Battlegrounds of resentment
Whether it is called General Lee Highway, as in Virginia, or Molly Pitcher Highway, as in Pennsylvania, the lives and economic strain along U.S. Route 11 tell of disappointment with Washington -- specifically, with President Obama.
The north-south highway, created in 1926, extends more than 1,600 miles from New York to Louisiana. It is one of those blue lines in a road atlas, obscured by dominant interstates' bold red lines.
Woodrow Wilson's home is along this road in Virginia, James Buchanan's in Pennsylvania.
In between is a critical battleground in next year's election, along with a whole lot of resentment that began early in 2009.
"I used to be a Democrat," said a quiet older gentleman who declined to give his name, sitting with his wife outside Wilson's home. "I come from a long line of Democrats. I have to say I couldn't be more disappointed in this president's job so far."
Not so long ago, populist-Democrat rhetoric was popular here and farther up the road, in West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania.
Americans along such roads across the country are struggling economically, consumed with uncertainty -- and have tuned out Obama.
He had a rocky start with voters outside major cities almost immediately, according to Chris Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University of Ohio.
"Think back again to 2009 -- where did he begin to get in trouble?" he asked. "By engaging in hyper-government activism to reform health care, save the environment, make government transparent, while rarely to never talking about jobs."
This led many to view him as out of touch, disconnected, aloof.
Now, Democrats' strongholds in states such as Pennsylvania and Virginia are quietly walking away from him.
Here, dissatisfaction pulls people away from Obama, yet not exactly to the far right; many have settled comfortably at center-right.
Washington's blame rhetoric could push Middle America further right, however.
Late last week, Obama's approval hit a new low in Gallup's tracking poll, 38 percent. He blamed "certain" members of Congress.
"I have to say, I am tired of the constant blame on everyone but himself," said John Dattilio, strolling here with his wife and children, balancing melting ice cream cones.
Obama took to pointing fingers when his numbers started to slip last fall.
So far, he has blamed the stagnant economy on ATMs, ditches, Slurpees, corporate-jet owners, the tea party, Republicans, Japan's earthquake, the Arab Spring, the Arab Summer, George Bush and "fat cat" Wall Street something-or-others. The kitchen sink may be next.
His numbers are tumbling in critical battlegrounds Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and New Hampshire -- states he must win in 2012.
RealClearPolitics crunched the numbers based on Electoral College votes: total from states giving Obama 51 percent or higher approval, 166; from states at 49 percent or lower, 320.
A presidential candidate needs 270 to win.
What White House strategists don't get: As Americans struggle with uncertainty, they believe Obama is not providing real solutions -- and that he is part of the partisan bickering, or using his "bully pulpit" to instigate it.
What both sides' strategists don't get about the 2012 election: It is not the same as the 2010 midterms.
That cycle was a collective outcry to lessen one party's power and halt Obama's policies. The next is personal, about home, pocketbook and family, and ensuring a less uncertain future.
When the Eastern Seaboard shook last week, spokesman Josh Earnest said of Obama, who was golfing at the time: "(He) didn't feel the earthquake today."
Sort of a telling metaphor for this presidency.
One reason why Obama vacations on tony, upper-class Martha's Vineyard and not in back-roads America is that there, he can maintain the "everything's all right" bubble and the crowds adore him.
Out on U.S. Route 11, not so much.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.