Political Animal
Blog
As Steve noted yesterday there are plenty of reasons why, going into the Christmas break, Barack Obama is looking surprisingly strong politically. The economy is slowly improving. The troops are out of Iraq. The agenda in Washington has shifted — largely as the result of the president’s own speeches — from debt-reduction to job creation. And the House Republicans have insanely positioned themselves on the wrong side of the payroll tax cut.
But there’s another reason to consider, a sort of dog-that-didn’t-bark factor. As Jonathan Alter explains in his recent Washington Monthly cover story, Obama has gone longer than any recent president without a significant scandal on his watch. Alter predicted that if this record continues it could have a real effect on the president’s reelection chances. I think we may already be seeing signs of that effect.
As recently as a month ago, congressional Republicans seemed confident that they could ensnare Obama in high-profile investigations of various “scandals” — the Solyndra bankruptcy, the Fast and Furious fiasco. But those investigations mostly fizzled without producing any really damning evidence against the White House or Obama personally, and they certainly never captured the nation’s attention. Meanwhile, the GOP presidential race became a virtual TV mini-series of real scandals, from accusations of sexual harassment and adultery against Herman Cain to new revelations about Newt Gingrich (a lucrative “historian” gig with Freddy Mac) to go with the old ones (adultery, congressional ethics violations). I don’t know that there’s any way to prove it, but it seems possible to me that some part of the president’s rising poll numbers is the result of the characterological contrast between him and certain Republican frontrunners.
Alter’s cover story is a great example of the kind of work we aspire to produce — smart, well-reported, and ahead of the pack. You probably know Alter from his long career as a Newsweek columnist, his regular appearances on MSNBC, and his best-selling books. What you might not know is that he got his start as an editor at the Washington Monthly. About his time here, he writes:
Working at the Washington Monthly was my most important experience in journalism. It taught me how to think deeply about politics and government and write in a way that—when I’m doing my job—is compelling and even entertaining for readers. And I’ve never worked harder or had more fun. Newsweek and MSNBC were anti-climactic.
If you value the kind of journalism you find here, including this blog, now’s your chance to support it. We’re in the midst of our annual year-end fundraising drive, so click here and contribute whatever you can — $10, $20, $30, $50. We’re a non-profit outfit so your donations to the Monthly are tax-deductible. Your support is vital, and much appreciated.
Facebook
Twitter
RepublicanPointOfView on December 21, 2011 11:59 AM:
Scandal, you want scandal...
Both sides do it and here is proof! Here, in Indianapolis, indictments have been delivered against a democrat city-county counsilman for multiple crimes! And our Gannett owned local newspaper has documented hearsay that this democrat is an Obama supporter.
See, both sides do it and just because The Teflon Obomination has been able to use the liberal media to avoid being associated with all of the democrat scandals does not mean that he is clean.
That there is no real proof that Obama is not an integral part of all of these democrat scandals is proof that he is an integral part of all of the scandals!
/snark
chi res on December 21, 2011 12:04 PM:
So, do you think that Alter calling Obama the "Teflon President" helped those poll numbers, Paul?
liam foote on December 21, 2011 12:15 PM:
Actually, members of the GOP just can't seem to help themselves. One of the reasons the Dems prevailed in the 2006 midterms was because the public was weary of one story after another about GOP politicians with male pages or rented boys, with prostitutes (some of whom were female) and with their wide stances in airport bathrooms.
Following the 2008 elections Mr. Obama did in fact try to change the tone in Washington by not immediately investigating Bush administration abuses, including no bid contracts, huge sums of money and stores of equipment lost in Iraq, deliberate outing of a CIA operative involved in WMD, and a variety of other juicy scandals that would have scored political points.
Good for him and his administration. When a Weiner arises, so to speak, cut him loose immediately. We can agree that the public appreciates this effort to return some sense of honor and dignity to political life.
MikeJ on December 21, 2011 12:17 PM:
I'm not convinced people care about "scandal". Seven years and an unlimited budget to look for something, anything, scandalous left Clinton with a higher approval rating than Reagan. And Reagan, who people like to think of as a popular president, ran an administration with 34 criminal convictions, the most ever.
Danp on December 21, 2011 12:24 PM:
I'm not convinced people care about "scandal".
So what's your explanation for the demolition of Cain and Gingrich campaigns? Lack of knowledge about Lybia and flip-flopping like a mitt?
aggie bee on December 21, 2011 12:35 PM:
$10 on Benen to win, place, and show.
Ron Byers on December 21, 2011 12:37 PM:
Have you noticed the press is giving Ron Paul a look. I guess since he is the Iowa frontrunner they feel compelled.
Just thought I would mention somethiing off topic, because this is a pretty boring topic.
Forrest Leeson on December 21, 2011 12:42 PM:
"[N]ot immediately investigating Bush administration abuses, including no bid contracts, huge sums of money and stores of equipment lost in Iraq, deliberate outing of a CIA operative involved in WMD, and a variety of other juicy scandals that would have scored political points" is (as you know) itself one of the scandals that "don't exist".
They're simply ignored because A) no one pays any attention to the left's media but the left, B) the Republican-owned media isn't about to highlight their own party's negatives or common ground with the notional opposition, and C) the rest of the media metaphorically prefers Pepsi to Coke.
Strike the word "immediately", though.
Peter C on December 21, 2011 12:55 PM:
I think scandals serve Democrats and Republicans in different ways.
Democrats see scandals involving Republicans as evidence of abuse of the system. They see hypocracy (for moral failings) or corruption (for fiscal impropriety), but the core is a violation of trust.
Republicans see scandals involving Democrats as an opportunity to pour scorn on the Democratic party and devalue the idea of government. So, even if there is no hypocracy or violation of trust, their is an opportunity to advance their nihilistic ideology.
Stuart Shiffman on December 21, 2011 1:30 PM:
perhaps the reason "scandal" has not stuck to President Obama is that there have been so-many trumped up scandals from Reverend Wright to Bill Ayers to his birth certificate that most folks just listen and say "yeah, right, here we go again."
Ralph Kramden on December 21, 2011 2:07 PM:
"The agenda in Washington has shifted — largely as the result of the president’s own speeches — from debt-reduction to job creation. "
I think Occupy Wall Street is much more responsible for the shift in the media focus. Obama started talking more about job creation *after* OWS had started the focus shift.
IDTT on December 21, 2011 3:04 PM:
@Mike J, but didn't Pres Reagan leave office on the heels of the Iran/Contra scandal? I would think that affected his approval rating at the time, of course he's been mythologized (is that a word?) so much since then his history has been rewritten.
Redshift on December 21, 2011 3:22 PM:
Ralph Kramden:
"I think Occupy Wall Street is much more responsible for the shift in the media focus. Obama started talking more about job creation *after* OWS had started the focus shift."
This is simply incorrect. OWS started on September 17, and didn't get significant enough media coverage to start influencing the debate until somewhat later. Obama's major televised address to Congress on job creation, which drew 31 million viewers, was on September 8, and was clearly laying out the administration's major push for the fall.
There has been great synergy between the two, and OWS has helped convince even our dimwitted political media that people and not just politicians care about this stuff, but the idea the OWS pushed Obama to focus on job creation just doesn't line up with the facts.
chi res on December 21, 2011 5:30 PM:
Obama's major televised address to Congress on job creation, which drew 31 million viewers, was on September 8
Yeah, but we all know that, as part of his special eleventh-dimensional chess powers, Obama foretold the emergence of OWS and and decided to co-opt THEIR issue!
Trollop on December 21, 2011 7:47 PM:
I agree that the man is scandal free which is pleasantly refreshing. I have high regard for that and I believe at the very least this will strike a chord in the people who actually value realistic moral character (non-republicans).
burro on December 21, 2011 10:41 PM:
A significant benefit of Obama's lack of scandal is that the f'ed up r's can't turn every stupid ass thing they do and say into a non issue by bringing up some moral shortcoming on Obama's part. They've got their wildly absurd cliched accusations like the birth certificate and muslim and socialist related junk, but those are mostly good good for inciting the base.
They would do backflips if they could get something started that would take the light off of their oozing selves. But Obama can keep the conversation on politics, for the most part, and when given the stage to perform politics, the r's are f'ing horrible. They end up leaving the stage in a helpless snit while pulling the plug on the mics and cameras.
It's a huge benefit to have a leader who doesn't mire him/herself in dumbassed behaviour and legal shenanigans.
FreakyBeaky on December 22, 2011 2:14 AM:
Obama's September 8 address didn't change the debate. OWS gets the credit for that. We were still on austerity before the DFHs started getting pepper sprayed and having the sh*t kicked out of them, Obama's latest "pivot" notwithstanding. Punch the DFH's all you like - they won this round.
It's also funny to recall in this context the numerous times I've read here and elsewhere that the President really has very little power to affect public opinion. Have we changed our minds about that?