Why Obama's Polling Bounce is So Anemic

[Geee]

American Thinker:

According to several different sources, President Obama's poll bounce from the Osama raid has been far less than might have been expected. It's not likely to get any better for him, and here's a short checklist as to the reasons why:

1) The Dukakis factor - It's nearly forgotten today (for that matter, Dukakis is nearly forgotten today), but in the 1988 election campaign, Michael Dukakis, the Massachusetts governor running against George Bush the Elder, posed as the commander of a tank in an effort to toughen up his image. Ridicule was hip deep. It's something the same here. If a man is unmilitary, he is unmilitary, and no effort to turn him into Patton will work. The "Warrior President" schtick is going to hurt Obama in the long run. (At about the same time, Maggie Thatcher was also photographed driving a tank. Now that was scary.)

2) The Bush 41 Factor - Old George won the '88 election, whipped the pants off of Saddam Hussein in '91, and was ejected from office in favor of Bill "Draft-dodger" Clinton a year later. His popularity rating right after the First Gulf War was over 90%. It appears that military triumphs for non-serving politicians (as opposed to actual soldiers like Grant or Eisenhower) have a definite shelf-life. Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator reminds us that the same fate befell Winston Churchill in 1945.

3) The Soros Factor - The stay-at-homes hired by Old Creepy to monitor comment pages and post zingers have been working overtime the past couple days. The formula seems to be "Bush failed, Obama succeeded, and that's the end of it." Actually, it isn't: according to Gallup, most Americans (89%) want the military given most of the credit, followed by the CIA, (62%), Obama (35%), and George W. Bush (22%). Now, 22% ain't chopped liver, particularly for a man so thoroughly traduced over the past three years. Americans don't like this kind of tactic, and if the left were smart, they'd drop it. They won't, though.

[pollyannaish]

Wait a second...on number two....GHWB served. Does he mean career military men? (Just a small quibble...)

[Argyle58]

Wait a second...on number two....GHWB served. Does he mean career military men? (Just a small quibble...)

 

Sounds more like senior command personnel. Eisenhower and Grant were both theater commanders, high profile positions, during major conflicts.....positions that garnered headlines.

 

As a combat pilot during WWII, GHWB's service was ancient history by the time he ran for president, and his service was hardly headline news at the time.....just one of thousands doing the same job.

[SrWoodchuck]

John F. Kennedy is the only Democratic president in contemporary times that had a positive, even heroic military cachet.....commanding PT-109. All the others have made efforts to project their anti-military bias.

 

Even challenger, John Kerry, who had military service [disputed & denigrated by the men he served with] stepped all over it & created an anti-military persona, shortly after mustering out.

[Argyle58]

John F. Kennedy is the only Democratic president in contemporary times that had a positive, even heroic military cachet.....commanding PT-109. All the others have made efforts to project their anti-military bias.

 

Even challenger, John Kerry, who had military service [disputed & denigrated by the men he served with] stepped all over it & created an anti-military persona, shortly after mustering out.

 

By today's standards, though, JFK would, at best, be considered a Blue Dog Democrat, more likely a Republican. As such, he would never have been allowed by the liberal power structure of the Democrat Party to run for the office, much less garner the support he received at the time, nor the adulation that his name still invokes.

[SrWoodchuck]

John F. Kennedy is the only Democratic president in contemporary times that had a positive, even heroic military cachet.....commanding PT-109. All the others have made efforts to project their anti-military bias.

 

Even challenger, John Kerry, who had military service [disputed & denigrated by the men he served with] stepped all over it & created an anti-military persona, shortly after mustering out.

By today's standards, though, JFK would, at best, be considered a Blue Dog Democrat, more likely a Republican. As such, he would never have been allowed by the liberal power structure of the Democrat Party to run for the office, much less garner the support he received at the time, nor the adulation that his name still invokes.

IMO- A John F. Kennedy would be an excellent Democratic challenger to Obama in 2012. Not that a JFK election would mean a complete divergence from present Liberal strategy......but he would have been more trustworthy than BHO & more politically centered. I don't think he'd have had as big an anti-capitalist animus either.

 

Where are the "patriot-warrior" Democrats, today?