Obama’s British Problem

‘The United States has no truer friend than Great Britain’

President GW Bush, September 20^th 2001

The US-UK alliance brought down Nazism and defeated imperial Japan. For nearly half a century, it guarded the frontiers of democracy against communist aggression. This was the relationship that built the global economic expansion.
  
But in failing to support British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, President Obama is undercutting our greatest friend. And understandably, the British are growing increasingly angry.

This isn’t a remote issue. It matters.

Like any friends, America and Britain sometimes disagree. Sometimes strongly. We disagreed with Britain on Suez. Britain disagreed with us on Vietnam. These occasional divergences continue to the present day. The US-UK intelligence relationship is deep but imperfect. Our extradition relationship is often frustrating. At the cultural level, we share many similarities alongside many differences – civilian gun ownership being one. And yet, our commonalities are overwhelming. A reality reflected in Afghanistan today.

To be fair to the President, his position towards the UK has been consistent if nothing else. First there was Churchill, then came the DVDs, next was the idiotic insult from a Foreign Service officer. Then, while standing next to the Queen, the President talked through the British national anthem. Not exactly a stellar record. 

But these errors are nothing compared to the President's position on the Falklands.

The Falklands, a set of Islands in the South Atlantic have long been a British overseas territory. Having failed to conquer the Islands during the 1982 Falklands War, Argentina, who claims the Islands as their own, now resorts to using diplomatic pressure to drive the UK to the negotiating table. This is a position contrary to international law and irreconcilable with freedom. Two weeks ago, the Falkland Islanders voted by a 99% majority to remain a British territory. Yet, in a pathetic acquiescence to Argentine pressure, the Obama Administration has decided to ignore this self-determination. And so, US policy is now at war with basic logic. Our position should be simple – ‘we support the UK’; the UK is our closest ally and the right to self-determination is our most sacred national belief. Instead however, our chosen policy is a flaccid lump of dishonorable weakness.

Some argue that the President is simply representing US interests. Far from betraying an ally they say, the President is trying to re-build increasingly important relationships with Latin America. This is a poor excuse. Our relationship with Latin America is obviously crucial. But if we’re unwilling to stand up for our most central values, then we’ll simply feed false but pervasive perceptions of an America devoid of values. Like Britain, Latin America wants an America that’s an honest friend. After all, that’s the only type of friend there is.

Again, let’s be clear. The relationship between the US and UK is not symbiotic and nor should we expect it to be. And yes, it’s true, too many Britons take a pathetic and intellectually redundant pleasure in a casual anti-Americanism. However, on essential issues of sovereignty, the UK deserves our unhesitating support.

In the end, this isn’t just about our responsibility as an ally, it’s also about our identity as a nation. We either stand for freedom or we don’t.

Romney V Obama - What Romney must do to win

The latest ABC News-Washington Post polling data shows a closer race (likely voters are the key) than Nate Silver had suggested. To be honest, I am surprised that Romney is not 1-2 points ahead of the President after last week's terrible jobless numbers - I expect this is for the reasons I mention below. The polls will fluctuate as the next few weeks pass by. The really important data will start coming in after the Presidential debates. However, there is some useful information below the surface of this latest poll.

            First, the poll shows a deep dissatisfaction with Obama's handling of the economy. 53% of voters oppose of his handling of the economy. The majority of these voters believe that the issue is rooted in the President's policy failings, rather than in his purported need for more time to remedy the situation. In addition, a statistically relevant ten point majority of voters (43%-32%) believe that the economy has become worst since the President took office. There is a division between voters who blame the President for the bad economy and those who do not. Mitt Romney also holds an advantage in terms of being viewed as someone who understands small business needs. Interestingly, a clear majority of voters believe that government programs do more to harm small businesses than help them (53%-35%).

           Second, the poll shows that most voters do not believe that Mitt Romney has given them enough clarity on what policies he would pursue as President. Further, the President holds significant advantages in terms of his polling on whether he or Romney would do a better job for the middle class or women's issues. 

           So what do these results mean? First- the election remains close and most certainly winnable by Romney. As I noted earlier this week, Romney must do more to boost his personal appeal numbers. I don't think that this will be too difficult to accomplish, Romney must simply get out on TV more. He needs to do more late night tv interviews (shows that have a comedic edge) and he needs to show the American people his life story - a committed husband and successful businessman. Second, Romney also needs to take much greater advantage of the President's weakness on the economy. The polling data shows that many voters are looking for a reason to abandon the President. Romney must take the fight to Obama. Romney should be aggressive and bold in articulating why the President's economic policy continues to be an abysmal failure and why in specific terms, he (Romney) would do a better job. Romney should also be unafraid to assert the conservative message as to why government is not the solution to America's problems. America is not Europe and attacking government spending will not alienate independent voters. Romney should attack the President for his proposed American Jobs Act (which Obama frequently touts on the campaign trail) by pointing (as I have) to the Chicago teacher's strike, as an example of how Obama serves Union vested interests rather than the interests of the private sector. Specifically, Romney should root this argument in a broader narrative that explains why the President is no friend of the middle class nor of small businesses. This shouldn't be too hard - Obama has showed his own disregard for hard work and business risk takers. Third, Romney must show American women that he is not with the fringe Republican goon squad when it comes to issues that concern them. These fringe morons have been able to shape public perceptions of the GOP on social issues for far too long - Romney must ensure this changes. Romney should openly condemn Republicans like Todd Akin, while asserting that the economy rather than abortion will be the key for his Presidency. If Romney is unable to attract a larger percentage of women voters, he will lose the election. James Boys recently wrote about this important concern.

             But again, the key is the economy. Romney should engage with Paul Ryan in a collective attack on Obama's failed economic record. Failure on the economy, failure on the debt. This is not a difficult argument to articulate. With reference to the economy, perhaps Romney should adopt the line-

  'Failure only the President believes in'.

GOP ad - Illustrates the message that Romney should relentlessly present

Nate Silver on the election

Nate Silver has an interesting piece in his NYTimes column that analyzes polling results post the DNC and RNC conventions. Silver concludes that Obama currently has a 79% chance of winning the general election. Now... I believe that Silver is a fantastic analyst, but I have some major issues with the polling conclusions in this case. My concern is that the conclusions do not take into account some critical data.

 First, the terrible jobless numbers that were released on Friday, the day after Obama's speech, will not have been accurately reflected in the polling sets. While Bill Clinton has received a lot of praise for his speech endorsing Obama - and the polls reflect that the public responded positively- the jobless numbers essentially rebut Obama's argument that the economy is picking up steam. The economy is struggling. I expect that many Americans who regarded the Democratic convention positively will see the latest jobless numbers as evidence that Obama's strong talk is not matched up with reality. I expect that the polling data released next week will reflect this hypothesis.

Second, Romney spent the week of the Democratic Convention preparing for the Presidential debates. He was out of the news. In essence, while Obama and the Democrats launched a full assault on Romney, he was nowhere to be seen. This undoubtedly caused a degradation in his polling numbers V the President. Again, when Romney starts campaigning next week I expect his numbers will improve. 

Third, a lot of voters still don't have a good feel for Romney. As we approach November, it will crucial for Romney to show voters that he is a decent, intelligent and ultimately moderate-conservative Republican. The debates will be incredibly important. Though I am of course biased, I expect that Romney will generate substantially improved personal appeal numbers over the next few weeks. I also expect that he will be able to win the debate with the President on the economy. As I expect Ryan will win the debate with Biden.

This will be a very close election. With its fun moments - See below.

Obama v Romney - Latest polling analysis

The NYTimes is carrying an interesting story examining demographic polling for the presidential election. The polls conclude that Obama continues to have strong support among women, while Romney has a consolidated base of support among white families earning less than $100,000 a year. As a Republican, I draw positive conclusions from this story. The polls illustrate that Obama's anti-Romney business narrative has pretty much failed. The President has been spending ludicrous amounts of money on pathetic adverts that represent the height of hypocrisy for a man who said he would 'change' Washington for the better. Many voters have not been persuaded by these ads. I believe that the voters in Romney's camp understand that it is in fact Obama who has failed on the economy. These voters want real change and Obama is incapable of offering it. I also believe that when Romney really starts running (which he hasn't yet) and spending money on ad campaigns in key swing states, Obama's lead among women voters will deteriorate. The Democratic spin story about the 'war on women' is a bunch of bs. Contraception is cheap, I don't want to subsidize someone else's sex life. That isn't a war on women, it's common sense. Obama's slight overall polling advantage resides on the negative attack ads that he has brought to bear against Romney. When Romney responds to these ads with facts, Obama will lose support and I expect that Romney will pull ahead in the polls.