-
It’s About the Legacy, Not the House
April 16, 2013 | 43 comments
-
Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own
March 13, 2013 | 205 comments
-
Football, Fairness, and Hayek
February 1, 2013 | 18 comments
-
An Elite That Still Reject Him
December 24, 2012 | 76 comments
-
Why Rice?
December 11, 2012 | 31 comments
A Further Perspective
Libya: Liberals’ Last Straw?
Obama had enough problems without bringing this one on himself.
Is Libya going to be the straw that breaks the donkey’s back? Certainly, the economy has already inflicted serious damage to Obama’s 2012 prospects. However, this has largely been factored in by the general electorate. Contrastingly, Libya is an unforeseen and unfactored variable that could make it a reelection coup de grâce.
According to a March 21 Gallup poll, the Administration’s Libyan engagement began with the lowest support level (47%) for any U.S. military action in almost 30 years. A June 23 Gallup poll showed approval has fallen to just 39%, with 46% disapproving. In Congress too, support is eroding — moving increasingly from the fringes to the center. And that was the Attorney General and the Pentagon’s top counsel both contradicted the Administration’s position that the conflict was “distinct from the kind of ‘hostilities’ contemplated by the War Powers Act.”
This ominous overseas development is playing out in front of an economic backdrop that has eliminated Obama’s electoral margin for error. While Obama does not own the downturn, he increasingly owns the upturn’s absence. Talk of a “double-dip” only exacerbates the anxiety.
Obama’s 2012 threat can be glimpsed in 2010’s outcome. Obama’s casual moderate supporters eroded; his core conservative opponents were energized; and his base liberal supporters were enervated. The result was a Democratic debacle — running from local to state to loss of the House and a sliced Senate majority.
If Obama is to rebuild his political fortunes in less than two years’ time, it must start with his base. Obama won in 2008 with the largest share of the popular vote (52.5%) of any Democratic presidential candidate since LBJ in 1964. This time, success is much more likely to look like Clinton’s (43% in 1992 and 49.2% in 1996), than Johnson’s.
Of Obama’s three most loyal 2008 groups, only African Americans (95%) and Democrats (89%) gave him a higher percentage of their votes than liberals (88%). And only Democrats formed a larger percentage of the electorate — 40% to liberals’ 22%. Multiplying liberals’ participation rate by their Obama support rate meant they accounted for 19.4% of Obama’s popular vote percentage — well over a third of his total.
Libya’s particular threat to Obama’s large liberal bloc is acute. The positive side of liberals’ ledger is slim. While Obama’s health care plan is viewed unfavorably by most, it is viewed most favorably by liberals. Yet even here, they were disappointed that it didn’t go far enough and could see even this overturned by the Supreme Court before the election.
The negative side of liberals’ ledger — which especially motivated them in 2008 — had Iraq and Afghanistan at its top three years ago. It still will in 2012. Libya not only resurrects their bitterness that U.S. forces are still there. The Administration’s recent denial of the War Powers Act’s applicability to the Libyan conflict can also be seen by liberals as reinforcing a president’s ability to take America into military conflict. Hardly what liberals were overwhelmingly voting for in 2008.
Libya is also indisputably Obama’s. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, and the economy, even liberals can not blame Bush or Republicans for it. This was Obama’s decision alone. A decision Americans still neither understand nor support.
Admittedly, Libya is hardly the economy. Yet for a particular — and a particularly important — group to Obama, it could be bigger. Liberals agree with Obama on his approach to the economy. Not so Libya. In conjunction with the economy’s broader damage to his reelection prospects, Libya’s particular damage could be fatal.
Obama needs to extricate himself quickly from Libya. If for no other reason, than it is politically unsustainable long-term. Now, finding himself falling further and faster into conflict with Congress, what support the engagement had will only more rapidly diminish.
Congress’s ire also threatens Obama’s ability to set his own terms for Libya’s conclusion — something he desperately needs to do. Obama can ill-afford having a solution thrust upon him by Congress. If extrication comes by Congress’ action, Capitol Hill in general and Republicans in particular are likely to get credit from a grateful public. Such a course will also damage his party as it plays out — forcing them to either distance themselves from Obama, their own supporters, or both.
Libya could well be the straw that breaks the donkey’s back, by being at the same time the last straw for liberals. It would be the height of irony if, instead of toppling Gaddafi, this military action topples Obama.
About the Author
J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (38) | Leave a comment
More Articles by J.T. Young
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/28/libya-liberals-last-straw
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Winterhawk| 6.28.11 @ 8:03AM
obama is a failure. Whywould people vote for four more years of his failure? Have they not had enough? If he is re-elected we are done. His tyranny can not be tolerated any longer. His regime is nothing but a gathering of communists. I will not serve a dictator.
SpiralArchitect| 6.28.11 @ 11:51AM
There is little surprise that most of his supporters enjoy the benefits that his policy enables - handouts, share the wealth and a dash of delusion is all they need for complacency.
Harry the Horrible| 6.28.11 @ 1:46PM
A lot of people will vote for bread and circuses, which Obama promises, aplenty.
C Smith| 6.28.11 @ 8:22AM
How many NATO/Obama "civilian" dead and counting?
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Gadhafi Precedent
“No,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bluntly stated when asked on “Face the Nation” if the U.S. would intervene in Syrian unrest as in Libya. She defended her position by saying that the situations in Syria and Libya are respectively "unique." Yes, each are unique, but not for reasons mentioned:
Syria's human rights record is among the worst according to Human Rights Watch. Syrian secret police detain, torture, and are suspect in the disappearance of an estimated 17,000 political prisoners. Libya, by comparison, is not even in the ball park.
Syria, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), supports the following terrorist organizations: Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Libya of course is culpable for Lockerbie, but even here Gaddafi personal sanction on the matter is debatable.
Iran and Syria maintain a mutual defense agreement, while Iran and Libya are enemies with the former encouraging the West to arm their anarchist allies.
Syria possesses weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) and the capability to deliver them according to U.S.defense and intelligence reports. However, a September 2007 Israeli air strike is generally credited with putting Syria's nuclear program on hold. Libya, in stark contrast, has complied with the "world community," and what was her reward, "decimation":
"On December 19, 2003, Libya announced it would dismantle its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs. Since then, U.S., British, and international officials have inspected and removed or destroyed key components of those programs, and Libya has provided valuable information, particularly about foreign suppliers. Libya’s WMD disarmament is a critical step towards reintegration into the world community.... " (Sharon A. Squassoni and Andrew Feickert (Specialists in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division), CRS Report for Congress, Disarming Libya: Weapons of Mass Destruction, September 22, 2006).
Clinton's unsubstantiated preference of Syria over Libya is not an error in judgment, but rather something more sinister:
Frank Gaffney, a columnist for the Washington Times, recently made the obvious connection in an analysis titled “The Gadhafi Precedent.” Gaffney indicates that the hostilities initiated against Libya might soon be used to “justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.” Actually, Gaffney was too restrained in his analysis. The coalition's assault on Libya was a test run or perhaps a dress rehearsal of the "Expedient for Jerusalem":
Palestinian preparations for the opportune moment to initiate anarchy in Israel are complete, pending Secretary Clinton's affirmation of the "Gadhafi Precedent." However, the situations in Libya and Israel are respectively "unique". Secretary Clinton and her coalition are unaware "the LORD hath chosen" Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 14:2), has "chosen Jerusalem" (cf. 2 Chronicles 6:6) and unto Abraham promised: "... all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Genesis 13:15).
Secretary Clinton and her coalition are also unaware the LORD doesn't settles His accounts on Friday, but has chosen one DAY in all eternity to judge the earth. Yet as that DAY draws ever nearer "the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us" (Psalms 2:2-3). And as Secretary Clinton and her coalition covertly prepare ambush for Israel, the LORD bates the pit: "... I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people... and in that day will... make Jerusalem a burdensome stone... And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:2-9).
http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.....salem.html
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:20AM
Good post. Thank you.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:20AM
Thank you for an excellent post.
LarryK| 6.28.11 @ 8:59AM
Why would people vote for Obama again?
Because people are stupid!
Dave Williams| 6.28.11 @ 1:33PM
...and 95% of African-Americans will vote for the brotha again, just because of his skin color. And they call US racists....it'd be amusing if it weren't so pathetically disgusting.
Redstateboy| 6.28.11 @ 4:56PM
Dave?? I think Herman Cain may pose a challenge for Blacks in America and a choice. Will they continue to vote to remain on the Slave Party (Democrat) Plantation or will they vote for a Black man who'd give them a job opportunity?
It's certainly a less challenging decision to sit home and let Hussein feed you, cloth you, burp you than to be challenged to make something of your race but it's better than watching your entire race devolve, your children grow up with less than a High School Diploma, your un-wed daughters becoming pregnant, your sons going to prison and living generations on welfare.. but then... that's just the way the Slave Party prefers it.. just so long as you can stumble your way to that voting booth and push the button marked "D"
lydia | 6.28.11 @ 9:14AM
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
Clinton's unsubstantiated preference of Syria over Libya is not an error in judgment, but rather something more sinister:
Stan Redmond| 6.28.11 @ 9:21AM
WOW. Sounds just like Obama's campaign theme. "I'm all things to all people so vote for me"
Anita| 6.28.11 @ 9:52AM
go AWAY
Sam Vaughn| 6.28.11 @ 11:03AM
Take your commercials elsewhere.
hardcard| 6.28.11 @ 9:15AM
people will vote for obama because they have been indoctrinated to do so. the left has control of education, the media (TV,news, movies, music), big business, and the government. wake up !!! soros must be stopped.
SpiralArchitect| 6.28.11 @ 12:00PM
if you are told for the first 20 years of your life to cut off your foot when you reach the age of 21...would you? I think not.
If you are handed things ( by the Gov ) you do not have or would have to work for to otherwise gain... would you dislike that government? I think not.
Step back and consider a more logical point of view.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 12:05PM
Actually, Spiral, I must respectfully disagree. if you were told to cut off your foot at age 21 for the first 20 years of your life, and all your friends were doing it, you probably would.
For a better review of the possibilities of this type of self-mutilation, and a painful description of how this could happen, see "Limbo" by Bernard Wolfe.
SpiralArchitect| 6.28.11 @ 12:38PM
With the 'all your friends are doing it' proviso added it does make it more interesting.
To use another example, how about drugs.
Children are told (by institutions & parents alike), often in a near ritualistic fashion, that drugs are bad & to not use drugs.
How many children go against the prescribed way and do something that is often so damaging.
Perhaps neither example is a reasonable parallel.
Stan Redmond| 6.28.11 @ 9:20AM
The press has Obama's backside on Libya. Just listen to them. It was the most difficult decision ANY president have ever made. It was the most smartest military action ever conceived, including the Bin Laden killing. Obama had no choice.
Already the laser like focus on jobs is occuring in Obama's regime and his propoganda arm. HIS job and Joe Biden's job. The Democrats are pushing for amnesty to make up for the 1 or 2 votes Obama will lose. The judges are getting in place to ensure Obama's votes are counted as many times as is needed to ensure a win. The forces in the world court and UN are already mobilising to make this a legitimate war by calling for Khadaffy's arrest thereby extolling the holiness of Obama's actions.
How dare Khadaffy interferes with Obama's popularity.
russel| 6.28.11 @ 10:35AM
The author refers to them as liberal , but we use socialist . They very well could be called stupid , but I'd say commited is a better sumation . Now , commited to what is the million dollar question even Rush can't answer . They seem to want something , but they know not what . I bet tho , they do know a commited socialist when they see one . They have one in the oval office and know they likely will not see another in their lifetime . So , they'll stick with him , through hell or high water .
Nunya| 6.28.11 @ 11:46AM
JT, you can't be serious! You mean our messiah-in-chief made a mistake in bombing Libya? Can't be! He's incapable of making a mistake, just ask him (or maybe his teleprompter). ;-)
Obozo is so far over his head he can't see straight. He's an empty suit who is taking orders from Soros or one of his goons, and could not lead a band practice, much less a country. He's a sloganeer, not a leader. He speaks fairly well, but once the hard decisions have to be made he dithers and dawdles, having no clear convictions upon which to base his decisions. Libya a problem? Absolutely. Unfortunately our idiot-in-chief has no clue how to back out graciously, so he stumbles along sending cruise missles in to defend "the people"--even though "the people" are extremist Muslims who hate our guts. He's a communist moron, and a dangerous one at that.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 12:02PM
Now, as many readers here know, I am not what one would call an "anti-interventionalist." I think Red Phillips would agree with that statement.
But I do like my interventions to have at least the POTENTIAL of improving US interests. Daffy is a mass murdering scumbag who should be Casino Royaled (how was Bond tortured in that film?) before being drowned in liquid pig dung. This is true. But, given that he can be cowed by the US, how is replacing him with a group of Islamic Terrorist Maniacal rebels going to be an improvement? I don't see it, folks, I just don't.
Now, if we were nuking Libya and making it into a region of fused glass, pulling a Slim Pickens' "Number 6/ Dr Strangelove" on everyone, that would be different, and possibly useful. But this? Naww, I don't see it.
RCV| 6.28.11 @ 2:34PM
Then tell me, Occam, why Bibi Netanyahu praised NATO's operation in Libya?
Skippy| 6.28.11 @ 5:34PM
Maybe Bibi smiles when we kill more Arabs regardless of the reasons.
I know I do!
TrueBlue| 6.29.11 @ 10:57AM
Because it keeps all the extremist types focused on the NATO forces doing the bombing (ie. Britain, France, and us) instead of them coming at Israel for the time being.
SpiralArchitect| 6.28.11 @ 12:42PM
Has the Gov said why & what we are doing in Libya?
Yes, I know it is not anything hostile, but why are we there?
Clint| 6.28.11 @ 12:50PM
Dr. Ron Paul told his colleagues that the limited funding bill was not what it appeared to be. Paul argued that the Libya bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war.” The purpose of the Libya bill was to “limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya.”
Paul pointed out that if HR 2278 passes, “the president would be authorized to use US Armed Forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya.” As of this time, without a declaration of war or congressional authorization, the president doesn’t have the authority to conduct these activities."
Ron| 6.28.11 @ 4:08PM
I hate to be the one to break it to everyone, but the liberals will blame Bush...They will state there was a threat there that neither he not Bush Sr. took care of, and NerObama was decisive and did...just watch the dog and pony show roll on...
wf allen| 6.28.11 @ 6:38PM
On Libya, the Republicans are, simply, awful.
President Obama gets us into this inane war, and claims nonsensnically that bombing with drones is not "hostilites" And the Republicans do nothing.
Bob Grant| 6.28.11 @ 6:44PM
Because Sunday news show regulars Lyndsey Graham and John McCain cloud the picture, yet again, for the republicans.
I wouldn't hold it against Obama if he all out US personal out of Afghanistan and shortly thereafter, Iraq.
Afghanistan was a 7th century society when we entered and will be one when we leave 10-12 years later. Changing hearts and minds was an honorable goal but but an epic failure nonetheless.
A very expensive lesson learned.
Oldefarte| 6.28.11 @ 8:09PM
My personal prediction is that he's ONE-N-DONE next year. He brainwashed/propagandized his way to the presidency by feeding the liberal cigarettes/booze/BS to minorities, academia, Hollywood, Jews, and women. Shoot, he even bamboozled the business community into believing his I'LL BE THE FIST BLACK PRESIDENT and will deliver HOPE & CHANGE snakeoil message. Well many of the former groups have now SEEN THE LIGHT as to who/what he is now, and won't be double-fooled again. that leaves Hollywood, minorities and academia, which totally isn't that great a number. Any [of which all current are] Republican candidate that is nominated should become our next president!!!!!!
Bob Grant| 6.28.11 @ 8:39PM
Flatulence,
I agree but for different reasons. Because of the conservatives' successes of 2010, Obama will come up a little short in his ability to buy off votes. He will not be able to pass an amnesty bill, nor other sweeping 'landmark' legislation where massive blocks of voters would have been freshly bought off via more entitlement spending, government jobs, etc.
He's simply left too many middle class American's - who rely on private sector growth - exposed to his disastrous policies.
I believe the middle class will storm the polls - en masse - to relieve him of his duties.
Oldefarte| 6.29.11 @ 10:16AM
Both of us are correct. My point [missed] is that he BS'd the American public in 2008, and now finally, they've awakened to WHO he truly is [and isn't]. Again, it's just sad to me that we had to go through four years of this extremism when it could have been avoided [if voters would have used their common sense] in 2008!!!!
Rick| 6.28.11 @ 10:49PM
Your a rasist!
Oldefarte| 6.29.11 @ 10:18AM
Might I suggest a consultation of that universal book that Webster published????????
weddingdresses | 6.29.11 @ 5:25AM
Because Sunday news show regulars Lyndsey Graham and John McCain cloud the picture, yet again, for the republicans.
I wouldn't hold it against Obama if he all out US personal out of Afghanistan and shortly thereafter, Iraq.
Afghanistan was a 7th century society when we entered and will be one when we leave 10-12 years later. Changing hearts and minds was an honorable goal but but an epic failure nonetheless.
A very expensive lesson learned.
Tenn Slim| 6.29.11 @ 6:48AM
The Lybian adventure will not affect the Base of Obama's presidential future.
Reason. The Left NEEDS the ELECTION. Regardless of the economy, the 5 or 6 front war we are facing daily, regardless of the debt, the GNP less than 1 % quarterly, regardless of the failure of the US Electorate to quietly agree to be manipulated, regardless of the townhalls, the angst, anger and justified wrath at the Obama thuggery, regardless of all this, there is a base of some 30-40 % of voters that are leftist, sympathisers, and supporters. Soros alone can pay the bills.
NO. The Left will never go quietly into the night.
end
Semper FI
prestonsbrooks| 6.29.11 @ 10:26AM
Unless stopped, the Libyan conflict will represent the assumption of Total Power (as in Germany/Hitler) by the Regime. Hussein will be free to assume Absolute Power, sideline the Congress and Courts, and Rule by Fiat. With an unauthorized military conflict, we have reached the point of no return, unless Congress steps in Now.
johnd2| 6.30.11 @ 9:00AM
As the article implied, a few anti-war leftists will either sit out the election or vote 3rd party. It could be the difference that lets a Republican win. Sadly, the most likely nominees would probably keep the same dumbass policy