lawsuit seems disconcerting and appalling, at least to people who know the meaning of the word, “bipartisan.” “What is there to sue or impeach the man For?” “Why would a House plagued by near subterranean favorability ratings (the president remains an Idol by comparison) wish to put aside pressing business simply to deliver another slap at the man they love to hate?”  Perhaps some residue from the throttling he delivered in the 2008 and 2012 elections?

The fact that his personal style, and perhaps personal attributes (like foreign birth—no, just kidding) and relative success on a number of issues—modest in some cases, but success—would attract detractors in this toxic, polarized climate (over-used but unavoidable adjectives) is really not so surprising. One lesson of Clinton’s impeachment (even with the acquittal that followed) and Bush II’s Non-impeachment—someone out there see if there were any polls done on the subject—underscores Not that the Democrats seem to produce more vulnerable chief executives, but rather that the Republicans, with the “out there” tea party faction, are simply much better at playing hard ball.

  • Or as the blue-state majorities might put it, they go at politics with some ground rules and propriety not seen much anymore in the other party. Both Romney and Obama in 2012 carried on necessarily aggressive campaigns, but with very different styles of aggressiveness. It would be more accurate to say that the “handlers’ and campaign machines of these competitors took characteristically different approaches.

Because this issue of rationale for impeachment or lawsuit cannot be done justice in one post, we turn to our bullet format to pose questions and introduce provocations:

  • Do we not need to see if evidence is available for any ongoing (if pro forma) polling data on the impeachment vulnerability of sitting presidents (particularly Bush and Obama, two presidents back to back involved in a certain amount of turmoil, economic or military upheaval, and most importantly, a core opposition who would opposed them on just about any conceivable issue, not excepting “walking on water”

 

  • My contention is key, not wholly original but I think provocative and in need of some evidence beyond reasoning: namely that the parties and their followings in what might be called the “post-Watergate, post-“Monica-gate” 1970s to 1990s” hardening of political differences and the politics of “gottcha,” there has been and will always be about 33% of the most partisan end of Either party willing to condemn virtually anything proposed by the “Opposite Party” and willing to look for ways to seek any means possible to weaken their leaders—presidents, key Congressionals, governors, senior strategists (e.g. Axelrods, Roves, etc.). As distasteful as some of Pres. Clinton’s personal escapades might have been to the public, turning them into impeachable offenses, or the “cover-ups” that will nearly always go with such shenanigans, there is little doubt that the antics of the opposition, from the first accusations in January, 1998, to the “necessity of Trial” in 1999 (complete with a chief justice presiding in Gilbert and Sullivan inspired robes) and there is little doubt that the impeachment process itself has been cheapened (although arguably, Clinton did hand his opponents the sword) and to some extent trivialized,

 

  • In spite of the rise of the independent voter, the orthodox, true-believer factions of the two parties (especially the most Republican or Democratic 25%, but also the predictable partisan “next 25% of the parties”)—largely deaf to appeals on the issues of the other side—just not As deaf—much in the manner of “party-liners” in preceding decades,
  • Translated into practical reality, we can expect, mostly but by no means exclusively on the Republican side (remember the “better hardballers”) that very roughly 66% of the voters who align with either party will reflexively oppose initiatives of The Opposite Party, and likely on substantive as well as purely electoral grounds (in other words the parties, again especially Republicans have become increasingly ideological since the 1980s as it might be argued that the Democrats were as ideological if not more so during the 1960s and 1970s)

 

  • These true believers will also be more susceptible to lockstep calls for “gottcha” actions against the other party, including distortion of positions, “jumping on accidental or ill advised gaffes” and running all the way to the extreme threat of impeachment, or stalking horse “sub-impeachment” stunts like the Boehner led lawsuit, BUT, in the present case of the lawsuit, 75% of Republicans polled are said to support it, and 57% to support impeachment; we emphasize again that these are not Yet terribly meaningful or necessarily valid figures, but they probably are not that far off

 

  • As a practical matter it is a blunt fact that Barack Obama is intensely disliked in the Republican Party, certainly politically, if not personally. When one hears that the base of that party is 57% for his impeachment and 75% for a lawsuit based on his excessive use of executive orders (read end-runs around the Republican House) it might cause consternation among Americans who do not support impeachment (65%) or the lawsuit (57% ); perhaps it might be better to say “are open to the idea of” either of these

 

  • Although the lawsuit, rather exotic, seems more focused and to have aroused more genuine curiosity than impeachment, we want to turn again to the implications of 33% of Americans potentially favoring removal of the president; his perceived ideology and allegedly democratic-socialist or just socialist proclivities may have earned him this seemingly alarming statistic (later we will take up more specifically, possible motives for a president who has not even approached the high crimes and misdemeanors threshold for impeachment, not moral turpitude, nor scandal

 

  • The gap between the national aversion to impeachment (65%) reflected in the CNN poll and the Republication opposition to it (42%) may partially be explained by the fact that the latest Gallup poll (Jan. 2014) of national party affiliation showed the Republicans to have sunk to 25%, the Democrats to 31% and “Independents” dramatically up to 42%

 

  • The bottom line concluding this part of our argument is that Pres. Obama’s agenda (a bit to the left of Clinton’s), has created an “impeachment-open” opposition on 33%; assuming that the overwhelming number of those is the 33% are Republican, and that the Republicans make up 35% of the electorate, it is possible to surmise that 8% of those open to impeachment are independents or very odd Democrats (Dixiecrats, anybody?); although the number is unsettling (especially the 57% of Republicans who claim to support removal) it should be remembered that in a polity where recent elections presidential elections popular votes have been won by very narrow margins (Gore .5% 2000, Bush 2% 2004), or moderate ones (Obama 7.3% 2008, Obama 4.0% 2012), a 35% endorsement of impeachment would not seem threatening; in electoral public opinion, a presidential popular vote of 55% or more is deemed a landslide; on issue voting a 20% spread (60-40) is widely considered commanding, a 65% spread (technically 67%) on the impeachment issue not threatening, but disconcerting… if it were not for the take no prisoners Tea Party faction of the Republican Party, and the exceptionally virulent Republican dislike of Obama’s politics, Democrats might well be concerned, Clinton had 67% approval when the Lewinsky scandal erupted and he was in fact impeached, although his favorability on the issue dropped, it did not “go negative,” and in fact, loosely connected, the Democrats made modest gains in the 2000 congressional elections, 4 Senate seats and 3 House Seats

 

  • Epilogue- The object of the preceding has been to put into perspective a seemingly odd and unsettling margin of support for impeachment in a one snapshot polling for a president who has not come close to historical standards for impeachment… besides the “not of this world” nature of some of the Tea Party faction, we will move to a consideration of the role of money in undermining some of the support for “Obamacare” (see our latest installment) and the general spinelessness of some parts of the media (no, not Fox News) in either stressing Obama mistakes or (more to the point) ignoring or “low-balling” his genuine accomplishments.

ARE THE REPUBLICANS BECOMING TWO PARTIES?

a-party-divided1It is risky to speculate from a short time victory for Obama in reopening the government and raising the debt ceiling, But there is evidence that this might be a critical case illustrating the tension caused by the Tea party faction in undermining republican unity. We have predicted that the Tea Party faction would become increasingly marginalized and become largely a deep south and isolated redoubt over time. But, to its political, if not moral credit, the faction revealed continued influence in  the mainstream trajectory of Republican strategy during the shutdown crisis. The question is this: will the zealous but energized far right faction ultimately be a drag on the party’s national prospects in 2014 and 2016? We think yes. In fact we will be on the watch for signs, identified by some, that the power of this faction may drag the party down disastrously. The Democrats’ problem is as always, skill at softball in a hardball game. So far this seems to be working– but barely. Can progressives take advantage of conservative tactical errors? Here’s what the WASHINGTON POST’S AARON BLAKE AND SEAN SULLIVAN HAD TO SAY TODAY (ITEM FOUR IN A FIVE POINT LIST OF CONSEQUENCES OF THE BUDGET SETTLEMENT):

“4. The Republican Party increasingly looks like two parties. A Pew poll this week laid bare a worst-case scenario for the GOP — that their party is, in fact, two parties riding under the same banner (at least for now). Case in point: Republicans who back the tea party view Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) favorably by a 74-8 margin, but among all other Republicans, views of Cruz are 25 percent favorable and 31 percent unfavorable. That’s a massive split, as it’s very rare that any segment of one party views one of their own more negatively than positively. The Pew poll also suggested more moderate Republicans are tiring of the tea party. None of this is to say the GOP is going to split in two, but it’s clear there are two wings of the party that are on hugely different pages right now.” Washington Post, BLAKE/SULLIVAN, 10-18-2013 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/18/the-five-biggest-takeaways-this-week-from-the-budget-and-debt-ceiling-standoff/?wpisrc=nl_politics

%d bloggers like this: