Saturday, October 27, 2012

Benghazi is sinking Obama

There's no other solid explanation for the steady fall of Obama's numbers, particularly among independents:
Romney is currently doing better with independents than Obama did in 2008. Obama won independents by eight, in 2008 while Romney is currently leading by 10.6 points on average. If the independent numbers are entered in to the 2008 results, Romney would have a victory of over four points. Even if Romney does not take any more crossover votes (Democrats who vote Republican and vice versa) than McCain got in 2008, he would still win by over four points on Election Day.
Obama is projecting weakness and incompetence, with regard to Benghazi. His legion of media apologists have been unable to counter this reality. It's been a month and a half since the attack occurred, yet RealClearPolitics still maintains a sub-heading for Benghazi on its homepage.

There's no point in going into the details of the events in Benghazi or in discussing the latest stories surrounding it, what the Administration knew, when they knew it, and their response--or lack thereof--to these events. Such stories are all over the place--thus attesting to the significance of Benghazi--and one would have to be living in a cave (or be watching MSNBC) to be unaware of what has been happening in this regard. It's sufficient to recognize just how much the issue has captured the public's attention.

The Obama Campaign looks increasingly desperate, despite poll numbers in swing states where it still enjoys a slight advantage. Indeed, as of yesterday poll guru Nate Silver still figures Obama has a 73% chance of winning reelection. Sounds a lot like a weather forecast, if you ask me: easy to toss out such a percentage, because there is no way to actually be wrong. Regardless, the Obama Campaign is reading Silver, is employing its own army of "experts" to analyze poll data. If it was confident of victory, then why the air of desperation?

From repeating lines and tactics of the first President Bush, to using sexually provocative ads ala Vladimir Putin, to using juvenile slogans like "Romnesia," the desperation is readily apparent.

And I think it is ultimately less about a potential loss to Romney than it is about a total loss stature for the President. Assume things play out as Silver and others believe, that Obama wins the critical swing states and the popular vote is effectively spit. Where does that leave Obama as a second term President? There will be no "mandate to govern" to claim, only a squeaky "we did enough to win."

The President's foreign policy, meanwhile, will be in tatters. It already appears that security agencies, the military, and even the State Department are less than thrilled with their commander-in-chief. A slim victory on the back of slimy tactics will do little to impress these groups. Obama earned buckets of good will by taking out bin Laden. And Benghazi is steadily sapping every last drop of it. The President has revealed himself to be the worst kind of military leader: tragically weak and self-serving. To quote J.S. Mill again:
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
The Oval Office is no place for such creatures. And on the occasion where it is occupied by one, we all suffer for it.

Cheers, all.

No comments:

Post a Comment