Nate Silver is skeptical of this concept:
What’s less clear is if there is any systematic tendency for a president’s approval ratings to decline in his second term, other factors held equal — like, for example, because the public is increasingly fatigued by having the same person in office. It is also hard to make very many generalizations from only seven data points, some of which reflect different circumstances than the ones that Mr. Obama now faces. (For instance, Mr. Truman and Mr. Johnson, who had among the largest declines in their approval ratings, were serving their first elected term in their second overall term.)
My view, then, is that the idea of the second-term curse is sloppy as an analytical concept. There is certainly a historical tendency for presidents who earn a second term to become less popular — but some of this reflects reversion to the mean. And some recent presidents have overcome the supposed curse and actually become more popular on average during their second terms.
The New Republic despises the comparison of Obama to Richard Nixon:
Take the Nixon comparison. On the one hand, it’s true that in both administrations, the IRS engaged in outrageous political targeting. But it’s a hard to see a parallel. Yes, people from a hostile political camp were systematically scrutinized. But where Nixon’s political operation was intimately involved in targeted audits and other Watergate-era skullduggery, Obama’s IRS issues took place in the bowels of the bureaucracy, where workers focused special scrutiny on the portion of the political spectrum that featured most of the fundraising innovation between 2009 and 2012.
Instead, Woodrow Wilson is a more apt comparison:
It’s Woodrow Wilson. An enthusiastic supporter of Espionage Act prosecutions, the progressive, detached, technocratic Wilson was so convinced of his own virtue that he was willing to jail the Socialist candidate for President, Eugene V. Debs for his mild criticism of the war, even as he championed progressive reforms such as the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission, both of them designed with the help of his economic advisor, Louis Brandeis.
Wilson had a sorry record on civil liberties, and once Brandeis was on the Supreme Court, he eloquently criticized the Wilson administration for its betrayal of progressive values such as free speech and transparency, declaring that “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” and unforgettably extolling the necessity of protecting political dissent.
Washington Post’s “The Fix” thinks its Holder’s contempt for the Republicans:
Maybe it’s because Holder makes no secret of his feelings toward the House GOP. He called the way Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) conducted himself “unacceptable” and “shameful.” He told Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) that he did not know and “could not know” what he was talking about in regard to the Boston Marathon bombings.
Asked earlier this year about the contempt vote, he told ABC News, “For me to really be affected by what happened, I’d have to have respect for the people who voted in that way. And I didn’t, so it didn’t have that huge an impact on me.”
That quote clearly got under Republicans’ skin. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called it “shocking” in March. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) suggested Wednesday that Holder’s attitude “may have led also to people in this administration thinking they can go after conservatives and conservative groups” — a reference to the IRS scandal.
Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller believes that think tanks (like Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute) play to a constituency:
If think tanks are like the rest of us, in that they must fill a niche, this seems to make sense. Heritage seems interested in moving from an academic brand to a more activist “grassroots” image. Meanwhile, one imagines there are tons of rich conservative/libertarian donors, living in places like New York City and Palm Beach, who religiously read theWall Street Journal, and who might now be more comfortable donating to a think tank espousing Brooks’ immigration views than Heritage president Jim DeMint’s more populist views.
This is not to say these two think tanks have diverged for strategic purposes. Heritage has been advocating this anti-immigration reform position since at least 2007, and Arthur Brooks has long argued that immigration is the most entrepreneurial act in which a person could engage.
Thus, explaining why the Heritage Foundation opposes immigration reform and AEI is more open to it.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/aeis-arthur-brooks-gop-can-win-hispanic-voters/#ixzz2TT6ncnZQ