Tuesday, November 3, 2009

NYT: Iowagians Ready to Take Votes, Stick It Up Democrats' Cornholes

In Iowa, Second Thoughts on Obama
by Jeff Zeleny

Pauline McAreavy voted for President Obama. From the moment she first saw him two years ago, she was smitten by his speeches and sold on his promise of change. She switched parties to support him in the Iowa caucuses, donated money and opened her home to a pair of young campaign workers.

But by the time she received a fund-raising letter last month from the Democratic National Committee, a sense of disappointment had set in. She returned the solicitation with a handwritten note, saying, “Until I see some progress and he lives up to his promises in Iowa, we will not give one penny.”

“I’m afraid I wasn’t realistic,” Ms. McAreavy, 76, a retired school nurse, said on a recent morning on the deck of her home here in east-central Iowa.

“I really thought there would be immediate change,” she said. “Sometimes the Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. But it’s politics as usual, and that’s what I voted against.”

One year after winning the election, Mr. Obama has seen his pledge to transcend partisanship in Washington give way to the hardened realities of office. A campaign for the history books, filled with a sky-high sense of possibility for Mr. Obama not just among legions of loyal Democrats but also among converts from outside the party, has descended to an unfamiliar plateau for a president whose political rise was as rapid as it was charmed.

Interviews with voters across Iowa offer a window into how the president’s standing has leveled off, especially among the independents and Republicans who contributed not just to his margin of victory in the caucuses here but also to the optimism among his supporters that his election would be a break from standard-issue politics.

For Democrats, the immediate peril of failing to hang on to some of these swing voters could play out Tuesday in the governor’s race in Virginia, a state Mr. Obama wrested away from Republicans last year but where the Democratic candidate for governor has struggled to recreate Mr. Obama’s enthusiastic coalition.

In Iowa, Ms. McAreavy fears that the president’s health care plan will shortchange her Medicare benefits and mean infrequent mammogram examinations. She worries that his decision on Afghanistan will mean that her son, a member of the Iowa National Guard, will return to the battlefield. And she believes that too many of Mr. Obama’s actions are rooted in Democratic politics.

“All my Republican friends — and independents — are sitting back saying, ‘Oh, what did we do?” Ms. McAreavy said. “I’m not to that point yet, but a lot of people are.”

Mr. Obama still has generally strong approval ratings and the opportunities that come with a Democratic majority in Congress. Public opinion about him remains in flux, particularly as he heads into the endgame of a push to overhaul the health insurance system and nears a decision about whether to expand the war in Afghanistan.

But an erosion of support from independents and disapproval from Republicans suggests that the coalition Mr. Obama built to win the White House is frayed.

[Continued]

2 comments:

dhoughton.esq said...

I'm not sure the tide is really turning against Obama. There are a LOT of Obamatrons in the college towns (I spent Halloween on Welch St. in Ames...I think...). The conservative push-back has started a commie push-back. The two sides are just becoming even more polarized while left-leaning "moderates" (aka commies who are afraid of admitting that they are commies) have moved back onto the fence--not picking any side, though they will inevitably fall back in with the Obama Nation.

Unfortunately, we haven't won anything yet. In fact, we haven't even stopped the commies from moving the ball down the court--we've just been booing extra hard.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of commies, I asked a prof about my Master's essay and the topic I chose was opposition parties in Russia. Apparently this wasn't sexy enough. She wanted to know why the communists have lost influence in Russia. Gee, I don't know, how about:
1) Russians lived under seventy years of communist terror, oppression, and economic failure
2) Communism needs constant propaganda to reinforce it because it bears no resemblance to reality
3) All the old pensioners are dying out
4) Since the Great Patriotic War, communism in Russia blended aspects of great power chauvinism and Russian nationalism. If you're going to be nationalistic in the wake of the collapse of your empire, why water it down?
5) Russia is an export-oriented petro-state, communism is dispensable
6) If the government is going to be a mafiocracy, it is easier to collect cash from people than it is to collect whoop-ass. In this way, corruption is more efficient in a monetized system than it is in a gulag state. Which is easier to pocket: A stack full of 500 rubles or 50 tonnes of coal?