There is this interesting polling metric Rasmussen threw out, the graph to which Republicans have glommed onto. It isolates the “Strongly Approve” and “Strongly Disapprove” and arrives at a number with the difference. Thus, with Obama’s approval rating even now and even still above 50, the strong disapproval outweighs the strong disapproval by a decent margin and something is to be made of the “fervor” of disapproval outweighing the “fervor” of approval against the backdrop of a vast middling.
Whatever else I ca say about the President, he has a relatively long field vision range that enures himself from such transitory noise. A significant factoid from the Obama — Clinton primary fight: the Clinton staff was always on top of the latest Drudge missives, the Obama staff was not. That explains a good deal of how Obama could claim his running of a campaign demonstrated his presidential abilities — notwithstanding the problematic nature of Obama’s candidacy. (He — um — was a US Senator on the National stage for all of a year before staking his claim at the presidency, and a good part of his campaign was the equivalence of projecting a giant image of himself out there for a cult-like ambience to his supporters. What? Did I say that?)
I am temperamentally unable to “strongly approve” of anyone. There is the flimsiness to these polls, and particularly this one. I suspect a portion of Obama’s “Left flank” support has hedged over from “strongly support” to “middling support”. A larger portion of the “Strongly Disapprove” is more solidly in place than the other categories on this continuum — the very real advantage of opposition — the supporters can make value judgements on the act of governance. The nature of our two-party system discourages any movement from “Left flankers” beyond the middling support range. Take that “Problematic nature of Obama’s entire campaign” comment I threw out there. There is this right-wing video offered up, outraged by the very presence of Obama and considering his very presidency illegitimate by tact of being oh so unqualified and sudden and as a by product of a of media conspiracy. It is a more partisn tinged version of the Alex Jones conspiracy joint “As the Mask Slips” — its commentary experts that assortment of talk radio persoanlities and newsmax and world net daily types. Who makes an appearance on this film? Sarah Palin. See how the public is hemmed in in these assessments?
As an example of that: Joseph Biden recently made a rather crude analysis which undermined Ameican “soft power” relating to US — Russia relations. It causes a bit of a row in the Russian media, and some consternation on the part of Vladamir Putin. Notable about the gaffe, thought, is it was simply an explication of what Biden was saying by implication in his recent foreign tour. And if you assembled an assortment of the foreign policy team for the past four Presidential Administrations, the consensus opinion would align behind Biden’s “Russia fade” comments. Such is the nature of human relations and diplomacy that such statements can really only be passed behind coded messages to be divined.
Back to Biden’s counterpart in the 2008 campaign: Palin. She can, I hear, see Russia from her house, and would have our nation on guard for when Putin rears her head over the Alaskan horizon. Which is to say, at least Biden’s gaffe made sense. I’m tempted to suggest Biden should have that talk show and not Palin — Biden’s love of his own voice would provide the gist for the mill for everyone; Palin would best be advised to play up oppositional phone calls to buttress her and her supporter’s “aggrieved” complex.