Bin Laden Effect: Obama Re-Election Odds Rise
Update: "My quick take is that Obama will be re-elected (getting Osama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam in the American mind, attacks on American soil, etc.), at this point the Republicans won’t try to beat him from the center and will thus nominate a more extreme candidate and lose badly, and the most important effects will be on Pakistan, not this country," writes Tyler Cowen.
29 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I remember SNL doing a skit called, "The Race To Not Lose to Bush in '92." It was after Gulf War 1 and all the candidates were vying to prove how unelectable they were so that they wouldn't get the dem nomination.
It's early yet. And he's still a egotistical socialist.
Doing one thing right doesn't cancel everything else he's doing wrong...
Obama gone in 2012
This comment has been removed by the author.
You mean, we don't get to have Donald Trump for GOP President?
I know that there are a lot of silly, partisan people out there, but I doubt that even big W-haters would claim that Obama's success was a result of 'trying harder' than Bush to get Bin Laden. Really hard to make a case when most of the military and intelligence are leftovers from the previous admin.
Americans expected to get Bin Laden and this glow will disappear in 6 months, we don't expect jobless recoveries and $6/gallon gas as a result of poor policy. The battle cry of Dick Morris lives on...it is, and always will be, the economy, stupid.
Mark-
I don't have personal emotions to any US president, save possibly Washington and Lincoln for their greatness.
Still, the record show Obama paid more attention to getting bin Laden than did Bush.
See http://www.thenation.com/blog/160332/jsoc-black-ops-force-took-down-bin-laden
Bush also made some famously ill-conceived comments during his Presidency, along the lines he wasn't that concerned with bin Laden anymore. (The Bush family is also friends with the bin Laden extended family, worth noting. Members of the bin Laden family were in the White House, after 9/11).
This appears to be a "win" for Obama. It might be worth 1 percent at election time. Elections are decided by less.
I may vote for Ron Paul, not sure yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Benji,
"Still, the record show Obama paid more attention to getting bin Laden than did Bush."
Oh, puke. "The record" you are quoting from is the Marxist rag The Nation. The real record shows Obama would not have had a chance to take out bin Laden if not for the infamous "enhanced interrogations" and black site prisons your boyfriend and the rest of the putrid Left that you vote for claim put a dark stain on America's soul.
Good job pseudo benny still making a fool of yourself with your delusional comments...
Do some homework pseudo benny...
Here, I have something you start out with from the leftie rag, the WaPo: How much credit does Obama get for bin Laden’s reported death?
Remember this pseudo benny?
60 Minutes: Obama Reiterates Promise To Close Guantanamo Bay, End Torture
Officials said the breakthrough that led to bi Laden’s location came w/the discovery of an al-Qaeda courier nearly 4 yrs ago.
Peter King is claiming the original intel came as a result of water-boarding.
I think we all know that Mr. King's judgment is often impaired, but if this is true, it would seem that this "win" for Obama wasn't due to his policy, but despite it.
Out of curiosity, why would anything about Bin Laden's extended family be worth noting? By all accounts I've seen/heard, they're an upstanding, respected group who are embarrassed by him.
By your reasoning, Ben, we shouldn't have listened to the Uni-bomber's brother.
I would not give Obama credit for this any more than blame for the housing/banking crisis.
He inherited the problem and did what he had to do.
If anything, credit goes to the minions of servants, working for several administrations. You know, all those people we think are worthless government thumbsuckers.
The Bush family is also friends with the bin Laden extended family
=========================
Obama being what, 14th out of 57 siblings?
The bin Laden exended family must be half the middle east.
The vital "intel" happened in August of 2010.
Listen, you GOP-sycophants: Your little boy in short pants, Bush jr., just wanted to kissy-face with Saudi sheiks and ride his red bicycle.
Obama came in,. and got bin Laden.
What is, is.
"I would not give Obama credit for this any more than blame for the housing/banking crisi"...
Per his usual style hydra would be wrong...
Obama was part of the shakedown of banks being forced to lend to people who couldn't afford the loans...
Benji,
The vital intel came from enhanced interrogations. I give your boyfriend credit for pulling the trigger, but Bush loaded the chamber via the techniques your boyfriend roundly condemned as inhumane.
Ok, now run away or retort with some lame non-sequitur, your usual.
Actually, Obama upped to powers of certain military operational entities, and met frequently with them. It was better organization--a topic beyond Bush jr's ken.
They got bin Laden
Bush got---well, foot-in-mouth disease in Crawford TX. And a neat red bicycle, and a cute bathrobe from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Well, Monica was only a little bit chubby in those days.
The record shows Clinton nearly got bin Laden with cruise missiles. Then Obama got him.
Bush jr? Well, he got a nice pair of short pants from King Abdullah, to go with his neat red bicycle and racing ascot.
George "Little Lord Fauntleroy" Bush jr, not only did not get bin Laden, but bin Laden got us on Bush jr's watch.
Paul-
Do you think Obama now should dress up in military costumes, go to an aircraft carrier off San Diego, and prance around in front of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner?
Do you think that would be an incredibly stupid and asinine PR stunt?
Benji,
Your hero Bill Clinton could have put an end to bin Laden in '96 when the Sudanese govt offered him up to us. But the boy President promptly turned them down, as he says himself on tape in the link.
As for Obama, no, I don't think he would celebrate the liberation of a country from brutal murderer like Saddam Hussein. Your boyfriend is much too cultured and refined to get caught up in commoner sentiments like patriotism.
Clinton was a great economics administrator. He kept us out of foreign entanglements. He was well-hung and had young girlfriends.
But he blew it on bin Laden, if that story is true.
Benji,
You aren't even curious enough to read the links that others are kind enough to lay at your feet... your lack of curiosity tells me that you also lack a great deal of information in your opinions and arguments.
From the Washington Post link that Juandos attempted to get you to read:
"However, in a later background briefing for reporters, officials said that four years ago the identity was determined of the courier who ultimately led to bin Laden. That would place a key moment in the search back in the Bush administration."
That would be your 'vital intel'.
If you're comfortable with willful ignorance, fine, but why do you come to this blog? There are plenty of people here that disagree in a thoughtful way. Oddly, you seem to be the one casting party affiliation on those you don't know while being the most ideological. I'll be the first to admit when I find myself to be (often) wrong, but it's almost never due to political propaganda or an unwillingness to find myself in error.
I actually read your comments BECAUSE of your leanings. I thought you might have a valid, alternate perspective. Once again, I find myself to be wrong.
Like Hoff said, this is not going to affect the election. The people who really gave a shit about Osama were the anti-Muslim right-wing, and they're never going to vote for Obama anyway. It might sway the independents a little but I think everyone knows Osama wasn't that important by now. Saddam was living in a hole in the ground, tough to get anything done from there. ;) The most significant thing to come out of Osama's death is actually the puerile reaction from partisans on both sides, each claiming that they "got him," never thinking about if that actually matters, and perfectly portraying how debased the debate has become.
"The record shows Clinton nearly got bin Laden with cruise missiles. Then Obama got him."
Everyone knows bin Laden was long gone by the time those missiles headed in.
What the record really shows, is that according to best intelligence, Clinton was offered 3 almost certain opportunities to kill bin Laden, and turned them all down.
Mike-
I will try to improve.
Plus, they're letting him show a little grey on his temples lately. That means he's matured and wisened in his office. I remember watching Clinton and Bush do the same thing, right before the re-election campaign began. All of them dyed their hair, to look young, for their first elections, then showed grey, right before re-election.
Or maybe just the weight of the office is so great, it aged them prematurely. I don't know...
Back to 61. 2 days later and the bump is already gone.
The only thing this President has executed on properly since his time in office, and yet still:
1. It was an extension of W policy.
2. The narrative of how it was done changes daily/hourly.
3. The outcome was primarily determined through means with which he ans his base despised only 2 years ago.
Obama is a shoo-in in 2012.
The GOP will likely "go back to the base" and run a lulu. Obama will seize the middle ground.
Richard Nixon understood all this perfectly. He even drew a diagram of three eggs, the larger middle egg being the one you had to win.
BTW, Obama got bin Laden. The righties can lose their bowels, but what is, is.
Personally, I think the terrorism "threat" is hyped by a factor of 100, and now Obama, following Bush's footsteps, is hyping the threat for re-election purposes.
Really, it is unseemly when a President takes credit for a "kill."
Post a Comment
<< Home