Will the Libya Crisis Help Obama or Romney?

[J. J.]

Libya alone might be a small plus for Obama.  The rest of the Mideast creates a bigger minus for Obama

[J. J.]

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.

But AL-Qaeda lives.

Politico and Jfern actually have it right.  Libya itself is different from the rest of Islamic world.  Libya, singularly is a slight plus for Obama.  The rest of it is a twofold problem.

1.  It makes Obama look like he lost control of foreign policy.  That criticism is unfair, but that doesn't change the perception.

2.  It harkens back to how Obama hasn't changed the world and further frustrates expectations. 

[J. J.]

Thing is there is precious little evidence that business acumen is correlated with making good government policy decisions.

Andrew Johnson was a very successful tailor before entering politics, but he hardy was a good president.

Hoover was without a doubt the president who had the most extensive business experience and yet proved a disaster.

Truman was an utter failure at business, but a reasonably competent president.

George W. Bush did reasonably well in the oil business, and was an average president.

George H.W. Bush did okay in oil and baseball businesses, but was hardly a stellar businessman.  Overall, he ended up a lower than average president.  Both Bushes got significant support in their business careers from the political careers of their fathers. (Significantly more than Mitt got from his father.)

Now maybe Mitt would prove to be the exception to the general rule, but so far good businessmen have generally been worse than average as president.

Ernest, I think that by the same token, you can look at past administrative experience.

FDR, a successful government administrator as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and a governor.

Truman, successfully ran a county, and a government commission investigating war spending.

Eisenhower, successfully managed Allied forces in Europe in WWII and NATO; president of Columbia University.

Reagan, while SAG might not have been a major administrative post, Governor of CA was.

GHW Bush, ran a federal agency, and his own oil business.

Clinton, long term governor of a state.

GW Bush, managed a midsized business and was a governor.

Romney, successfully managed a business and was a governor.

Obama, well... .

One that failed was Jimmy Carter.  One that was a success was JFK. 

[J. J.]

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.

But AL-Qaeda lives.

Politico and Jfern actually have it right.  Libya itself is different from the rest of Islamic world.  Libya, singularly is a slight plus for Obama.  The rest of it is a twofold problem.

1.  It makes Obama look like he lost control of foreign policy.  That criticism is unfair, but that doesn't change the perception.

2.  It harkens back to how Obama hasn't changed the world and further frustrates expectations. 

Actually, I'd argue that Tunisia is a success as well, and I think Obama quickly backed the protesters there. The jury is still out on Egypt (a probable negative), and Syria (a mess in which no side is right).

Possibly, but the coverage is scant.  I'm relatively friendly to Obama on foreign/military policy.  He has made some mistakes over the last week, and the perceptions are worse than the reality.

[J. J.]

J.J., all Presidents have had some previous administrative experience prior to being in office.  Granted, Obama's is among the lightest of any of them (president of the Harvard Law Review for a year), but you can find examples of both incompetence and competence among both presidents with minimal and maximal levels of prior administrative experience.  However, Romney's particular claim is that it is his business experience in particular, not his administrative experience in general makes him better suited to be our president, and based on the record so far, that hasn't been the case historically.  Admittedly, it's a very small subsample.  Certainly too small to make the case that business experience is a detriment to being a good president, but we'd need multiple businesspeople be good presidents without any bad presidents before the same even begins to look like it would be a wash.

Ernest, look however who didn't put on this list, JFK, Johnson, Nixon and Ford.  Of those three, I would only cite JFK as being a good president.

Also with Romney, we have his heading up the Winter Olympics.

I probably would not vote for a president with administrative experience solely in the private sector, but I like public/private combination.

[J. J.]

I'm not really impressed with the media commentary in general or Reuters in particular.

There are ongoing attacks on American embassies, there are questions about if the Administration is covering up an al Qaeda link, and there are question about preparedness.

[J. J.]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-libyabre88h1by-20120918_1_ipsos-poll-alistair-bell-mitt-romney

Okay, we can close the thread now, the question has been answered.

Yes, a week after the remarks, Romney's numbers went up.

[J. J.]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-18/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-libyabre88h1by-20120918_1_ipsos-poll-alistair-bell-mitt-romney

Okay, we can close the thread now, the question has been answered.

Yes, a week after the remarks, Romney's numbers went up.

A common mistake you make: Confusing corelation with causation. (See Bradley Effect 2008)

It obviously didn't hurt Romney, however.

It is now "self-evident" the attack in Libya was a terrorist attack, unlike the initial claims that it was a mob.