How Low Can He Go? Rasmussen Reports Shows Steep Drop in Obama Job Approval Ratings

I trust Rasmussen Reports because they look at likely voters, the registered voters most likely to actually make a difference by turning out for elections. Moreover, Rasmussen has demonstrated an uncanny degree of accuracy in predicting the exact results of Presidential elections. Accordingly, I think Barack Obama and his administration have just gotten the clearest possible warning from the American people that the administration is going in the wrong direction.



For example, in today's Rasmussen survey, Obama reached the lowest point of his presidency - an overwhelmingly negative -14 on Rasmussen's "approval index." Rasmussen constructs this approval index by subtracting the 27 percent who now "strongly approve" of Obama's performance from the 41 percent who "strongly disapprove."

I think these negative approval numbers are a little unfair to President Obama since they include people who disagree with Obama on policy issues and others who agree with the President and are upset that he is not winning the battle on health care or other prized liberal issues. In a larger sense, however, low approval numbers undermine a President's credibility and political influence. These numbers indicate that it will be easier for Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans to claim that the President is making mistakes and that they should not follow his direction - particularly when he leads us towards his beloved Marxist socialist utopia.


John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Sen. Reid Now in Hot Water Over Health Care Reform

It’s kind of fun to watch the Democrat party self-destruct over its insistence on sticking us with a public option, an option that would pave the way to single payer. The good news for the vast majority of us who vehemently oppose single-payer is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now trailing a top Republican challenger by 11 points according to a new poll.



The Mason-Dixon Polling and Research survey of 400 registered voters shows GOP candidate Danny Tarkanian leading Reid by 49 percent to 38 percent in Nevada.

Sen. Reid, of course, has been among the most vocal in stressing that he would push through single-payer no matter how little support it had in the Senate among Republicans…even if it means violating long-held Senate norms and procedures. I sincerely hope his friends in the Senate realize that this ruthless politician is in a precarious position.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Thoughts on the Florida Congresswoman Who Hid Her Cancer Surgeries

Back in March 2009, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, revealed that for the last year, she had battled breast cancer. What surprised me, as a student of politics, was her ability to keep this information secret. Apparently, Rep. Wasserman had seven major surgeries, including a double mastectomy and removal of her ovaries with out this information leaking out the the general public. Only in March of this year did she reveal her decisions to have such cancer-prone areas removed because of a genetic predisposition.

Rep. Wasserman, in her early 40s, said she didn’t release the news for a few reasons. “I really wanted to make sure that I could protect my children; they were 8 and 4.”

This story caught my attention because I know charismatic leaders have a powerful incentive to hide the bad news about their health. Reagan, for example, was quite hurt after he took a bullet…but he looked all cheerful and robust peaking out of his hospital window.

As a political scientist, I think I'm sort of offended by Wasserman’s suggestion that she kept her personal health a secret to protect her children.

I think this is largely a lie spoken to deceive the gullible. I’ve seen her on television and she’s pretty cold and ruthless with others. She’s very focused on her talking points. She also strikes me as an extremely angry person. Besides, at those ages, I don’t think the kids would really understand.

Based on what I know of other political leaders, I think it is safe to say that she kept her health problems a secret for primarily political reasons. Quite simply, news about her poor health would harm her fundraising and campaign activities. Some of her supporters, I imagine, would even suggest that she quit politics and devote herself to private matters. Given the severity of her health issues, I’m sure other healthier and younger candidates in her area would be a better investment for the time and resources of her political party. I know this may sound insenitive to those new to politics, but I’m certain that this is the calculation she was making herself…

The larger issue, for me, is media collusion with this secret-keeping. In the case of Sen. John Edwards, I think the media knew about his affair (his wife certainly did) but they kept it quiet because they did not want to interfere with a Democrat running for President…or to interfere with the impact of Edwards’ endorsement of Obama.

The main point I would like to make…for the journalists who read this…is that not disclosing a politician’s health strengthens their political power. Keeping health issues a secret is not a value-neutral decision…it directly impacts the leader’s influence and longevity in politics. It is a secret that impacts the sub-leaders competing for power, sub-leaders who are always part of the charismatic leader’s decision-making.

At any rate, I’m here because I feel I have a temporary mission to share what I know about politics and economics…at a time when I believe our nation is in grave danger. The more people understand about how charismatic leaders create winning images for themselves...the safer we will be.