Continuing fallout

The ignominious Munich debt-ceiling accord is proving relentless in its fallout. From Pew Research:

There ... has been a substantial erosion of Obama’s leadership image. Since May ... the percentage viewing Obama as a strong leader has declined from 58% to 49%.

That's the overall picture, but neither have independents -- those mushy middlers who reportedly prefer virtually any compromise over rational governance -- been impressed:

Today, more say Obama is not a strong leader than say he is (51% vs. 44%); in May, that balance was reversed (52% strong leader, 41% not strong).

The undeniable variable in these downward shifts was of course the debt deal, or rather the White House's steady retreats and incremental surrenders leading up to the debt deal. They took a devastating toll on the all-important intangibility of presidential image.

We'd all like to forget the whole wretched, bloody affair; the problem is, the electorate hasn't. The debt negotiations have left an ugly and noticeable scar.

All of which reinforces the political thesis that in next month's economic proposals, President Obama -- in what you might call Watershed II, the sequel -- should go big. He simply will not erode or erase the ill-destined numbers above by serving up a platter of weak remedies and half measures. No American electorate will ever uniformly agree on the wisdom of any set of bold economic proposals, yet a significant -- and what's better, an expanding -- proportion will recognize and duly admire that inestimable quality of presidential leadership that went into it.

Immediately to follow, naturally, would be a marketing blitzkrieg of press conferences and national touring, which just as naturally would sell nothing to do-nothing congressional Republicans. Whether Obama's proposals are big and bold, or small and meek, they'll go nowhere. So be it. Of that, too, voters will take note. Yet they might as well take note of presidential boldness -- not presidential meekness -- denied.

Comments

[Alli]

Steady retreats and incremental surrenders? Yeah, they would have appreciated him if he stood firm and not compromised. Default? No checks? markets crashing? massive job losses? Who cares? Obama didn't surrender!

Again I am still doubtful that the country will just eat up this boldness and hold onto to it until next November. Especially if this boldness produces nothing. Most of these people have fallen for the myth that if you just pound harder, Congress will listen and all will be well. In the beginning of the debt deal a lot of people said Republicans would give in once their Wall Street overlords gave their orders. Overlords spoke, GOP ignored them. Obama called for the country to call their reps - they didn't listen to them either. Constituents have been yelling at them at their town halls - one of your own recent posts showed that these Reps were still living in another reality. The MSM just continues to coddle the GOP and the left just keeps aiming their guns at their own team. That's why I'm not hopeful for any passage of a jobs bill and I hope no one else does either. His numbers will go up but for how long?

In any case, Obama will go big as you've wished. He's giving a speech about jobs and his economic plan. History shows that he doesn't give this much notice unless he's planning something big. Okay?

[Ansel M.]

I am still not convinced that the administration made significant mistakes during the debt ceiling fiasco, given the president's actual powers. However, PM has convinced me that President Obama needs to go really big on his upcoming economic proposals. I suspect the president's recent, lower poll numbers are more the result of the electorate's anxiety stemming from the MSM's repetition of the unemployment figures and the downward trend in the stock market, plus the incessant blather about Perry and the other Republican candidates overshadowing anything the president has done. I still believe the Republicans in general, and the House R's in particular, took the biggest, lasting hit as a result of their intransigence during the debt ceiling fight.

[Frank Sinclair]

If he wants to be re-elected on merit, he must go big and lead from the front, instead of from behind, which has been his customary method up to now. That has worked for him in the past, but in the debt deal, he let the Republicans set the terms of the debate, and this is why the deal worked out was seen as lose-lose for everyone. Taking the lead and going big will allow him to expose the vapidness of the GOP/teabagger right and to neutralize them.

Otherwise, his only hope of winning next year will be a GOP nominee so crazy and inarticulate that voters flock to Obama simply because he's sane.