General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Morning Plum: On Syria, Beltway elites blow it with paint-by-numbers punditry
By Greg Sargent
Theres a lot to criticize about President Obamas handling of Syria. He failed to make a strong case for military action and probably should never have entertained bombing without Congress support. That said, much Beltway elite criticism, which has focused largely on process and theatrics, is deeply misguided and disconnected from how Americans view the situation. A new Post/ABC News poll illustrates this clearly...an overwhelming 79 percent of Americans support the proposed deal for international control over Syrias chemical weapons Obama has embraced. Theres continued public opposition to strikes, with only 30 percent in support. The public gives Obamas overall handling of the situation low marks.
At the same time, the poll finds a leading elite criticism of Obamas handling of the crisis that his changing of mind along with shifting circumstances showed a vacillation that risks projecting wavering intent isnt shared by the public. Sixty percent say he sticks with his principles, roughly unchanged since January 2012. A plurality thinks the initial threat of missile strikes helped the situation by pressuring Syria to give up its chemical weapons meaning Americans accept Obamas argument about the impact of the threat (even if they oppose action) and dont see his change of course as somehow diminishing it. A plurality also says Obama made a good case in his speech the other night despite widespread pundit derision.
Its true Obamas commander in chief qualities have slipped. But even here they remain in solid majority territory. Fifty two percent say hes a good commander in chief of the military, which is down a few points but only within the margin of error. Fifty four percent say hes a strong leader down from 61 percent in January, but the drop could reflect any number of things (such as the economy), and indeed, its now higher than it was at other points in Obamas presidency. These variations just dont mean much in the real world. They certainly dont confirm elite pundit conclusions.
Indeed, yesterdays Pew poll finds overwhelming support for the diplomatic deal, and also finds a plurality sees Obamas change of course as leadership and a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances, rather than weakness.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/17/the-morning-plum-on-syria-beltway-elites-blow-it-with-paint-by-numbers-punditry/
In ABC/WaPo poll, President Obama gets consistently high marks from Democrats on most questions.
Independent responses to these questions:
Q: Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy - (Obama) or (the Republicans in Congress)?
Independents 40 percent Republicans in Congress. (35 percent trust Obama)
Q: Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation with Syria - (Obama) or (the Republicans in Congress)?
Independents 34 percent Republicans in Congress. (36 percent trust Obama)
Q: Please tell me whether the following statement applies to Obama, or not? He shares your values
Independents 40 percent (versus 81 percent Democrats); Independents 56 percent "no"
Q: Please tell me whether the following statement applies to Obama, or not? He is a strong leader
Independents 50 percent (versus 83 percent Democrats)
The Magistrate
(95,241 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)karynnj
(59,495 posts)the beltway pundits make. Apparently, the PUBLIC thought that Obama made a good case, like the international agreement that is being finalized, and think the threat of force was needed to get there.
Yet - Sargent states, not as his opinion, but as things that are CW that threatening to strike without prior approval was wrong and that Obama failed to make a strong case. He needs to read his own piece!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Going through every question and reviewing the responses by party ID and age is interesting.
karynnj
(59,495 posts)To me, it is amazing that the public seems to be for the most part ignoring the beltway pundits. They are rejecting the set of them who are to the right -- angry that the President is taking a stand on chemical weapons and limiting help for the rebels. (Expect them to get angrier if Geneva 2 starts. ) They are also rejecting those on the left who have been slow to give credit Obama for an agreement that they should be very happy about. (It was really sickening to see Chris Hayes let Alan Grayson prattle on about how he and his allies made this happen.)
I think the acceptance for this agreement - even with caution that it still needs to be ratified and then implemented - is real and is a win for what most Americans should see as their values. This is true whether or not they agreed that a strike would make sense as a response. I think it would have been interesting to further study the people who do not approve. Is it because they think it so unlikely to work that they don't even want to give it a chance? Are they angry because they favored the strike - and wanted mission creep beyond what Obama was speaking of.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Sixty percent approve of the job he is doing
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164411/americans-laud-kerry-efforts-secretary-state.aspx