Obama '08?

RealJohnBoy-- I hope you will allow me to compliment you. You are one of the few on these threads, as far as I can determine,who know not only that the U-6 category for the Bureau of Labor statistics is a vital measure. 16.9% is HUGE.
*********************
Perhaps there are others who are aware of the existence and provenence of this statistic, but they will not speak of it because it shows just how bankrupt the Obama Administration really is.

Thank you for you reference to that very important measure.

Most people here are aware that I monitor the Rasmussen poll closely, almost everyday, because I believe it to a good measure of the mood in the country in regard to politics, the economy and all kinds of things, in particular about how Obama is governing. I have noticed since the health care bill being rammed through, Obama's numbers seem to have leveled out or improved slightly and if I agree with cyclops on anything at all, I would agree with him that perhaps the numbers reflect a resurgence of confidence in Obama among his supporters or liberals when he persists in ramming his socialist agenda, because that is what his supporters voted for him to do and wanted him to do, while the opposition remains adamantly opposed in about the same numbers, because whether he is successful with his socialist agenda or not, conservatives simply do not trust him and will never support his agenda whether he is successful in enacting it or not. So, when Obama's strongly approve / strongly oppose index was the lowest, it reflected a sagging in his supporter base as much or more than it did the strength of his opposition.

With that said, today's numbers are Minus 9 in the strongly approve / strongly disapprove index, and as I alluded to in the above, the red line or strongly disapprove number is about as high as ever, no softening, but the green line or strongly approve number has rebounded slightly since the health care has been rammed through. I think the lowest index was around Minus 22 if I remember right. Of course, Minus 9 is still pretty bad, because he started out in positive range and stayed there before the lines finally crossed in June or July of 2009.

You monitor Rasmussen, because they consistently show Obama with a lower approval rate then any other poll, and because they consistently favor Republican positions in their opinion polls. You ought to be honest about the fact that you like this source because it tells you exactly what you want to hear.

Yaknow, just a few years ago, all the Conservatives - including yourself - were talking about how dumb it was to 'govern by poll.' I'm sure you recall that Bush's numbers were in the toilet for YEARS. Back then you bunch swore up and down that only weaklings cared about what the polls said, and real leaders had to go forth with what they considered good ideas, no matter what the numbers reflected.

Do you still believe this? Why do you suddenly give a **** about approval polls? You never posted an approval poll for Bush once. When did this conversion take place, that you suddenly started caring about polling?

Cycloptichorn

Not really. Gallup had him lower than Rasmussen this past week.

You sure about that? I just looked at the data, and I believe you are incorrect.

Even if there were 1 outlying day - which I don't believe there was - Rasmussen consistently polls Obama's approval rating lower then any other poll, and they consistently favor Republican issues in their opinion polls. This is because Scott Rasmussen is a Republican dude and this is the entire purpose of his organization.

Cycloptichorn

CBS, too

While that CBS poll has a lower top approval rate - 44% - then Ras did that day, they also have a FAR lower disapproval rate - 41% vs. Rasmussen's 53% disapproval. So, I think it's fair to say that the Ras poll does in fact show Obama's numbers worse then the CBS poll. And an objective look at the situation would quickly show that my initial position is correct: no pollster leans as far right as Rasmussen, and that's why right-wingers like to quote them.

Cycloptichorn

No, it doesn't always tell me what I want to hear at all, I would like to see his numbers plunge alot more than Rasmussen, in fact I think they should if the real facts were being properly reported by all of the media. I like Rasmussen because I think it shows an interesting and fairly accurate picture with the strongly approve / strongly disapprove index, and I think Rasmussen runs a pretty consistent and decently accurate operation as relates to past elections. His numbers may vary somewhat from other polls, but that can be factored in, what I am looking for is a consistent measure over a longer period of time that will show the overall trends.

It is dumb to govern by poll, I have not changed my mind on that, what would make you think that I have? Do polls matter however, yes they do, but that doesn't mean polling should determine policy 100% at all. The Clintonistas were experts at governing by poll, in fact I remember Clinton choosing a vacation spot based upon polling. Fortunately, Bush did not govern by poll. Statesmen and political figures with convictions govern with conviction of conscience of what is right or wrong, as they interpret their constitutional and moral duty, not by poll, but polls do reflect public opinion and sometimes public opinion does in fact track what may be wrong with various policies in regard to the economy, foreign policy, and all kinds of things. After all, people are not stupid, but people can have wrong information and not have all the facts in regard to some policies, and that is where politicians must make decisions based upon what is right or wrong, and then be willing to take the consequences of their decisions in the next elections.


Stupid questions, cyclops. I care about opinion polls because they directly relate to something I believe to be extremely important, even crucial to the future of our country, I care whether the public is getting it, whether they see Obama and the current Congress are the total failures that they are, because this ties into whether I can have the hope that I can for future elections to turn the country back into a much more positive direction than we are currently headed. Polls are as much about the character of the public as they are about the leaders that they are measuring, and I care about that.

I would like to comment in regard to my post about governing by polling. It is extremely important to realize that we are a constitutional Republic, governed through representatives, not a pure democracy. This is crucial to understand in regard to many respects, and I think the educational system has done a very poor job in educating young people as to the importance of it, and the differences between pure democracy and a republic.

First of all, we have a constitution that I think every elected representative swears to uphold, and therefore that representative should be more loyal to the constitution than he or she is to the whims and will of the public as could be determined by poll or by democratic means. Not upholding the constitution is essentially undermining the country and its principles and laws, and all too often this has happened with little or no consequences, and I believe it is happening now with Obama.

Secondly, the founders understood that the principle thing we need in duly elected representatives is character and a devotion to doing what is right or wrong, not what is demanded by the masses, otherwise you end up with mass rule, something they recognized would lead to very negative results.

Also, they understood that not every citizen could have the time or be inclined to become informed enough to vote intelligently on every single issue, thus it is better to elect those that can take the time to study the issues in great detail, but it needed to be people that we trusted, are honest, and have the same values as we have. Therefore, it is crucial that we vote for people of character that will be true to a conscience of right and wrong, and that will in fact both understand the constitution and try to uphold it.

Unfortunately, the catastrophe of our time is that there are fewer and fewer elected leaders that understand the constitution, that will actually try to uphold it, and that will make good decisions without regard to their own re-election. We now have people that will give anything away, act corruptly, and that will use their power to pander to their voters in ways that undermine the country and its constitution simply in the interests of their own ego and their power. In my opinion, this describes the Democratic Party to a tee.

Unfortunately, the fact is that as a culture or society degenerates, it can become so selfish as to demand the government do for it what the constitution never mandated or set forth, and so a government can become more like a democracy wherein the citizens demand a government that is democraticly evolved into a very socialistic form, eventually leading to a form of dictatorship, if enough people demand it. That is how many dictatorships form, through democratic means. Later, the people suffer and realize the error of their ways, and again have to fight their way out of bondage. So, my conclusion is that the fate of America is in the hands of the populace, as goes the character of its citizens, so will go the country. Do we value freedom, or do we want to be taken care of without exercising our own responsibilities ourselves? And that is what the polling will help tell us as we move toward the future. Polls are as much a measure of the culture or people as they are the leaders and issues they measure.

Yaknow, the part about your post that is truly hilarious is the fact that Obama was a Professor who taught Constitutional law for years. It is without a doubt that the man understands the Constitution, the principles within it and the history of America's interaction with our governing document far better then you do.

I have asked you before to show what Constitutional principles are being violated by the Dems or Obama and you have been unable to do so. Can you now?



How many dictatorships formed that way, exactly? Can you name them?

Cycloptichorn

Teaching constitutional law in no way indicates he has an understanding of it. If he does, and actually believes in it, he would actually walk the walk. The proof is in the exercising of it, not claiming to be an expert. There are experts on everything, but far from all know what they are talking about.

The problem Obama has is that anyone can read the constitution and understand it if they have common sense. Lawyers have no claim to have the exclusive expetise on it, especially to have a license to misinterpret and misuse it to feather their own nest. The constitution was written for the people.

However it doesn't point to him having better knowledge than you okie. In particular when you won't tell us which parts you think he is violating.

What ignorance! Why waste my time naming them, you would argue anyway. How about just one, Hitler?

Ignorance - claiming Hitler was elected to power in Germany.

Yes, it does. It means that others who have an understanding of Constitutional law reviewed both his work and his teaching and found it to be acceptably consistent with modern understanding of the document. I assure you he wouldn't have been given the position, and would not have been successful at it, without an understanding of it.



He is walking the walk. You can't point out any way which he isn't. And since he has studied and understands the document better then you, by a long shot, it's fair to say that it is you who is out of sync with reality on this issue.



What you call 'common sense' is merely a term for 'my opinion.' Lawyers and judges and Supreme Courts have been arguing interpretations of the document for over 200 years. For you to claim that this is all unnecessary, and pointless - because the meaning is clear in the Constitution - betrays a profound ignorance on your part.

Cycloptichorn

Name some more. You said 'many' of them have. I assert that you are ignorant and talking out your ass. So, go ahead.

I would even take exception to your description of Hitler's rise to power; it does not meet the criteria you just laid out in your post. And have you forgotten that it's really foolish for you to attempt to discuss Fascist and Nazi stuff, having been soundly rebuked on that issue by both Conservatives and Liberals on this board alike?

Cycloptichorn

Disgruntled Democrats Join the Tea Party

Grand Junction, Colorado (CNN) -- They are not typical Tea Party activists: A woman who voted for President Obama and believes he's a "phenomenal speaker." Another who said she was a "knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal."

These two women are not alone.

Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past -- some even voted for Democratic candidates -- are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party -- a movement that champions less government, lower taxes and the defeat of Democrats even though it's not formally aligned with the Republican Party.

To be sure, the number of Democrats in the Tea Party movement is small. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that while 96 percent of Tea Party activists identify themselves as either Republican or Independent, only 4 percent say they are Democrats.

Some of these disgruntled voters are taking part in the current Tea Party Express tour. The tour began in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nevada, on March 28 and is making 44 stops across the nation. It ends in Washington on tax day -- April 15.

Ann Ducket attended the Tea Party rally in Grand Junction, Colorado, on Wednesday.

A lawyer and lifelong Democrat, Ducket made her political leanings clear: She said she was a campus community organizer for Democratic Sen. George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, voted for Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, and previously ran for elective office in Colorado as a Democrat.

"I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I probably did inhale in college," Ducket said.

Ducket, who is now an independent and did not vote for Obama, said the president has "carried things to an extreme."

"I think we've gone too far on the side of government doing too much," Ducket said. "The Democratic Party is wanting to take care of everyone, instead of helping everybody stand on their own two feet."

Roxanne Lewis expressed a similar point of view. A small business owner in Grand Junction, Lewis described herself as a lifelong Democrat and called the president a "phenomenal speaker." She voted for him because she "believed in what he was saying: change."

But, Lewis added, "I should've listened a lot closer when he talked about 'spreading the wealth.' "

Asked how she feels about having voted for the president, Lewis said "I feel lied to, cheated and raped."

Lewis criticized the taxpayer-funded bailouts of financial institutions, which began under former President George W. Bush, and the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.

"These are not the Democrats that I have been brought up with," Lewis said. However, she said she will continue to be a Democrat.

"We hear from folks, probably at every rally, who say, 'I was a Democrat,' " Levi Russell, communications director for the Tea Party express tour, said.

"Having more Democrats join the movement shows that it is more representative of the American people than the antics of the Obama, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, Reid leadership," Russell said.

The Democratic National Committee declined to comment.

David Saucedo is a rapper and community activist who frequently appears at Tea Party rallies. Using the stage name "Polatik," he performs rap songs that slam President Obama and the Democrats.

Though he eventually voted for GOP Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, he said he was initially impressed with the president.

Now Saucedo has turned into an Obama critic. "A lot of the things he says sound good, until you look at the consequences of what they will do on the long term."

Saucedo also said that most of his family voted for the president but now support the Tea Party. He said his sister in law's views sum up the family sentiment.

"She regrets voting for Barack Obama," he said.

Flash! At half time during the Mich St-Butler basketball game (about 10 minutes from now) President Obama shoots hoops with a CBS guy. Playing a variation of HORSE.

Cyclops wrote:

Yes, it does. It means that others who have an understanding of Constitutional law reviewed both his work and his teaching and found it to be acceptably consistent with modern understanding of the document. I assure you he wouldn't have been given the position, and would not have been successful at it, without an understanding of it.

*********************************************************************
Wrong again-Cyclops. You do not, in your exile in the liberal warrens of Berkeley, even remotely understand Chicago. Obama got

Okie-Cyclops is ensconced at Berkeley. He knows NOTHING about the politics involved in Chicago.

Cyclops wrote:

Yes, it does. It means that others who have an understanding of Constitutional law reviewed both his work and his teaching and found it to be acceptably consistent with modern understanding of the document. I assure you he wouldn't have been given the position, and would not have been successful at it, without an understanding of it.

**************************************************************************
As usual, Cyclops gives no evidence except his own ignorant opinions.

Here's what Cyclops does not know about Chicago!

quote



Is the President's resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama's "teaching career" at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham.

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.


The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.


2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.


5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.


6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

**********************************************************************

Notice that the Board of Trustees pressured the Law School to put Obama on.

Cyclops, the poor ignoramus, does not know that in Chicago, especially with regard to Boards of Trustees, even those in Law Schools, politics reigns.