SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Morning After: What a Narrow Win Would Mean For...

PLANK NOVEMBER 1, 2012

The Morning After: What a Narrow Win Would Mean For Obama’s Second Term

BY WILLIAM GALSTON

If President Obama is reelected, his second term will be shaped by the terms of that victory, and by the circumstances he will face the morning after.

In all probability, Obama’s winning margin would be the lowest for the incumbent since 1916—maybe ever. Worse, there is a non-negligible chance that he could win a split decision—a narrow victory in the Electoral College, a narrow defeat in the popular vote. Whatever may have been the case when the Constitution was drafted, majority rule is the core of legitimacy in contemporary political culture. Unless the next few days yield a strong surge toward Obama, he will enter his second term holding a relatively weak hand.

The nature of the 2012 campaign poses an additional difficulty. I cannot remember an election in which the gap was greater between the magnitude of our problems and the substance of our politics. With rare exceptions, Mitt Romney has alternated vacuity and self-contradiction, with interludes of fuzzy math.

Regrettably, Barack Obama has done little better. A president who entered office with transformational aspirations has chosen to run a tactical, transactional reelection campaign. After the debt ceiling fiasco in the summer of last year, Obama and his political team all but abandoned governing and subordinated everything to the imperatives of winning the 2012 election. The president systematically used the bully pulpit and his executive authority to reinvigorate the building blocks of his 2008 coalition. For young people, lower rates on student loans. For Latinos, announce a non-legislative version of the Dream Act. For gays and lesbians, endorse same-sex marriage. For single women, pick a fight over contraception with the Catholic Church and run a national convention in which the centrality of abortion rights startled even seasoned observers. Bill Clinton’s mantra—safe, legal, and rare—is a distant memory. In its place: “Julia.”

Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.

At the same time, Obama decided not to place a clear, ambitious agenda at the heart of his reelection campaign, focusing instead on a relentless effort to portray Mitt Romney as an unacceptable alternative. Even after the first debate, which blew up that effort beyond repair, the president continued to resist pressure from within his own party to put a more explicit second-term plan on the table. His interview with the Des Moines Register, which he tried to keep off the record, revealed more about his intentions that anything he had said on the stump. A fiscal “grand bargain” and comprehensive immigration reform—two key items in that interview--cannot succeed without public support. You can’t get public support for proposals you don’t push—hard—during the campaign, as George W. Bush found out in the spring and summer of 2005.

I have no doubt that Obama’s aspiration to do big things is as burning as ever. He believes that we need sustained public investments in areas such as education and training, basic and applied research, infrastructure and energy if we are to place the U.S. economy on a sound foundation in a globalized and increasingly competitive world. (For the record, I agree with him.) My point is rather than the way he has chosen to conduct his campaign will make it even harder than it had to be to get these things done during his second term.

That matters because Obama is all but certain to preside over a government that remains divided. While the Democrats may narrowly maintain control of the Senate, everyone with the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi expects the House to remain where it now is—in Republican hands. So as has been the case since November of 2010, the president’s post-election choices reduce to two—compromise or gridlock.

As it has been for some time, the key to picking the lock is fiscal policy. The most urgent challenge—starting the day after the election—is the fiscal cliff, which unaccountably went undiscussed through three presidential debates. Its components include, not only sequestration and the Bush tax cuts, but also the alternative minimum tax, Medicare payments to doctors, and much else. Between Nov. 7 and the end of December, a reelected President Obama would have to decide whether he is willing to go over the cliff, as some Democrats have urged. The downside is macroeconomic: a CBO analysis suggests that the post-cliff combination of tax increases and spending cuts would be enough to push the fragile economy back into recession—not the ideal way for Obama to begin his second term. If the president is not willing to accept these foreseeable consequences of inaction, he must decide what he’s willing to accept to prevent them.

The fiscal cliff is better understood as the tip of a fiscal iceberg towards which we’re headed, and it puts back on the table the entire agenda of issues left unresolved when the Obama-Boehner talks collapsed more than a year ago. If the president wants any fiscal space for meaningful public investment, he will have to confront these issues head on, and he will have to make a deal with people who fundamentally disagree with him. He can’t do that without accepting some ideas that will play poorly with the base of his own party. (Nor can Boehner.)

Easy compromises split the difference. Hard compromises contain elements that each party to the agreement regards as bad public policy. Given the polarization between the parties, getting to yes anytime in the next few years will require a series of hard compromises. The alternative to compromise is a continuation of confidence-sapping drift and slow national decline. My fear is that this election campaign has done nothing—if anything, less than nothing—to prepare the parties and the American people for the choices that lie ahead. Obama isn’t solely to blame for this, of course, but the way he chose to run for reelection has made a bad situation worse.   

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 41 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

41 comments

He's baaaaaack! After every bit of his political prognostication and political poison-pill advice to the Democrats has turned out to be wrong, this wretch is back deploring the fact that Obama had the sense, belatedly, to recognize that in order to govern he must first secure the support of the public. Obama fought his way out of the mess in which the Republicans tried to mire him by resisting all sensible measures to restore the economy and even trying affirmatively to wreck it in the hopes of bringing Obama down. Galston kept assuring us that Obama's approach wouldn't work, that Obama could not succeed without first trying to turn himself into William Galston, running a supposedly high-minded but doomed political campaign. Now Galston deplores Obama's success. What a hateful toad this man is. The necessary condition for governing is winning the election. Obama brought no dishonor to himself or his party in the manner in which he campaigned. That is just Galston venting his spleen at being proven so utterly wrong. Thank god no one paid attention to Galston. He should be ignored now as well. Galston is but a half-step away from turning into Martin Peretz.

- roidubouloi

November 1, 2012 at 9:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"After the debt ceiling fiasco in the summer of last year, Obama and his political team all but abandoned governing and subordinated everything to the imperatives of winning the 2012 election." I disagree. It began in 2010. How else does one explain the behavior of Obama in 2010; he offered nothing, nothing, that gave the country a reason to keep the Democrats in the majority in the House. Now, whether the political strategy works we will find out next week; whether it was worth it for Obama and the country we will never know because counterfactuals (an Obama loss and Romney win) exist only in the mind. [Disclosure: I criticized Obama in 2010 for not offering a reason (an explicit policy reason such as an "Obama tax plan" rather than a modified Bush tax plan) for voting for Democrats in 2010, and I have criticized Obama in 2012 for adopting the same strategy in 2012 that failed in 2010. Repeating the same strategy and expecting a different result makes one wonder about the folks advising Obama. Like I said, we will know next week if it was a good political strategy.]

- rayward

November 1, 2012 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suggest "Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Click On Here" as a working title for every Galston post. That one's free, TNR.

- Tristan

November 1, 2012 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I disagree. There might not be any high rhetoric in this campaign, but Obama will have the whip hand if he wins, even with a divided House. It makes good policy sense to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire totally and my guess is the fiscal cliff will be pretty easy to wipe away. It isn't constitutional, all they have to do is untrade the cuts that the Republicans don't want for the cuts the Dems don't want. They haven't tied their hands in any meaningful way. The key is that if Romney loses, the hard-right Republican coalition is on its last legs. There just aren't enough angry white men to win another election in four years. Maybe the Republicans will see it, maybe not. My guess is that another two years of stonewalling, while Obamacare is installed and we see a slow but steady recovery is going to be disastrous for the Tea Party.

- XLProfessor

November 1, 2012 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rayward, if Obama had offered up big, fat juicy plans during this campaign, he would have been eviscerated. He would have had to do what Romney did, announce the plans (incoherent in Romney's case), but never provide any details that could be picked over. Didn't in the end work for Romney as it would not have worked for Obama. That is simply not what political campaigns in the modern era are about. No more did Obama offer such plans in 2008, to the intense frustration of the Republicans. The public does not care about policy. It wants to know whether a presidential candidate is strong, has convictions, and cares about what the public cares about. If it is convinced on those scores, it is willing to assume that the president will figure out what to do. Policy claims and plans are used in campaigns only to symbolize one or more of those three. If they are too detailed, or implausible in their reach, they are the occasion only for political damage, because their symbolic content is shoved aside in the feeding frenzy over the plans themselves. In the present environment, Obama's mix of proposals, without any to address taxes (other than "the rich have to pay a bit more"), was politically astute, contra Galston et alia. You have to win the campaign in the context of the political culture that exists. In office, you can try to change the culture. You cannot campaign successfully and change the political culture at the same time. Obama did try in his first term to effect that change, but with a doomed strategy of offering compromise to the radical and implacable Republicans. I always thought that was doomed and said so repeatedly here at TNR going back to the earliest days of Obama's first term. He failed to understand the nature of the people he was dealing with. A better strategy for the next term is simply to focus on winning legislative victories, as fast and as many as possible. The fiscal cliff is easy. If Obama hangs tough, the Republicans will cave on their own wacko fiscal plan -- the "compromise" they agreed to to allow themselves to back away from the debt ceiling hostage crisis they created. Then it is a matter of doing anything for which Obama is willing and able to go to the people and get their support. The Republicans will then either cave or be clearly seen to be frustrating not Obama but the public will, a set up for defeat in 2012. If Obama starts to rack up legislative victories, no matter how small, the Republicans will start to fear him and the opportunity may arise for bolder action on our overall fiscal situation. But, make no mistake, it must require significant tax increases, because our problem is not, contrary to conventional wisdom, entitlements. Those are a real but future problem. The present problem is the structural deficit that Bush created in the operating budget. The Republicans want to eviscerate social security, Medicare, and Medicaid in order to plug the hole they created in the operating budget. They cannot be allowed to do that. The social safety net has enough issues of its own. It cannot be used as the solution to the fact that we refuse to collect sufficient taxes to operate the government. The real alternatives are only to do just what the fiscal cliff deal requires, cut all operating spending including the military radically, or raise taxes. There is nothing else unless you believe Romney/Ryan phony arithmetic. It is too soon for Obama to embark on such a major undertaking and would have been a mistake to make claims about it in the course of the campaign. First, Obama needs to create and build up his political capital. That will be achieved through the combination of the economic recovery, slow but building, for which Obama can take credit and demonstrated legislative success.

- roidubouloi

November 1, 2012 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am with roi, this article was just embarrassing. Nowhere does Galston lay out that because the Bush tax cuts will be expiring Obama will have a very strong hand against the Republicans to deal with every fiscal issue. Obama might even pull a Romney, he could agree to extend the rates, even lower taxes across the board for 2 years in exchange for the fiscal cliff going away and a hike in the debt ceiling. It would not be the best stimulus but it would be stimulus, and then in 2 years the economy should be back to normal and the rates can return to Clinton era levels. After that the debt will start to fall, the economy should still be moving along and what can Republicans run on in 2016. And as we have but one President at a time it does not matter in the slightest what he margin of victory is. Bush had a grand plan for his second term, Obama does not (outside of entitlement reform, which is what Republicans want more than Democrats), he wants to consolidate his first term.

- blackton

November 1, 2012 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If he wins, I think Obama needs to establish a national infrastructure bank by executive order. And appoint Bill Galston as its chair. And give him an office on the (hopefully) re-built Casino Pier in Seaside Heights, NJ. And maybe give him a rowboat the next time it rains.

- wildboy

November 1, 2012 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Has it entered the mind of Wm Galston that a second Obama admin will be hamstrung by the first admin's dereliction of duty in Benghazi? Why does he ignore Darrell Issa and other congressional inquiries? They won't ignore the admin in a second term? The Pres' silence gets louder and louder and will soon be deafening. Think Fast and furious times a billion.

- dmking316b

November 1, 2012 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm with roi, too. What a bunch of self-hating, defeatist BS this is! We're about to win a tough election, which is much better than the alternative. It'll take some compromising, but hey, that's the way the system is set up. Much better to be in our position than theirs. Chin up.

- ATLeft

November 1, 2012 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I appreciate that TNR has voices that are regularly critical of Obama, but it's frustrating to see articles that aren't based in sound fact or reasoning. Obama tried to govern as a moderate compromiser, but the GOP stonewalled and obstructed to an astonishing degree (refusing even one cent of tax hikes; rejecting a health care plan that they themselves crafted and that their own presidential nominee pioneered). Galston has been, and continues to be, completely blind to the GOP's extremism.

- polcereal

November 1, 2012 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm in with roid as well, nicely penned, especially pertaining to this country's structural deficit, and where it originated. Nice read after finishing the bitter tea of a W. Galston.

- tommyduke

November 1, 2012 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Galston doesn't seem to know the power of the presidency. The crowning achievement of an Obama second term would be to veto all attempts by the GOP in Congress to turn America into a Third World nation by deregulating us to death. Does Galston realize how much Bush 43 laid waste to regulations in every area of our society? And he didn't have to do anything judicially. All he and Cheney had to do was let the business community know, starting with Wall Street, that regulations on the books were not going to be enforced and that sociopathic business people were free to poison everything in our environment, endanger the lives of coal miners, wreck our economy with apocalyptic trading practices in the market, etc. My God, there was even a year under Bush when there was a severe shortage of flu vaccine. His administration didn't even think about infectious, sometimes deadly, diseases. Obama can prevent the GOP from destroying our society for at least another 4 years, and that's the best that any president can do. We are in a new Age of Religion, and the True Believers on the Right are out to run our country into the ground on articles of faith that have already proven to be false in the real world (I give you supply-side economics). Bopp, the True Believer who led the Citizens United assault on our democracy, states that the more undisclosed contributions there are in political campaigns, the better it is for democracy. Obama can appoint a couple of Supreme Court justices who might help to reverse the Citizens United decision, which, if left in place, will be fatal to the democratic process in America. Yes, Galston, a second Obama term could do more than make Congressional Republicans even more determined to render government ineffective. It can keep the American Republic from collapsing under Romney in his first term. And that would be a mighty accomplishment indeed.

- magboy47.

November 1, 2012 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And Jonathan Chait strikes back! http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/there-is-no-fiscal-cliff.html

- zardoz67

November 1, 2012 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

zardoz67, Thanks for the Chait link. Short, but incisive and funny post.

- magboy47.

November 1, 2012 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shoot, Bush "won" in 2000 without a majority of the popular vote, and was handed the presidency by the Supreme Court (and Al Gore's concession). He immediately began his presidency as if he had a "Mandate" from the majority to cut taxes. And very soon thereafter had a mandate to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, which he engineered into a mandate to invade Iraq. Obama has been dealing with an intransigent Republican House since January 2011. One which threatened on three occasions to shutdown the Government to achieve massive budget cuts which would have destroyed the recovery. In August 2011 Obama FINALLY realized they weren't going to cooperate with his compromises, and he stopped offering them. The election is not going to change this dynamic. Obama simply has to let the Bush tax-cuts expire, end both wars, then let the resulting infusion of cash make a large dent in the budget deficit. After 4 more years of that, we'll have full employment and no deficit. All this whining about margins and Mandates is completely beside the point.

- AllanL5

November 1, 2012 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mind you, our current financial "crisis" came from the Bush tax-cuts, followed by two wars run on borrowed money, followed by the CDO crisis from deregulation. Notice in that litany is not a single "Entitlement" causing trouble. We have a revenue problem, dispite Republican demands to turn that revenue problem into an excuse to attack the New Deal. And that revenue problem can begin to be managed by expiring the Bush tax-cuts. By the way, raising taxes on the wealthy, at a time of historically low tax rates, is not itself recessionary. Cutting spending IS recessionary, which means the sooner we raise tax rates on the wealthy, the longer we don't have to cut spending.

- AllanL5

November 1, 2012 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece is simply a variation on David Brooks's ludicrous column from Tuesday, the won that Tim Noah effectively eviscerated. Brooks is still stumping for Romney, claiming that though Obama is of sounder character and endorses better, more reasonable policies, only a Republican can persuade the House GOP delegation to abandon its obstructionism. Galston doesn't directly advocate electing Romney--unlike Brooks, Galston has enough neurons firing to recognize that that's about like recommending that we re-launch the Hindenburg, not a replica but the actual original dirigible--and Galston, for his part, draws a spurious link between the tone of Obama's re-election campaign and the difficulties he will have--or not have--in reaching a fiscal compromise. But all in all the gist is the same: Obama's a good guy, but to deal with Republican hostage-takers and save the government--which the Republicans placed in jeopardy, willfully and maliciously--he needs to go to them sniveling like a jailhouse punk. Galston is sitting in his office jacking off praying for a popular vote/electoral college split. Ain't gonna happen, Bill. Go home.

- AaronW

November 1, 2012 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The one," not "the won". Tho Tim Noah's one won, no pun.

- AaronW

November 1, 2012 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If President Obama is reelected, his second term will be shaped by the terms of that victory, and by the circumstances he will face the morning after." Yes. The country has decided that there should be no taxes, no debt, no spending cuts, and more of everything. Now, go, do, bring, and make it happen. -- Doesn't reality matter anymore? Increase the top rate to Clinton levels, get rid of the capital gains preference. (lower capital gains and lower top rates have not helped) Wait for the economy. Secure medicare, medicaid and social security. Pay off the debt.

- Nusholtz

November 1, 2012 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's the ticket Nush. And don't forget: project American power globally in a way that enhances our vital interests, and establish Washington control over the climate. O's got this in the bag, and if he can coordinate a conciliatory meeting between Christie and Springsteen over the weekend this could turn into a landslide. Given even a bit of mandate the fiscal cliff is easily manageable. Then I suppose it's on to nationalization of the means of production and the institution of Sharia law. TeaBaggers on suicide watch.

- Robert Powell

November 1, 2012 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A little late, I also offer up my approval of Roid's take on Galston's silly, non-factual article.

- Curran1

November 1, 2012 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just want a win. One vote will do:)

- Sophia

November 1, 2012 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AP bulletin, 2 a.m. Nov 7th "The nation is baffled by Mitt Romney's "victory" speech last night at the Republican rally in Boston. Although President Obama had essentially won an Electoral College majority by 11 p.m. Eastern time, Gov. Romney went on the stage at midnight to congratulate his supporters, express his thanks to President Obama for a civilized campaign, and outline his agenda for taking office in January. Attempts by reporters to point out that Romney had actually lost the election, on the grounds that Obama had received both more actual votes and an Electoral College majority, were rebuffed by comments from senior campaign staff that they were "robustly confident they had won" and that "anyone can skew the numbers."

- ironyroad

November 1, 2012 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi. Odds are, using 538 as the best prognotics, Obama will a close one. The Senate remains Dem by a couple of votes. No good analyses of the House, but probably remains Repub. Many of ya'll seem to think BHO will transmognify beginning Weds a week. I doubt it. That's as deluded on getting Keynesian stimuli as TEA Partiers or Mittens on Austerity budget balancing. What you'll see is more of the same-- Mr. "Lets Compromise" with no big vision vs the uncompromising opposition with lots of big deluded visions who strongly feel they should have won, if only.... (fill in the dots as desired). And the CBO calculation for the 2013 US economy hasn't changed-- nor have the EU or China solved their fiscal or political problems to avert a probable downturn next year. That's a recipe to destroy an incumbent -- viewed mostly as BHO in 2013.

- drofnats1

November 1, 2012 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The kishkes of the "king of the rotten baloney" turn over and over. Why ? Because William Galston is distinguished and valuable. Read his resume and hold your kishkes in place. William Galston Contributing Editor William A. Galston is a contributing editor for The New Republic. He holds the Ezra Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a Senior Fellow. He is also College Park Professor at the University of Maryland. Prior to January 2006 he was Saul Stern Professor at the School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, and founding director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). From 1993 until 1995 Galston served as Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy. Galston is the author of eight books and more than 100 articles in the fields of political theory, public policy, and American politics. His most recent books are Liberal Pluralism (Cambridge, 2002), The Practice of Liberal Pluralism (Cambridge, 2004), and Public Matters (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005). A winner of the American Political Science Association’s Hubert H. Humphrey Award, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2004.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 1, 2012 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Galston is as vacuous and well-credentialed as Romney. Irony's little venture into the "day after" above is a terrifyingly believable fantasy.

- amidut

November 1, 2012 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Voter-assistance group claims 85% of American voters in Israel backed Romney; Democrats dismiss survey as slantedAbsentee votes from Israel could prove significant, since several thousand Americans here cast ballots in key swing states . http://www.timesofisrael.com/voter-assistance-group-claims-85-of-american-voters-in-israel-backed-romney-democrats-dismiss-survey-as-slanted/ Voter-assistance group claims 85% of American voters in Israel backed Romney; Democrats dismiss survey as slantedAbsentee votes from Israel could prove significant, since several thousand Americans here cast ballots in key swing statesBy RAPHAEL AHREN November 1, 2012, 9:13 pm 4 Le king du stinky baloney doesn't like William Galston nor Martin Perez , why? Because they tell the truth. Le king is not used to the truth. That's why he is rabid at the progress of the liberated territories. That's life.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 1, 2012 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

YNET........... Superstorm Sandy Is sandy punishment for anti-Mohammed film? click here to enlarge text Muslim clerics say Sandy is God's punishment Some radical Muslim clerics claim that Hurricane Sandy was punishment for US sins, specifically anti-Mohammed film, urging Americans to convert to Islam Associated Press Some anti-American Muslim clerics have cast the deadly Superstorm Sandy as divine punishment for a film mocking the Prophet Mohammed or for other perceived ills of American society. The remarks by some on the fringe brought a backlash from other Muslims who said it was wrong to relish the suffering of others. Related stories: Sandy pounds East Coast; over 30 killed Syrian group: Heroic Iranian regime created Sandy US preacher: Gay rights causing hurricane In Egypt, one radical cleric described the hurricane as revenge from God for the crude, anti-Islam film made in the US that sparked waves of protests in the Muslim world in September. "Some people wonder about the hurricane in America and its causes," Egyptian hardline cleric Wagdi Ghoneim tweeted twice this week in the aftermath of the storm. "In my opinion, it is revenge from God for the beloved prophet," he added, alluding to the film. Some praised the post, but others condemned it. "God, shake the earth under their feet," read one comment, prompting the response: "We have brothers and friends in America – I don't wish them any harm." Another Twitter response to Ghoneim compared Sandy to a divine wind sent to destroy a sinful nation and strike at the seat of the United Nations in New York. "We ask God to destroy the UN building for its injustice, corruption, tyranny ... with Sandy." But this was followed by a stream of outrage. "This hashtag doesn't represent Muslims but represents a terrorist. We all ask God to help and save Americans," read one post. In Saudi Arabia, prominent cleric Salman al-Audah said the storm, which killed more than 140 people, was a wake-up call for Americans to convert to Islam. Reactions to the hurricane in the kingdom prompted Grand Mufti Abdel Aziz Al Sheik to warn in an interview that rejoicing over plight of the suffering runs contrary to Islam, adding that Muslims were among the victims. "It is not legitimate and it is not proper," he told pan-Arab Al-Hayat daily on Thursday. In Iran, prominent clerics often avoid drawing parallels between natural disasters and divine intervention because their own country has faced devastating earthquakes, such as one in 2003 that killed 26,000 when it hit the ancient city of Bam. On Wednesday, the Iranian Red Crescent said aid workers were ready to fly to New York to help with recovery efforts, the semiofficial Fars news agency reported. Mahmud Mozaffar, head of Red Crescent's rescue operations, said the Iranian groups had "ample experience" in dealing with natural catastrophes. Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter Receive Ynetnews updates directly to your desktop

- JAIMECHUCH

November 1, 2012 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IS IRAN. INVOLVED IN SYRIA? NO KIDDING? http://www.haaretz.com/images/logos/logoGrey.gif Home News Diplomacy & Defense Report: Iran pulls elite army unit from Syria in wake of Tehran protests The Sunday Times cites western intelligence officials as saying that 275 members of the elite Quds Force, aiding Assad's fight against rebels, were flown out last week. By Haaretz and Reuters | Oct.07, 2012 | 10:51 AM | 18 Iran has pulled members of a special forces unit stationed in Syria, the Sunday Times reported, in response to mounting criticism of the cost of Tehran's involvement in the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad. Tehran's Grand Bazaar reopened under close police supervision on Saturday, traders said, days after it was shut by clashes between riot police and protesters blaming the government for the collapse of the Iranian currency. On Wednesday, riot police fired tear gas, fought demonstrators and arrested money changers in and around the bazaar. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed speculators for the rial's slide, which is eating into living standards and destroying jobs in the industrial sector. On Sunday, the Times reported that, amid protests, Iran has withdrawn 275 members of Unit 400, part of the Revolutionary Guard's elite Quds Force, which had reportedly assisted Assad's troops in the fight against opposition forces. The Sunday Times report cited western intelligence officials as indicating that the fighters were flown out of Syria last week, adding that the report was confirmed by a relative of a member of the Unit 400. U.S. lawmakers on Saturday indicated that they were considering expanding American economic sanctions on Iran - measures that already have helped push that country's currency into free fall but have not yet convinced Tehran to abandon its nuclear program. Iran's economy has been badly hit by U.S. and European sanctions imposed to try to pressure the Iranian leadership to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. The Iranian rial lost a third of its value against the dollar in the past 10 days and as much as 80 percent since the beginning of the year. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, a member of the Senate Banking and Foreign Relations Committee, said he plans to push for new penalties on foreign banks that handle any significant transactions with the central bank of Iran. Only oil-related transactions are now covered by sanctions. A senior House of Representatives Democrat, Howard Berman, is working on additional possible sanctions on Iran. Menendez said he is also looking at ways to freeze an estimated 30 percent of Iran's foreign currency reserves held in banks outside the country. "It seems to me we have to completely exhaust all the tools in our sanctions arsenal, and do so quickly, before Iran finds a way to navigate out of its current crisis," Menendez said in an interview. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The U.S. Congress is out of session until after the November 6 presidential election, meaning any action on fresh sanctions will have to wait until then. Menendez said he hopes the additional sanctions will become part of an annual defense policy bill that the Senate and House must finalize after the election. An aide to Berman said the congressman - the top Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs - is working on measures similar to the Menendez proposal. The Senate is controlled by Democrats and the House by Republicans. In Britain on Friday, U.S. Treasury Department official David Cohen said Iran has the ability to "relieve the pressure its people are feeling" by resolving concerns over its nuclear work. He blamed the rial's plunge on Iran's own economic mismanagement as well as sanctions. The White House had no immediate comment on possible new sanctions.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 1, 2012 at 7:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The big difference between Galston's articles, and Jaime's rantings, is that I know reading Jaime's stuff is pointless. I keep hoping Galston will get better.

- AllanL5

November 1, 2012 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bill, as a reminder.......Obama, in a second term, would be much less beholden to public opinion than in his first. If he dangles enough carrots in front of the GOP, he might be able to achieve a grand bargain after all. The real question is: would the GOP be willing to bargain, since they probably figure to have a leg up on 2016? My guess is no. Romney, on the other hand, would be totally under the thumb of the far right, making it impossible for him to bargain at all. One reason alone to vote for Obama.

- Hamburger

November 1, 2012 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Voter-assistance group claims 85% of American voters in Israel backed Romney; Democrats dismiss survey as slantedAbsentee votes from Israel could prove significant, since several thousand Americans here cast ballots in key swing states." Which swing states would those be, Jaime? New York? New Jersey? Illinois? California? There are 300,000 US passport-holders living in Israel, the overwhelming majority of whom are American-born Jews who have made aliyah as well as their Israeli-born children. Many of these people don't bother to vote in the US. This year it is estimated that 75,000 will vote, which is a marked increase from 2008, but when you consider that these 75,000 votes will be distributed over the entire USA and that, given that overseas residents such as myself are required to vote in the same district where they last lived Stateside, a majority of those American-Israeli voters will hail from states such as the ones listed above that have large Jewish populations, the likelihood that American voters in Israel could somehow swing this election to Romney is zero. Ohio's share of the USA's total Jewish population is 2% and Florida's is just short of 10%. If you assume that Jews in various US states have more or less the same likelihood of migrating to Israel and of continuing to vote in the US once there, then Americans in Israel would contribute 7500 votes to Florida and 1500 to Ohio. Even if such voters did break 85% for Romney--and it wouldn't at all surprise me if they did--it will mean fuck all to the election outcome. Don't get me wrong, Jaime, I like Israel. Just three weeks ago, I returned from a month's sojourn there. But some Israelis have an inflated idea of their and their nation's importance to US domestic politics the borders on the delusional.

- AaronW

November 1, 2012 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Choice of a candidate because of stand on climate change ....... "Michael Bloomberg endorses Obama Posted by Rachel Weiner on November 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm Text Size Print Reprints Share: More » Mike Bloomberg ✔ @MikeBloomberg This November, vote for a president who will lead on climate change: bit.ly/U1nzb8 1 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed President Obama on Thursday, citing climate change as the primary factor and Hurricane Sandy as the event that impelled him to make a choice. " However Tavis Smiley and Cornell West. Would rather fight to eliminate poverty and fight for employment.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 1, 2012 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW. Every little bit helps. This is from the Washington Post as tightness of the race and toss up states. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/01/wapo-abc-tracking-poll-presidential-contest-as-close-as-close-can-be/# "Romney and Obama are also at tight parity once again when it comes to whom voters trust to deal with the nation’s still struggling economy: 49 percent put more faith in Romney, 47 percent in Obama. One reason neither has a significant lead here is that only about one in five voters are “very confident” the economy will quickly improve, regardless of who wins the presidency. The Republican does, however, have the edge overall on the confidence question: 54 percent of likely voters are at least “somewhat confident” the country will get back on track economically in the next year or two were the Republican to prevail next week. Fewer, 47 percent, are so confident in a recovery in a second Obama term. And more express “no confidence at all” in a speedy recovery with another four years for Obama than a Romney administration (36 to 27 percent). The president continues to have a solid pushback to Republicans on the economy. By a 15-point margin (51 to 36 percent), more voters say George W. Bush bears more responsibility than does Obama for current economic problems. But there’s less of an apparent gap in the eight tossup states — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin — where 47 percent point the finger at Bush, 42 percent at Obama."

- JAIMECHUCH

November 1, 2012 at 11:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Economist reluctantly endorses Obama. But again it is my least favorite magazine. Very British , very unfriendly towards Israel. But that is another story. BTW, Bloomberg's endorsement of Obama was also a reluctant one.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 1, 2012 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Washington Post analysis of Bloomberg BHO endorsement http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/01/michael-bloomberg-president-obama-and-the-fix-endorsement-hierarchy/

- JAIMECHUCH

November 2, 2012 at 12:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is Galston in some sort of a recovery program where he has go periodically and get his arse kicked? Only that would explain the strange articles he writes - he has to know the kind of response they'll elicit! I am still keeping my fingers crossed for a surprise Spanish-only speaking Latino vote that gives him a much larger margin than polls indicate. BTW, Mr. Galston, Nate has Obama at 303 EVs right now ... not a narrow electoral college victory. Nate also predicts that if Obama wins the college decisively, the popular vote won't be anywhere near what the polls are saying right now. In his model, there is a 4.4% chance of Obama losing the popular vote if he wins the electoral college. So, please consult some experts before you spout off, will you?

- austinous

November 2, 2012 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is clear to me the Obama was elected by PR dollars managed by his aggressive handlers and campaign tzars. The public was led by the nose, and manipulated by a few PR gurus. It is time to end the rule of the hired PR guns. I hope Romney will be the guy who will try to liberate both parties, and America from unenlightened forces on the left and right. No more rule of some ineffective civil servants, senators and congress people, and overacting right or left oligarchy. Let us a have a modest reengineering of America without Obama and his failed team.

- sf4200

November 2, 2012 at 5:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sf4200, what in Romney's campaign makes you believe that he'll do all that?

- austinous

November 2, 2012 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi is surely correct for the most part, except that obama has *always* been aware of the opposition he has faced. yet if he is reelected, he might have a weak mandate, but one that can be used without having made promises to be picked over, and without the imperative to be reelected, a goal worth his while. while roi and i might differ on a few points, his 10:34 post seems reasonable enuff. that obama himself has not been explicit about his awareness of his opposition has served him very well, while alternatives might have been worse.

- cdmcl3

November 2, 2012 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is clear to me the Obama was elected by PR dollars" You seriously think "PR dollars" brought Obama 54% of the popular vote? Honestly, sf, get a grip!

- ironyroad

November 2, 2012 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close