Obama’s Beating
On Nov. 2, the Day of the Dead was celebrated in Mexico, as it is every year. In the United States, Halloween, or the “festival of witches,” is a tradition of Celtic origin that celebrates the end of the fall harvest and that the Irish brought to the new world in the 19th century. The dark days of winter begin and children go from house to house saying “trick or treat,” recalling Jack O’Lantern, a character who traveled with a lantern in the form of a pumpkin lit from inside, wandering between Heaven and Hell, rejected by both God and the Devil — thus this holiday’s association with pumpkins.
President Obama appeared much the same after the resounding electoral defeat of the Democrats in both Congressional houses and various governorships, precisely on the Day of the Dead, roaming without penalty between the electorate that brought him to power two years ago and the Republican opposition.
Until a week ago, Barack Obama counted on the support of more than 250 members of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, who faced a “comfortable” opposition of fewer than 180 Republicans. After the day of the jack-o-lanterns, the political composition of this legislative body changed 180 degrees. With fewer than 200 allies in the House, the president’s party will have to confront or convince nearly 240 Republicans.
In the Senate, Obama’s party barely retained 53 out of 100 seats, but, in contrast, of the 37 state governorships in dispute, they only achieved victory in 13, versus 23 for the Republican Party, along with a state won by an independent (Rhode Island). If in our country citizen candidates were allowed to run, would there be independent governors, as is the case with Lincoln Chafee?
Obama’s main success in the two years of his mandate was, doubtlessly, the approval of the health care reform law with 219 votes in favor and 212 against. But where are the other important changes promised in his campaign, like immigration reform? Now, with Republicans in opposition, this subject is practically buried. The president should be reminded, a short two years from his reelection or departure from the White House, that in 2008 Latinos represented 22 percent of registered voters and that two out of three are in favor of the Democratic Party.
In contrast, the rise of the tea party, an ultra-conservative movement that gained a Senate seat for Rand Paul in the state of Kentucky, along with hate laws like that of Arizona, are noted with concern and do not have the approval of Latinos inside or outside of the United States.
But despite the controversial political issues, many analysts say that the main criticisms of Obama are rooted in the economy. The percentage of people who live in poverty in the country to our north grew from 13.2 to 15 percent, which means that nearly 45 million poor people live in a country with more than 300,000 rich. The unemployment rate in the U.S. grew from 5 percent in January 2008 to 7.3 percent in January 2009, when Obama took control, and since then has reached 9.6 percent in October of this year. This means that during the administration of a president of the “American dream,” unemployment not only didn’t reverse but got worse. Among the principal ethnic groups, unemployment of African-Americans corresponded with the highest rate, with 15.7 percent, followed by Hispanics with 12.6 percent and whites with 8.8 percent. The man that won saying “Yes, we can” two years ago now has more poverty and more unemployment!
Brazil offered such a distinct picture just a few days before the defeat of Obama’s party, when Dilma Roussef, Lula’s candidate, won in a run-off election with more than 56 percent of the vote, more than 12 points ahead of her opponent José Serra. Unlike the U.S., Brazil is expecting economic growth of about 4.1 percent next year, according to the predictions of the IMF, showing that Brazilian leaders are concerned about the pockets and social situation of their citizens/voters. So it seems that Obama has forgotten what Bill Clinton said on his campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
The question that now arises from Obama’s beating is his continuation for two years in the presidency, above all when the archconservative Republican rebound enters its apogee, opposed by a beaten liberal project.
President Obama appeared much the same after the resounding electoral defeat of the Democrats in both Congressional houses and various governorships, precisely on the Day of the Dead, roaming without penalty between the electorate that brought him to power two years ago and the Republican opposition.
Until a week ago, Barack Obama counted on the support of more than 250 members of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, who faced a “comfortable” opposition of fewer than 180 Republicans. After the day of the jack-o-lanterns, the political composition of this legislative body changed 180 degrees. With fewer than 200 allies in the House, the president’s party will have to confront or convince nearly 240 Republicans.
In the Senate, Obama’s party barely retained 53 out of 100 seats, but, in contrast, of the 37 state governorships in dispute, they only achieved victory in 13, versus 23 for the Republican Party, along with a state won by an independent (Rhode Island). If in our country citizen candidates were allowed to run, would there be independent governors, as is the case with Lincoln Chafee?
Obama’s main success in the two years of his mandate was, doubtlessly, the approval of the health care reform law with 219 votes in favor and 212 against. But where are the other important changes promised in his campaign, like immigration reform? Now, with Republicans in opposition, this subject is practically buried. The president should be reminded, a short two years from his reelection or departure from the White House, that in 2008 Latinos represented 22 percent of registered voters and that two out of three are in favor of the Democratic Party.
In contrast, the rise of the tea party, an ultra-conservative movement that gained a Senate seat for Rand Paul in the state of Kentucky, along with hate laws like that of Arizona, are noted with concern and do not have the approval of Latinos inside or outside of the United States.
But despite the controversial political issues, many analysts say that the main criticisms of Obama are rooted in the economy. The percentage of people who live in poverty in the country to our north grew from 13.2 to 15 percent, which means that nearly 45 million poor people live in a country with more than 300,000 rich. The unemployment rate in the U.S. grew from 5 percent in January 2008 to 7.3 percent in January 2009, when Obama took control, and since then has reached 9.6 percent in October of this year. This means that during the administration of a president of the “American dream,” unemployment not only didn’t reverse but got worse. Among the principal ethnic groups, unemployment of African-Americans corresponded with the highest rate, with 15.7 percent, followed by Hispanics with 12.6 percent and whites with 8.8 percent. The man that won saying “Yes, we can” two years ago now has more poverty and more unemployment!
Brazil offered such a distinct picture just a few days before the defeat of Obama’s party, when Dilma Roussef, Lula’s candidate, won in a run-off election with more than 56 percent of the vote, more than 12 points ahead of her opponent José Serra. Unlike the U.S., Brazil is expecting economic growth of about 4.1 percent next year, according to the predictions of the IMF, showing that Brazilian leaders are concerned about the pockets and social situation of their citizens/voters. So it seems that Obama has forgotten what Bill Clinton said on his campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
The question that now arises from Obama’s beating is his continuation for two years in the presidency, above all when the archconservative Republican rebound enters its apogee, opposed by a beaten liberal project.