Why none of the White House “scandals” are leading to a drop in Obama’s poll numbers
The public’s reaction to the scandals is, in other words, being mediated by their reaction to Obama. If they approve of Obama, they’re inclined to believe that neither he nor anyone in his circle ordered the IRS to attack tea party groups and that the administration did its best in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi. If they disapprove of Obama, they’re inclined to believe he or someone in his circle was controlling the IRS, and that the Benghazi talking points were part of a cover-up.— Here’s why the ‘scandals’ aren’t affecting Obama’s poll numbers
First lady Michelle Obama and family dog Bo play with Ian Wittaker as she participates in a pre-Easter celebration with military familes and children. From more photos from the event, go here.
“The boring fact of our system is that congressional math is the best predictor of a President’s success.”
The boring fact of our system is that congressional math is the best predictor of a President’s success. This idea is not nearly as sexy as the notion that great Presidents are great because they twist arms in backrooms and inspire the American people to rise up and force Congress to bend to their will. But even the Presidents who are remembered for their relentless congressional lobbying and socializing were more often than not successful for more mundane reasons—like arithmetic. Lyndon Johnson’s celebrated legislative achievements were in reality only a function of the congressional election results—not his powers of persuasion. In 1965 and 1966, after the enormous Democratic gains of the 1964 election, Johnson was a towering figure who passed sweeping legislation. In 1967 and 1968, after he lost forty-eight Democrats in the House, he was a midget.— THE POWERLESS PRESIDENCY
President Obama looks at a boy with a magnifying glass while visiting children at College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center in Decatur, GA. Check out this photo gallery of his visit to the preschool.
“The US has used 363 assassination drones to hit targets in Pakistan since 2004, with 311 of them under Obama”
According to the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization, the US administration has used 363 of its assassination drones to hit targets in Pakistan since 2004, with 311 of them occurring under the administration of President Barack Obama. The terror airstrikes have killed between 2,634 and 3,468 people in Pakistan, including 473 to 893 civilians, the organization stated, adding that at least 176 children have been killed in the attacks. The assassination drone attacks have also left between 1,268 to 1,431 people injured, the Bureau added.— Pakistan hit by 363 US assassination drone attacks since 2004: Report
What happens to Obama’s tech software now that his campaign is over?
“The software itself, much of it will be mothballed,” believes Daniel Ryan, who worked as a director of front-end engineering at OFA. To the techies who supported the campaign, this would be a travesty. The historic work the campaign was able to achieve in such a short time was made possible, Ryan and others argue, because the Obama tech team built on top of open source code — code that has been shared publicly and can be “forked,” essentially edited, by anyone. “The things we built off of open source should go back to the public,” says Manik Rathee, who worked as a user experience engineer with OFA. The team relied on open source frameworks like Rails, Flask, Jekyll and Django. “We wouldn’t have been able to accomplish what we did in one year if we hadn’t been working off open source projects,” says Rathee.— As Obama heads back to office, a battle rages over the tech that got him reelected
President Obama swims in the ocean while on vacation in Hawaii. For more photos from his vacation, go here.
Don’t you wish you had a vacation home this nice? Check out this inside look at Obama’s Kailua beach vacation homes
Why Obama will be negotiating over the debt limit despite his claim to the contrary
It’s true that the president forcefully reiterated his refusal to negotiate over the debt limit in his statement after the House vote last night. And if raising the debt limit were the only deadline looming in March, that might count for something, since it’s harder to squeeze a guy for concessions if he won’t even take your calls. But, as a practical matter, this is just a semantic game. The White House will be negotiating hard over the next two months even if it says it’s not negotiating over the debt limit, since the bill that funds the government for this year expires in March, as does the two-month delay in the automatic spending cuts that Congress just approved. What difference does it make why you say you’re negotiating if in the end you’re still negotiating?— The House Comes Around on the Cliff. Why Am I Not Reassured?
