Pew Research recently produced this chart showing the highs and lows in Presidential approval dating back to President Eisenhower. It is interesting to note that President Obama has the highest “lowest approval rate” (41%) of any President since Kennedy. Reagan and Clinton, both popular and successful Presidents, each had low ratings in the 30’s. Both President Bushes had amazing highs (after the Persian Gulf War and the 9/11 attacks) and amazing lows in the 20’s after the economy collapsed.
I think we have come to the point in politics where we can say one party openly wants to discriminate against gays, and one party does not. If you a Republican, you want to discriminate, or at the very least want it to be legal for private businesses and other individuals to freely discriminate with no possible consequence, legal or as a result of free market pressure. If you do not want that, you would not be a Republican. So when Greg Sargent asks the following question, the obvious answer to it is yes.
[W]hat happens if the Supreme Court declares a Constitutional right to gay marriage this summer? Do Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Mike Huckabee demand a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution and challenge Bush and Scott Walker to join them?
The nominee of the GOP will have to be anti-marriage equality to the point that it will be a featured part of their campaign. The GOP Platform will for the forseeable future contain a plank calling for a constitutional amendment overturning any positive (or to their view negative) Supreme Court decision, just like there is a call for an amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.
So much for the notion that President Obama has no foreign policy legacy. Ryan Grim noted some of the notable recent breakthroughs:
The deal with Iran comes two months after Obama announced a warming of relations with Cuba, another longtime U.S. foe. […] In November, Obama, during a trip to China, surprised observers with a bilateral climate change deal that puts China on a path to reduced emissions. American opponents of acting to stave off climate change have long used China as a reason not to act, arguing that whatever the U.S. does will be overshadowed by the coal-heavy nation.
The only negative would be the rise of ISIS after we left Iraq, but I fail to see how that is specifically Obama’s fault. Indeed, if it is any President’s fault it would be George W. Bush’s, since his actions in going into Iraq in the first place brought about this entirely foreseeable consequence of sectarian violence and terrorism and unrest. What, is America supposed to stay in Iraq forever at maximum troop levels to forestall the rise of such groups?
Steve Benen elaborates on both the President’s success and setbacks in foreign policy:
Breakthroughs on U.S. policy towards Iran and Cuba are themselves future entries in history books, and the progress on climate talks with China have the potential to be literally life-saving. But as Obama’s foreign policy legacy takes shape, the list of successes continues.
The president has responded effectively to Putin’s antics, helping cripple Russia’s economy and isolate the autocratic leader. Obama has wound down both of the Bush/Cheney wars. This White House is also no doubt proud of its counter-terrorism accomplishments, including the strike against Osama bin Laden, its New START treaty, it’s improved ties with India, it’s improved ties with Latin American, it’s progress on loose nuclear materials, and the degree to which Obama has improved the nation’s global standing in the wake of his predecessor’s tenure.
Whether one’s satisfied with the accomplishments or not, this is the stuff of an impressive presidential legacy. This is not to say there aren’t misses alongside the hits; no administration has ever been able to tout a perfect record on international affairs. The Obama administration had high hopes for its policy towards Yemen, for example, and the country is now deteriorating towards failed-state status. The administration helped topple Gadhafi, but conditions in Libya are dreadful. The administration has relied heavily on a drone campaign against suspected terrorist targets in Pakistan and elsewhere, often with counter-productive consequences.
But on balance, I suspect officials in the West Wing are looking back at the last six years with quite a bit of pride. “He has no foreign policy legacy”? Recent history suggests otherwise.
The Washington Post fact checks President Obama’s claim that 50,000 have not died in hospitals because of the Affordable Care Act and finds it largely true.
“The 50,000 number is derived from a study, released on Dec. 2, 2014, by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services… The numbers might seem large, but the research seems solid, according to experts we consulted, and it is based on a review of an extensive database. The results likely reflect work that predated the ACA but at the same time the ACA has spurred even greater cooperation among hospitals. Since the president is using a figure more than a year old, it is likely understated — unless, of course, the interim number for 2013 turns out to be overstated.”
So if you oppose Obamacare and want to repeal it, it means you want and desire 50,000 Americans to be dead.