Obama '08?

@parados,

Your cognitive dissonance does make me sick, Parados. But of course I will just have to remember it may not be your mental ability, it is more likely just an extreme case of bias on your part, as you are the ultimate koolaid drinker, the Democrat / Obama apologist supreme Number one.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

The wiki link is to the British law referenced in the article.

I should have spaced them better, and clarified what that link was for.
I apologize for that.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Go Figure:
Rasmussen's poll of President Obama's approval drops to -9. That is the best it has been since the first of May. 28% Strongly Approve while 37% Strongly Disapprove. It had been as high as -20 or so.
The 37% Strongly Disapprove is the lowest in 8 months.
Overall, 49% at least Somewhat Approve vs 50% who at least Somewhat Disapprove.
I believe that this is the first poll taken entirely after the McChrystal firing/resignation. Rasmussen uses a 3 day polling cycle.

Looks like Obama's poll numbers are now heading in the downward direction again, rjb. The Rasmussen Minus 9 you cited is back to Minus 20, and I think could potentially go significantly lower.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 ."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/july_2010/obama_approval_index_july_02_2010/328080-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_july_02_2010.jpg

1 Reply

@okie,

That could indeed happen, Okie. It is curious that, according to the Rasmussen poll, Obama got that temporary bounce. The only significant news event I could attribute that to was the McChrystal sacking.
I am not advocating moving the goal post, but I would note that the graph that today shows Obama at -20 is derived by taking those who STRONGLY APPROVE and subtracting those who STRONGLY DISAPPROVE.
If you click on the link in Okie's post and then click on "trends" at the end of the 1st paragraph, you can see Rasmussen's report on those who APPROVE and those who DISAPPROVE, striking the word STRONGLY.
Here is a quick sampling of APPROVE % followed by DISAPPROVE %:
7/1/10: 45% - 55%
5/1/10: 46% - 53%
3/1/10: 47% - 52%
1/1/10: 47% - 52%
11/1/9: 46% - 52%
9/1/9: 45% - 53%
7/1/9: 54% - 45%
5/1/9: 54% - 45%

There are a myriad of things to be unhappy about: the economy, health care, immigration, the wars, BP. I would suggest that the Approval Index could be driven by responders being influenced STRONGLY by an issue affecting them.
Again, I am not suggesting that the Index is irrelevant now that it is not going in Obama's direction. Even Scott Rasmussen in his narrative alludes to this "issue."

0 Replies

Meanwhile, we have this from Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee:
"...(T)he one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan."
"This was a war of Obama's choosing."
"This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."
The dismissal of McChrystal was "very comical."

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

The dismissal of McChrystal was "very comical."

Is that clown Steele still around?? ....just about everyone of all political stripes agreed that McCrystal had to go, and Obama got a nice bounce out of it. That the GOP ever thought that Steele was a good idea is a albatross around their neck...that they dont get rid of him is another.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The dismissal of McChrystal was "very comical."
Is that clown Steele still around??

What an idiotic statement. I am not alone in recognizing a good man in Michael Steele. My sentiments go back to the DNC and RNC conventions when Obama supposedly gave his great speech to launch his career; I remember wondering why, because Michael Steele gave the far superior speech at the RNC, he spoke with authority and common sense, with American values, in great contrast to a lethargic speech by Obama, as they all are.

Quote:

....just about everyone of all political stripes agreed that McCrystal had to go, and Obama got a nice bounce out of it.

What? I haven't found one single person that thought McCrystal should go, I think that is one of the dumbest statements you have ever made here, hawkeye.

Quote:

That the GOP ever thought that Steele was a good idea is a albatross around their neck...that they dont get rid of him is another.

That is your opinion, not commonly held by everyone at all. The man makes far more sense than the loser Obama, so who is the real albatross I would ask? Whether someone else could do a better job with the Republican Party, maybe, but we shall see how it plays out.

Last comment, Steele is absolutely right about Obama and Afghanistan. Obama continually pounded away at the theory that we were ignoring Afghanistan at the expense of Iraq, and he constantly advocated sending more troops and resources into Afghanistan, and that Iraq was a waste of time, a diversion from the really important mission in Afghanistan. I think by doing so, Obama has fully bought the war in Afghanistan, and it is now his totally to either succeed or fail.

2 Replies

@okie,

You live in your own little personal bubble don't you okie....

Quote:

Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, drew fierce criticism on Friday after declaring at a party fund-raiser that the United States was on the wrong side of history with its conflict in Afghanistan, a military fight he called “a war of Obama’s choosing.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/dust-up-over-steeles-view-of-afghan-war/?hp

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I do not agree with Steele entirely on this issue, however I think the man is making a legitimate point that Obama has laid full claim to this war. As I have already pointed out, Obama made this central to his campaign by saying Bush had ignored the real problem, which was in Afghanistan, and had wasted all of our efforts on a useless trumped up war in Iraq. You cannot dispute that I am totally correct, as is Steele to a certain extent.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

You cannot dispute that I am totally correct, as is Steele to a certain extent.

you are a hoot okie.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
You cannot dispute that I am totally correct, as is Steele to a certain extent.
you are a hoot okie.

I'm glad you enjoy it. In case you have failed to get the point, dys, Steele is a little off base by calling the war in Afghanistan a total invention of Obama's. Obviously, we went there under Bush, and our mission has been to eradicate or at least defeat the influence of the Taliban which supports guys like OBL. However, I do agree with Steele to this extent, and I think everyone would have to admit the same, that Obama constantly made this central to his campaign when running for president, that Bush had ignored or given not enough emphasis to Afghanistan, and that he, Obama, was going to do it right and finish the job there by sending more troops and doing whatever is necessary. In so doing, Obama has totally laid claim to the war there, and he has therefore become responsible for its progress and outcome one way or the other. He has not given himself any room for much change in strategy or overall view of the justification for continuing the war as we are. That is the way I see it, and I think a majority of Americans would see it in a similar light.

1 Reply

@okie,

yes okie I understand, you and steele are totally correct, to a certain extent. I agree completely.

0 Replies

@okie,

Are you suggesting he may not be a citizen at all?

That's a new one.

There are plenty of natural born American citizens who are part of the Blame America First Club.

Obama need not have been born in a foreign land or even not be a citizen to explain his disconnect with pre-Obama America.

Plenty of true-blue, natural born Americans voted for the guy, and plenty still support him.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a natural born American would not advance Obama's policies.

I hope you don't buy into the truly crazy notion that he's part of an Islamist sleeper cell.

The so-called "birther" argument is an unnecessary distraction.

No matter what the truth, the issue would never be resolved in the two years left in his term. Never.

It doesn't matter if he's not natural born.

Being natural born assures nothing.

Opponents of Obama are only helping him by making these meaningless "birther" arguments.

He's not the Anti-Christ, he's not a Muslim plant, and it doesn't matter whether or not he was born in the USA.

He's a horrible president.

We need to cut his legs out from under him in Nov and make damned sure he's not re-elected in 2012.

We don't need paranoid fantasies, the truth will do just fine.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

We need to cut his legs out from under him

I want to assure everyone that finn does not mean literally

Quote:

cut his legs out from under him

I only point this out because with okie there appears to be difficulty discerning literal from figurative. ( I say this while okie is in the kitchen looking for the sharpest knife)

0 Replies

Quote:

Erick Erickson, who runs the influential conservative blog Red State said: "Michael Steele must resign. He has lost all moral authority to lead the GOP."

Former South Carolina GOP chair Katon Dawson, who finished second to Steele in the race for the chairman's post early last year, said Steele should now be ousted, CNN reported. Dawson is a frequent critic of Steele but has not until now called for him to resign.

"The RNC should do the responsible thing and show Steele the door," Dawson told CNN. "Enough is enough."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070204096.html?hpid=topnews

I would become the new dictionary definition of "better late than never"

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

So even though Steele speaks the truth about our prospects in Afghanistan, it's hardly tenable for the chairman to disagree so diametrically with the party he leads on such a big issue. He's got to go.

I write this more in sorrow than in anger. Steele has been a godsend to columnists worldwide -- he's the gift that keeps on giving -- and it's not at all in my self-interest to advocate that he depart the limelight. But I have to call it the way I see it, alas. Chairman Mike, did I hear you express a sudden desire to spend more time with your family?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/07/take_a_hike_chairman_mike.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

So long Mike, it was fun while it lasted.....for you.

0 Replies

My 1st inclination was that we are too close to November for the Repubs to jettison the gaffe prone Steele. But this latest one was so over the top to many Repubs.
I suspect Steele will be out before the Sunday talk shows.
But it is a holiday weekend, isn't it?

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Did the Dems jettison Dean?

The MSM gives a Repub Chairman a much harder time than his Dem equivalent, but does anyone vote on the basis of Party Chairmen?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I am not sure what MSM refers to. Main Stream Media? This brouhaha is within the Republican party and will have to be resolved there.
No, no one votes of the basis of the party chairman, but a lot of money in contributions probably depends on the Repubs getting this behind them quickly.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Did the Dems jettison Dean?

The MSM gives a Repub Chairman a much harder time than his Dem equivalent, but does anyone vote on the basis of Party Chairmen?

If they did, the Democratic party would be in big trouble. Tim Kaine is almost as ineffective as Michael Steele.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know