Obama: More people disapprove than approve; likely because he's accomplished nothing

Bush through the entire nation under the Bus.

Are we suppose to just magically forget that? New Orleans is taking a long time to recover from Katrina, I guess that means they threw Katrina under the bus too right?

 

this is true. Bush was an ineffective president, we all know that. I just don't see how that is supposed to be any sort of retort to defend Obama. surely you aren't holding Obama to the bush admin. standards.

katrina.....Kathleen Blanco can be blamed for that debacle more than Bush. way more than Bush.

 

I have paid attention - usually we are pretty similar in views.

anyway, I am uncomfortable with the gov't owning anything. But we didn't have a choice. The alternatives were worse.

I am not a die-hard free-market guy, nor am I one to think the gov't is better at running certain industries.

I think you need regulated industries to help keep companies focused on long-term goals and align consumer with corporate interests.

 

I am not blaming Bush for Katrina. I am saying is that people can't say Obama hasn't done anything when he's been in office for 6 months.

No one said that about any prior president. It's just ridiculous to think a president is suppose to turn the nation around in 6 months.

 

We've known that for a long time.

 

Agreed. Completely.

What I would like to see is the government to sell its shares and dismiss the "car czar." That way, the private companies can operate and the government can reacquire some of the bailout money.

 

Presidentin' is hard.

 

I completely agree.

 

And about to be the first latina lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States b****!

 

the only reason people mention bush is because these guys' criticsim of obama is silly when you consider how they supported bush. when basso, texxx, trader, in particular start these threads, they ring hollow. that's not even true for all conservatives on the board. just these three in particular.

There's this old guy I work with who was mad Thursday morning because in Obama's speech, he said he's reduced the budget deficit by $2 trillion over the next ten years. Like it wasn't enough. This guy loves bush, but he's actually upset that obama's only reduced the budget by $2 trillion over then next ten years (and that's working on the assumption that these projection are accurate). when dealing with that type of mentality, like on some of these threads, its hard to take the criticism seriously.

 

DeMinted Republicans

It’s no secret that the reaction of a significant number of Republicans to the presidency of Barack Obama has been a bit, well, insane. And don’t start making false equivalences by talking about some video someone once posted on MoveOn’s web site, or some comment someone once posted at Daily Kos. Did any U.S. Senators compare the Bush administration to Germany on the eve of World War II? I don’t think so.

So what’s going on? Is it the fact that Obama is black? Actually, I don’t think so: there was a comparable level of craziness in 1993 — Bill Clinton is a drug smuggler, Hillary murdered Vince Foster. What’s basically going on is that a significant part of the modern GOP can’t accept the idea of a Democratic president.

Why? I think part of it is that, in the minds of quite a few, it’s a betrayal of a promise. They gave their loyalty to the GOP and the conservative movement in return for the expectation of being part of a permanent ruling party. It’s just wrong, as they see it, a perversion of the way things ought to be, to have the other party sitting in the White House.

In short,

 

I'm fairly certain that an equal if not greater amout of Democrats react the same way. A few of which are regulars on this board.

 

Why it's increasingly difficult to take Rasmussen polls seriously
July 07, 2009 12:49 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

The surveys seem to exist solely to advance GOP talking points. Meaning, Rasmussen at times appears to function less as a legitimate polling firm and more as the polling wing of the RNC. Today's new survey about Sarah Palin and the repercussions of her "No mas" moment is a perfectly example.

I have not problem with the actual results per se, which are that 40 percent of Republicans think her quitting the Alaska governorship will hurt her chances to run for the White House in 2012. The bizarre part is that the Rasmussen poll only asks Republican voters their opinion about Palin. Independents and Democrats are of no interest to the GOP-centric Rasmussen. (Just my hunch, but if those two voter groups had been included, I'm guessing the final results would have between 70-80 percent of voters think Palin's career move was a bad one.)

What kind of polling firm, while trying to take the country's temperature about politics, only questions Republicans?

Meanwhile, in its write-up Rasmussen emphasized the RNC talking points about how Palin has been subjected to "relentless and generally hostile media coverage." (So the polling firm is now in the media criticism business?) Yet Rasmussen only points to a late-night comedian for proof of "hostile media coverage."

Anyone interested in authentic polling data on Palin can wait for the new Gallup numbers this afternoon.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907070015

OOPS

Not the same poll but I bet the same respondents.

 

As in most cases of you being "fairly certain" of something to do with politics, you are wrong again. (You should really stick to fast food if you want to speak with this sort of authority. We each have our areas of expertise.)

The point in the Krugman article is that R's actually go nuts when there's a D president. Vince Foster, birthers, etc. They invent crazy dodo nuts things to complain about that don't actually have any basis in reality.

Yes, us D's criticize R's wildly when they **** up, but we complain about stuff that happens in the world of reality: the Iraq war, Katrina, etc. We don't need to invent crazy junk like crackhead blowjobs or fraudulent birth certificate scandals -- we complain about actual facts.

Then again, as The Daily Show said once, "the facts have a liberal bias." Maybe that's why you guys look elsewhere for your criticisms.

 

maybe because it was a poll of Republican reactions to Palin's quitting? just a hunch...

as to the Rasmussen's methodology, they only poll "likely" voters, not all eligible.

 

While I do think the GOP has gone off the deep end, I would observe that just as the GOP has the birther kooks, the Dems had the "BUSH DIDN'T WIN IN 2000 LOL" loons.

 

I recall that. I remember the early bush years when libs would just jump on everything about Bush before he had a chance to pass a single bill.

I guess that's why being in the middle is lonely. You really can't get along with the left nor the right.

 

Really? I didn't see much of the "jump on everything" effect until Iraq. Bush was granted a lot of rope over the course of his first year, so much that he was able to gut the surplus Clinton handed over with his initial political capital.

Then, 9/11 happened and he got the most worldwide political capital that any individual has enjoyed in the history of the world. He started out great, got the Taliban ousted, then started spending political capital for the things he will be remembered for, mostly Iraq.

At least Obama is spending his initial political capital on things that matter.

 

Definitely before Iraq he was getting bashed - not by the mainstream press, but liberals were never happy with Bush.