Obama '08?

@roger,

Personally, I'd have blamed that one on Bush Laughing

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

He also has some thoughts on how Obama's popularity (or lack thereof) will impact the midterms. This is interesting, because the L. A. Times over the weekend published an article on how some Democrats are beginning to distance themselves from Obama, feeling that "aligning themselves too closely with the White House could be a strategic mistake ahead of the midterm election".

Obama is still vastly more popular than the Democrats in congress (who, as a group, are more popular than their Republican counterparts). People overwhelmingly want something to be done about health care. And they still support many of the initiatives that Obama ran on in 2008. In other words, Democratic candidates should be aligning themselves more closely with the president than distancing themselves from him, which is why I'm confident that the Democrats will do the exact opposite, as has been their wont.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joe, you write an incredible post. You truly are a koolaid drinker! If on the Titanic, you probably would have gone down with it, still shouting that it would never sink.

2 Replies

@okie,

Really, Okie, that's not helpful. The man offered an opinion, which I was asking for by posting the question. I appreciate his response since there are always 2 sides to every story. Name-calling and slamming someone's viewpoint will get us nowhere.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Well, my apologies, but I only post honest opinions. For example, when Joe said: "Obama is still vastly more popular than the Democrats," I thought that was a pretty outlandish statement. After all, he is clearly not "vastly more popular." His approval ratings are not good at all. In fact, I think a good case could be made that he would have no better chance winning again now than most of the members of Congress that are pulling out of contention and quitting. In fact Obama himself has made noises about being a one term president, I think he understands the very real possibility of that happening.

Clearly, Joe is an extreme idealogue with alot of emotional attachment to Obama, and I think he vastly overstated Obama's popularity and approval ratings.

2 Replies

@okie,

He said "than the Democrats in Congress", and to my knowledge, he's right.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Well, my apologies, but I only post honest opinions. For example, when Joe said: "Obama is still vastly more popular than the Democrats," I thought that was a pretty outlandish statement.

Actually, it's completely true. Obama's approval ratings are far higher then the Dems in Congress, who are higher then the Republicans in Congress.

Quote:

After all, he is clearly not "vastly more popular."

Yes, he is.

Quote:

His approval ratings are not good at all.

They seem pretty good to me. He's far, far above the average that the last guy held - and that's with complete polarization from your party.

Quote:

In fact, I think a good case could be made that he would have no better chance winning again now than most of the members of Congress that are pulling out of contention and quitting. In fact Obama himself has made noises about being a one term president, I think he understands the very real possibility of that happening.

Clearly, Joe is an extreme idealogue with alot of emotional attachment to Obama, and I think he vastly overstated Obama's popularity and approval ratings.

The polls disagree with you, and if anyone is an 'extreme' ideologue here, Okie, it's you, my friend, what with your anti-marxism perpetual campaign of unreality.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Joe, you write an incredible post.

Much obliged.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree that okie is an idealogue (and suspect that he might also agree). However, I believe that with your insistent reliance on (never specified) polls to support your contention that the President is both popular and politically strong, you are merely whistling in the dark (i.e. distracting yourself from the increasing reality of his political failures).

At the moment there is no clear Republican challenger, but candidates for that role are gathering. The same process may have begun among Democrats. I found the references to his preference for "an executive role" in Bayh's statement, announcing his retirement from the Senate, intriguing. Was he signalling his availability as an opponent in the next presidential primary? If not, what then was his purpose?

The many failures with respect to key campaign promises for transparency; the elimination of earmarks in appropriations legislation; no new taxes on those making less than $250K; the closure of Guantanamo; the "reset" of our relations with other countries: and the growing list of legislative failures from cap & trade to health care and "fair" organizing for parasitic labor unions - all suggest an Administration that is unravelling.

I'll readily agree that, in some sense Obama remains popular as an individual - particularly among his avid supporters. However, it also seems clear that a growing segment of the population has lost a good deal of confidence in the quality of government delivered by the current Administration, and has become increasingly aware of the large and growing gap between the rhetoric of our President and the reality of his administration. History shows that these factors inevitably manifest themselves in elections - the polls that really count.

2 Replies

I remember when the Reps said that Clinton could not possibly win a second term. He not only did this easily, but continued to perform as a great president.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advovate is usually distinguished by his uncanny ability to get most things wrong. However, here, he may have a point.

Clinton and the Democrats lost control of the Congress in 1994 because the public didn't want the policies of the far left of the Democrat party. However the public was also equally disenchanted with what the Republican leadership had to offer, so in the 1996 Presidential election they (a wise public indeed) opted for a paralyzed government (Republican legislature and Democrat president) that could do less harm.

This may be a possibility in the next Presidential election. However, I suspect it may require that Obama find his balls and separate himself from the lunatic fringe in the Democrat left. No evidence of that so far, though I must acknowledge there is also no necessity for it until after November elections.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

He said "than the Democrats in Congress", and to my knowledge, he's right.

Sorry, I inadvertantly left out the words "in Congress," but that is what I was referring to.

I believe Scott Brown's victory in Mass. was as much a referendum on Obama as it was anything else, and it is quite obvious that this fall, it will also be largely a referendum on Obama and his policies in the congressional elections. The following graph illustrates how this will be the case. It is quite obvious why Democrats that want to win will distance themselves from Obama and his policies. After all, his policies are not working, and the specifics of that could start with the economy, his economic policies are not working and people know it.

http://patriotroom.com/images/upload/Job_approval_and_midterms.jpg

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree that okie is an idealogue (and suspect that he might also agree). However, I believe that with your insistent reliance on (never specified) polls to support your contention that the President is both popular and politically strong, you are merely whistling in the dark (i.e. distracting yourself from the increasing reality of his political failures).

I like Gallup -

http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx

They are consistent and have a long track record. And they peg the current approval ratings exactly as I listed them: Obama above 50%, the Dems in Congress next, and the Republicans in Congress in the toilet. Feel free to check for yourself.

Quote:

At the moment there is no clear Republican challenger, but candidates for that role are gathering. The same process may have begun among Democrats. I found the references to his preference for "an executive role" in Bayh's statement, announcing his retirement from the Senate, intriguing. Was he signalling his availability as an opponent in the next presidential primary? If not, what then was his purpose?

The idea of Bayh successfully taking Obama out in a primary is a joke, and not one that any Dem would take seriously.

Quote:

The many failures with respect to key campaign promises for transparency;

I do not believe that he has failed at all in this regard, and has in fact done more to promote transparency then any other modern president. You are simply ignorant of this fact.

Quote:

the elimination of earmarks in appropriations legislation;

Another low point for your memory, as I will remind you - again- that Obama never promised this. McCain promised this. Try and keep your accusations against the guy straight.

Quote:

no new taxes on those making less than $250K

I do not believe that he has raised taxes on those making less then 250k. Or perhaps you can show when he did that?

Quote:

the closure of Guantanamo; the "reset" of our relations with other countries: and the growing list of legislative failures from cap & trade to health care and "fair" organizing for parasitic labor unions - all suggest an Administration that is unravelling.

He definitely is behind on Gitmo. Relations with other nations seem to be going well as our national approval ratings are significantly higher then under Bush in most countries. Your partisan carping about unions is useless and nobody other then Republicans give a **** about that.

Most of the things you listed aren't even accurate, George, let alone a sign of 'unraveling.' I believe your memory is unraveling. You would be better served to do a little research before posting things like this.

Quote:

I'll readily agree that, in some sense Obama remains popular as an individual - particularly among his avid supporters. However, it also seems clear that a growing segment of the population has lost a good deal of confidence in the quality of government delivered by the current Administration,

What 'growing segment?' What evidence do you use to derive this statement? Where are the polling numbers to back this up? I await your answers with baited breath, because I'd love to think that you actually had data to back up your assertion - not just talking out your ass as usual.

Quote:

and has become increasingly aware of the large and growing gap between the rhetoric of our President and the reality of his administration. History shows that these factors inevitably manifest themselves in elections - the polls that really count.

I think the biggest problem for the Republicans in Congress is that they have no viable alternative plan to campaign on. There is no Newt and no 'contract with America.' There's a lot of displeasure right now due to the economic crisis that the Bush admin left Obama saddled with, and it's understandable that the Dems will lose seats in light of this. But there is zero evidence to support your contentions that folks are against the ideas and values that Obama and the Dems stand for, or that they somehow think that Obama is 'incompetent.'

Can you really have forgotten what it's like when the nation truly believes a president to be incompetent, that quickly?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree that okie is an idealogue (and suspect that he might also agree).

I agree inasmuch as I believe in conservative ideals, I certainly do. If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. In judging the virtue of an ideal, you need to know which ideal it is. If you are a leftist that believes in ideals that have proven to not work and to also be the cause of untold misery, suffering, and death, such as Marxism, then I am going to attack that ideal, and I will also label extreme leftists as idealogues for the wrong things.

I have nothing to be ashamed of, I believe in freedom, liberty, and the right to life, and that our rights are endowed us by God. I believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I used to think everyone in this country did. Sadly, I am finding out otherwise.

1 Reply

@okie,

I don't think you understand the word Ideologue, Okie.

Quote:

You offer impractical solutions and are blindly partisan, that's for sure. These are not compliments. Being an ideologue isn't about 'standing for something;' it's about being an idiot when it comes to standing for something.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Using your definition, I am not an idealogue. I do however stand for very certain and definite ideals, I do have an idealogy. Everyone has an idealogy, whether they admit it or not, the difference is which idealogy is it, and how well defined is it, and how hardened is it. I would interpret an idealogue as very hardened and incapable of considering any alternative or practical solution to an issue or problem. But I also believe that if we have the right ideals and apply the right ideals, they will work for the best ultimate solution to virtually every political issue and problem. The wrong ones will not, and so I think the term "idealogue" better applies to those people that have the wrong ideals.

I am a very staunch conservative, but I also realize that in the human and political world, we live in imperfect circumstances where the course of action has to be a compromise or meeting of the minds. That does not preclude me from expressing my opinions and principles that I believe we should follow for the best political outcome that is politically possible.

Another observation, some people view government as their god and solver of every human problem. I do not, and so although I express my opinion and want the best government possible, my entire life does not ride upon whichever philosophy of government is in place, which is the way I think many leftist idealogues are. Their entire life is structured to crusade for an all powerful and virtuous government to create the utopia they want.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I like Gallup -

http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx
They are consistent and have a long track record. And they peg the current approval ratings exactly as I listed them: Obama above 50%, the Dems in Congress next, and the Republicans in Congress in the toilet. Feel free to check for yourself.

I checked, but don't see the same rosy picture you implied. Obama at 51% is above 50% as you said, but lower by far than most presidents at this point. Moreover the 5% decline in approval which gallup says is typical in the second year does not bode well for the November Congressional elections.

Gallup reports about the same preferences among registered voters for Democrat & Republican "generic" Congressional candidates. In addition a significantly higher enthusiasm about voting among Republicans and a generally low approval of Congress among all voters, particularly Republicans and Independents. This directly contradicts your description above.

Indeed the Gallup Poll data you posted suggests the Democrats are in very serious jeapordy of losing control of Congress in the November election - more or less as I described it.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

No, Advocate, I am not an advocate of "trickle down."

I am an advocate of "earning up."

The natural reslt of "earning up" is the "pouring down" of increasing wealth.

The natural result of "wealth redistribution" (i.e, wealth thievery) is the "falling down" of everyone including the wealthy, except the thieves of government and the thieves in government.

Saul Alinski the first "community organizer," who inspired Obama to follow him and be a "community organizer" like him, advocated "wealth redistribution" (i.e, wealth thievery) by the government. Alinski justified this by declaring that "sometimes the ends do justify the means." That's the typical principle of most crooks, gangsters, and frauds.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES THAT I AM INSPIRED TO FOLLOW ARE:
(1) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me;

(2) Thou shall not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shall not bow down unto them , nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

(3)Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.

(4) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, nor thy wife, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid- servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six [universe] days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh [universe] day; wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh [universe] day, and hallowed it.

(5) Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

(6) Thou shalt not commit murder.

(7) Thou shalt not commit adultery [or fornication].

(8) Thou shalt not steal.

(9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

(10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house; thou shall not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.

I think the more members of the human race that adhere to these principles, the far better off we all will be.

0 Replies

Obama Calls Out Republican Hypocrites Who Opposed Stimulus Legislation

ECONOMY -- REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS WHO OPPOSED THE STIMULUS SEEK FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THEIR DISTRICTS: At the House GOP retreat last month, President Obama called out the hypocrisy of Republican opponents of his stimulus plan who had "gone to appear at ribbon-cuttings for the same projects that [they] voted against." While all but three Republicans in both chambers of Congress voted against the economic recovery bill, many more of them have sought funds from the legislation for their home districts and taken credit for projects funded by the Recovery Act. The Wall Street Journa l reported today that "more than a dozen Republican lawmakers" wrote letters supporting "stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service." The list includes some of the most outspoken stimulus critics. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) called the bill a "wasteful spending spree" but then "wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, 'intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs.'" National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) sent two letters to the Environmental Protection Agency "asking for consideration of grants for clean diesel projects in San Antonio and Houston." The Wall Street Journal's report follows a similar piece publishe d last week by the Washington Times, exposing another dozen Republicans who sent letters requesting "stimulus money for home-state pork" to the Department of Agriculture. Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, summed up the hypocrisy: "It's not illegal to talk out of both sides of your mouth, but it does seem to be a level of dishonesty troubling to the American public."

-- americanprogressaction.com

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate, I too, call out Republican Hypocrites. I call them RINOs, Republicans in Name Only. They are worse than the DINOs, Democrats in Name Only. The DINOs are at least honest about their intentions to steal and redistribute wealth to buy votes. Hopefully, we can vote most IF NOT ALL of the RINO thieves as well as most IF NOT ALL of the DINO thieves out of office in November.

The damnable stimulus plans of Hoover, Roosevelt, Carter, Bush and Obama did not rescue the unemployed. And NONE OF Obama's future stimulus plans will rescue the unemployed.

WE MUST CUT FEDERAL SPENDING AND FEDERAL TAXES TO RESCUE THE UNEMPLOYED.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know