Election 2012: Going Global

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson (one of my favorites) makes an astute observation that this year's election campaign may depend as much on overseas events as on domestic concerns about the economy:

It may not be the economy, stupid.

Then again, James Carville’s famous maxim about the 1992 presidential campaign might well be valid in 2012. But it’s quite possible that on Election Day, voters’ most urgent concerns — economic or not — will be driven by overseas events that neither President Obama nor his Republican opponent can predict or control.

Robinson notes Afghanistan, Korea, Syria, Iran, and events in Europe as potential pitfalls for both the President and Governor Romney. While overseas events have had major impact on presidential campaigns (1940, 1948, 1968, 1980, and 2004 come to mind with varying degrees of impact), 2012 presents so many different international issues that trying to predict the election right now is a fool's errand.

Bruins' Thomas Taunted With Obama Signs

Tim Thomas Taunted With Obama Signs By Capitals Fans:

Despite being named Stanley Cup MVP, Thomas refused to join his team in D.C. when Obama honored the Bruins, citing political issues. In a statement posted on Facebook, 

Thomas said he believes the federal government "has grown out of control" but also wrote that he blames both political parties.
Before the playoffs began, Thomas abruptly ended a media session when a question was asked about the skipping out on Obama. 

Capitals fans didn't let him off the hook that easily. In honor of Thomas' White House snub, several Caps bloggers coordinated a fan effort to revisit the story and taunt him with pictures of Obama's face and posters depicting the president (some which were gigantic).

This is the first time I've seen a political form of taunt from sports fans. I know certain hooligan and ultra groups in Europe and South America have either extreme left-wing or right-wing ideologies, but I've never seen American fans overtly using politics to taunt a player or team. Is this a symptom of the polarization of today's politics? Or is it just a clever prank?

Perhaps Another "First" For President Obama?

The first polls portraying a head to head matchup between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are out. They vary, as is expected, with the CNN poll giving the incumbent president a good, but not insurmountable, lead, while the Gallup poll gives Mitt Romney a slight lead that's within the margin of error.

The most important news, however, is that President Obama is the first incumbent to trail in the poll at this point in the election since 1976. However, some pundits have pointed out that, for example, Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan at this point in 1980 (in fact he led until a week before the election) and George H.W. Bush led Bill Clinton at this point in 1992. And even looking at 1976, Gerald Ford almost pulled off a stunning comeback against then-challenger Jimmy Carter.


Of course, national opinion polls have to be considered in context of the Electoral College. President Obama's actually doing better there, leading in most key battleground states at this point. With the disparate polling results, it's begged the question on  The Atlantic.com of whether President Obama will become the first incumbent president re-elected without winning a majority of the popular vote. One could easily see the scenario of President Obama winning a tough re-election fight, the Democrats taking back the House (or at least cutting into the GOP margin) and the Democrats losing the Senate. Essentially, neither party would have much of a mandate.


But we've got a long way to go yet.

Repeating History

Pew Research: Record Support For Afghanistan Troop Withdrawl

For the first time since Pew Research began asking the question in 2008, a majority (56 percent) now say they want the U.S. to remove American troops from Afghanistan "as soon as possible," while 39 percent say they they want to leave troops "until the situation has stabilized." That result represents a reversal since last year, when leaving the troops in place was preferred by a majority of 53 percent to 40 percent.

With news that President Obama will be addressing the nation on Wednesday night about Afghanistan there is speculation out there that a troop withdrawal could be announced. Last week it was reported that the US State Department is talking directly with the Taliban, possibly seeking a peace deal. The 10 year old war is becoming increasingly unpopular with the American public. At best the war has become a stalemate, at worst a quagmire. The death of Osama Bin Laden last month has given the Obama Administration sufficient political cover to start discussing an accelerated drawdown of troops from Afghanistan. As reported in the Bob Woodward book Obama's Wars, Obama wants to withdraw from Afghanistan by the time he leaves office. He's keenly aware of what the Vietnam War did to Lyndon Johnson's legacy and desperately wants to avoid that same fate. There are certain factions within his administration, most notably the Pentagon and State Department, that are weary of a withdrawal. But with the retirement of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense and the pending departure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State if Obama wins a second term; institutional resistance to a withdrawal won't nearly be as strong. 


My best guess is that we'll see a Vietnam-like peace deal that includes a withdrawal of a majority of NATO troops from the country. The moderate factions of the Taliban will allowed to participate in government in exchange for disarmament. I think we will still keep certain military bases open such as Bagram in order to keep an eye on neighboring Pakistan and for strategic reasons. I'd imagine that the CIA will also continue to have a large presence in the country so that the U.S. can continue to conduct Drone attacks along the border region. But of course convincing the Taliban to accept a peace deal can be a tall task. They've rejected previous overtures by the U.S. government for peace talks. It's hard for me to imagine that they would accept any deal where foreign troops remain in the country. My gut feeling on this is that by 2016 there won't be any U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Is Obama a Chalaque?

Yahoo!

The label certainly appears to fit in the minds of British police. Scotland Yard, the UK's police force, has given Obama the security codename 'Chalaque' for his visit this week to the United Kingdom, the UK Daily Mail reports. The term is reportedly a Punjabi word meaning someone who is too clever for his own good, according to the newspaper. 

A Punjabi speaker told the newspaper that the word is 'not considered rude', but could be 'mildly offensive'. "It is also said to mean 'cheeky, crafty and cunning'," the paper notes.

I would have chose the codename "Spock" but that's just me. Part of me believes this is intentional, Obama has, at times, proved to be a cunning political operator.