M.Joseph Sheppard Post Report 05.23.15;NYTimes Swoons Over Rubio/Gallup Has Obama Best Favorabilty in 20 Months (Yeah Sure)

Gallup has screaming headlines;

Obama Favorable Rating Up, Best Since September 2013"

Which it tempers with 

"A president's favorable ratings (at 53% marks the president's highest score since September 2013 when it was 58%) are distinct from approval of his performance; " which is now 46%"

It is now 42% which makes Gallup's paean look a bit weak at the knees and which just illustrates the hostage to fortune that polling represents (as was seen in the disastrous for the polls UK election.)

What all this means, apart from Gallup trying to make President Obama look good during a terrible foreign policy disaster week is the public can clearly separate Mr.Obama's job performance, which they dislike, from the person, whom they like, albeit with a degree of fluctuation as events come and go.

There would be little doubt that most would view the Obama;s as lovely neighbors (if one had access,as Obama did, to a felon like Tony Rezco who could smooth ones path to buying the neighboring property) and President Obama as a personally charming and warm individual. But, as the two polls clearly show, the majority would prefer it if he wasn't running the country.

Another reason for The President's personal popularity rise is, I have little doubt, that he became effectively a lame duck from the 2014 mid-terms onward.

Since there is little that Obama can do in the legislative world, and even foreign policy has become neutered to a degree as per the Iran nuclear deal now having to get Congressional approval, so there will be less and less he can be involved in that is contentious.

Essentially the president has assumed the "mourner-in-chief" role during disasters that neutered politicians can fall back on to lift his profile now and then, which would of course lift the"feel good" polls further for him. On the other hand, should the economy go into recession again then he would see all his polls, both personal and job-wise plummet.

Prior to becoming a lame duck effectively, President Obama has gifted the Republicans with near unprecedented control over every other legislative grouping in America. This has given him basically a two year period of a faux "Pax Americana" and an easy time compared to his halcyon days, but at a terrible cost to the Democrats. 

"The GOP picked up nine Senate seats and will hold 54 seats in that chamber in the next Congress, to the Democrats’ 46. The Democrats’ Senate loss represented the biggest in the chamber that any president’s party had suffered since 1958, during Dwight Eisenhower’s second term.

In the House, the GOP will hold 247 seats, the largest majority the Republican Party has held since 1931.

Republicans picked up 11 legislative chambers this year and now control 68 of the nation’s 98 partisan chambers on the state level, the highest number in the party’s history. In all, Democrats have lost more than 900 seats in state legislatures during Mr. Obama’s time in office.But the full measure of the Republican gains—and the Democratic collapse—comes from looking down-ballot, where the GOP also made sweeping advances.

After the 2008 election, 28 of the nation’s governors were Democrats. Now, only 17 are. After the 2008 election, 31 state attorneys general were Democrats. Now, the party has 23."
****************************************************

The New York Times Swoons, Swoons, Swoons Over Rubio 

We've been here before of course. The liberal media picks a “safe” Republican candidate-see McCain, John, and treats them with respect during the GOP primaries.

Then, if they get the nomination, it is straight into character assassination of the lowest kind from even the most respected places. Once McCain secured the GOP's nomination and, after the very successful Palin driven post convention surge, The New York Times headlined the most scurrilous article about an alleged affair between McCain and lobbyist which had absolutely no foundation. So much for the above it all New York Times.

But even for the classic scenario being sketched out the praise, or rather Paean to Marco Rubio The Times had dredged, up beats all previous such hymns of praise ever seen. The hyperbole is beyond parody, and the obvious set-up for a fall is so blatant, that any journalist worth their salt would be embarrassed to tears.

Fortunately such a vision looks like it will soon disappear (if it ever existed of course) as the days of political journalists are ending, and their influence is fast disappearing into the realm of social media, who don't give a toss what they think-especially as they are so often wrong. See “Why 2016 Marks The Death of 
The Political Campaign Reporter.”

In an article by Jeremy W. Peters The NYT has this to say about Rubio:

“A Hillary Clinton Match-Up With Marco Rubio Is a Scary Thought for Democrats”

They use words like “historic” and “charismatic,” phrases like “great potential” and “million-dollar smile.” They notice audience members moved to tears by an American-dream-come-true success story.

“He’s energetic, he’s photogenic, “

“Young women swoon, old women pass out, and toilets flush themselves. “

"And Mr. Gelber himself recalled the day in Tallahassee, Fla., in 2008 when he and Mr. Rubio, then the speaker of the State House, gave their farewell speeches. He spoke first, followed by Mr. Rubio, as Mr. Gelber’s wife looked on.

“She’s sitting there weeping,”

“He should be the one you don’t want to face,”

Of course Rubio is a first term senator of little national exposure and the dirt digging machine hasn't even scratched the surface, but you can bet that if he gets the nomination articles like Mr. Peters will vanish instantly. 

The “Death of the 2016 reporter, and the hypocritical liberal media, can't come soon enough.

*************************************************