PDA

View Full Version : 100 Days In: Is Obama Blowing It?



Odysseus
04-24-2009, 12:26 PM
Jennifer Rubin on buyer's remorse at Pajamas Media (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/100-days-in-is-obama-blowing-it/).

Key groups who helped vote in President Obama are having serious buyer's remorse.


April 22, 2009 - by Jennifer Rubin

We are reaching the 100-day mark in the Obama presidency. Historians are examining whether he has done as much as FDR (no), while pundits are considering whether he is more popular than other presidents (some) and just as polarizing as George W. Bush (yes). But a more interesting question is whether independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans are bothered by what they have seen and are losing faith in the agent of change. There is reason — actually there are six reasons — why that collection of key swing voters might be having serious second thoughts.

First, the president’s budgetary plan is a Ponzi scheme. Not just died-in-the-wool conservatives, but moderates like David Brooks, Democratic stalwarts like Alice Rivlin, and editorial boards of major newspapers have figured out that Obama is spending like a drunken sailor, fudging any budget savings, and passing on a huge and unsustainable debt to future generations. It is not only tea party protesters, but average independent voters who are wary of the spend-a-thon. Problem: Obama will have a hard time holding on to fiscal conservatives.

Second, the Agent of Change has become the center of the swamp. He went to Washington promising to fundamentally change the character of politics. Instead, we have seen a parade of tax cheating appointees, a slew of ethics waivers allowing ex-lobbyists to impact their prior interest groups, and a hyper-partisan bout of chest-thumping (”We won”) which has buried hope of a post-partisan nirvana. Obama has plotted to operate the Federal Census out of Rahm Emanuel’s White House, run an amateurish smear campaign against Rush Limbaugh, and failed to attract more than three Republicans on his stimulus and budget plans. Even on education reform he has capitulated to the teachers’ union, disappointing his most ardent admirers. Problem: Young idealistic voters and independents who hate hyper-partisanship are going to be harder to lure to the polls now that they have seen President Obama, not only candidate Obama.

Third, the stimulus isn’t stimulating and unemployment is going higher. Having rejected Republican ideas for payroll tax cuts and other private sector job-creating ideas, Obama allowed Nancy Pelosi to draft a pork-a-thon trillion dollar bill, which does not even have the benefit of funneling money swiftly into the economy. Businesses are petrified by the prospect of new health care and cap-and-trade mandates, labor law changes, and a never-ending set of financial sector rule changes. Unemployment is 8.5% nationally, in double digits in several states, and going higher. Problem: It is now Obama’s economy — and voters usually hold the party in the White House responsible for bad economic news (see George W. Bush).

Fourth, by disclosing the enhanced interrogation techniques memos, Obama has unleashed a furious partisan frenzy and likely opened up the prospect of endless hearings, leaks, and accusations about who knew what and when. Is Nancy Pelosi complicit? Should we have Colin Powell testify about what he knew? Didn’t we prevent an attack on Los Angeles by waterboarding a terrorist?

The spectacle of a divisive and destructive witch hunt now looms before us. Moreover, as respected members of the intelligence community, including former CIA director Michael Hayden, step forward to condemn the decision to selectively release portions of memos which provide a road map to our interrogation techniques to the terrorists, voters may wonder why this was all necessary and whether Obama incited a national catastrophe. Problem: Obama may have swapped his newly minted image as a sober commander in chief for the mantle of netroot bomb thrower.

Fifth, the Republicans are more united and more energized than at anytime since the 2004 Bush election victory. Republicans have found their sense of fiscal sanity, have remained resolute against Obama’s irresponsible budget schemes, and have begun laying the groundwork with a simple message: Obama “spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.” That theme resonated with the tea party protesters and has the potential to lure fiscal conservatives (in places like New Hampshire, for example) who at the end of the Bush presidency could no longer discern much of a difference between the parties. The Republicans have both reconnected with their base and provided a foundation for attracting key swing voters on core economic issues. Problem: “No” will seem like a good position if the economy doesn’t bounce back and our fiscal predicament becomes the top-of-the-fold story.

Sixth, you can’t be the Change Agent/grassroots community organizer from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Organizing for America has been a bust. It simply isn’t possible to keep supporters in a constant state of euphoria. Nor can Obama continue to be “all things to all people” once he has now announced his stands on controversial issues. The dizzying sense of being part of a once-in-a-lifetime post-political movement ended on Election Day. Problem: Obama is now a politician — still a popular one, but no longer a political messiah for many previously apolitical people (i.e., good luck getting all these people to the polls in a mid-term congressional election).

None of this is to say that Obama does not enjoy a high degree of personal popularity or that Republicans have recaptured the hearts and minds of all their countrymen. But the extent to which Obama has frittered away the opportunity to create a lasting centrist majority is startling, as is the degree to which the hapless Republican Party has begun to set a course for recovery.

As two key gubernatorial races play out, the economy limps along, and Obama struggles to quell the frenzy unleashed by the “torture” memos, we may see in 2009 a new storyline to replace “Are Republicans finished?”: “How did Obama blow it?” Stay tuned.

Jennifer Rubin is PJM's Washington, DC, editor. She also blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.

AlmostThere
04-24-2009, 01:28 PM
I saw a TV news report today that claimed Obama and John Boehner discussed the memo situation on 4/23 at a weekly bi-partisan meeting. Boehner asked Obama to release the memos that Cheney wanted declassified. Obama said that he had read the memos in question and he did not see conclusive proof that the enhanced interrogation had resulted in any useful intelligence.

So even if Obama is successful in stopping the lynch mob in Congress, he'll paint the interrogations as mostly ineffective.

I have to admit, at first, I was outraged on a daily basis. As more and more events show what wimps the Republicans in Congress are, I'm becoming numb. :(

I just heard on the same TV news report that Obama is going to release dozens of PICTURES of treatment of prisoners. Is it 2012 yet?

Now the report says the White House admits it will release by the end of May, a substantial number of pictures of abuse of detainees. If I had to guess I'd say Obama's agenda is right on schedule.

lacarnut
04-24-2009, 02:42 PM
Obama and his loons can put all the dog and pony shows out for the whole world to see. However, if the economy is in the dumps in 010 & 012, the Democ. will get booted out of office. The enthusiasm for Obama has greatly waned in a short period of time in my opinion. People that voted for him who are out of work or who taxes or whose lives have not improved will turn on the Magic Negro and the Dummycrats. Those college grads and those young voters will be saying No Obama. The worm will turn if this Admin screws the economy up. Plain and simple. The blame game is getting old for these dunces and will not work much longer.

Jfor
04-24-2009, 02:46 PM
I ceased being outraged long ago. I am just pissed off now. This guy does not deserve one lick of support from me. Trampling over the Constitution and this country likes it welcome a mat. To Obama I say, GFY.

tacitus
04-24-2009, 03:15 PM
the stimulus isn’t stimulating and unemployment is going higher. Having rejected Republican ideas for payroll tax cuts and other private sector job-creating ideas, Obama allowed Nancy Pelosi to draft a pork-a-thon trillion dollar bill, which does not even have the benefit of funneling money swiftly into the economy.

This should be the straw that breaks the camel's back, IF the American voters are not beyond salvage.


Unemployment is 8.5% nationally, in double digits in several states, and going higher. Problem: It is now Obama’s economy — and voters usually hold the party in the White House responsible for bad economic news (see George W. Bush).

For some voters, it will make no difference since they vote the party line anyway. But for some, it could be the deal breaker and we will find out next year. The O team made a lot of promises and anyone with a functioning neuron in their brain realized that is was political BS! But there is always that group that believes everything the lying politician speak is gospel.

linda22003
04-24-2009, 03:37 PM
Obama and his loons can put all the dog and pony shows out for the whole world to see. However, if the economy is in the dumps in 010 & 012, the Democ. will get booted out of office.

And if it isn't, he may be invincible.
BTW, I've heard people on TV say what you typed '010, and '012. (Oh-ten, Oh-twelve). Numbers are that way now, '08, '09, but there's no reason to add that extra digit. It will be '10 and '12.

lacarnut
04-24-2009, 03:55 PM
And if it isn't, he may be invincible.
BTW, I've heard people on TV say what you typed '010, and '012. (Oh-ten, Oh-twelve). Numbers are that way now, '08, '09, but there's no reason to add that extra digit. It will be '10 and '12.

The 2 in front of the 010 and 012 are silent!:)

patriot45
04-24-2009, 04:26 PM
I saw a TV news report today that claimed Obama and John Boehner discussed the memo situation on 4/23 at a weekly bi-partisan meeting. Boehner asked Obama to release the memos that Cheney wanted declassified. Obama said that he had read the memos in question and he did not see conclusive proof that the enhanced interrogation had resulted in any useful intelligence.

So even if Obama is successful in stopping the lynch mob in Congress, he'll paint the interrogations as mostly ineffective.

I have to admit, at first, I was outraged on a daily basis. As more and more events show what wimps the Republicans in Congress are, I'm becoming numb. :(

I just heard on the same TV news report that Obama is going to release dozens of PICTURES of treatment of prisoners. Is it 2012 yet?

Now the report says the White House admits it will release by the end of May, a substantial number of pictures of abuse of detainees. If I had to guess I'd say Obama's agenda is right on schedule.

Those POS will release the DUmmie porn pics right before Memorial day! :mad:

Odysseus
04-24-2009, 04:42 PM
I just heard on the same TV news report that Obama is going to release dozens of PICTURES of treatment of prisoners. Is it 2012 yet?

Now the report says the White House admits it will release by the end of May, a substantial number of pictures of abuse of detainees. If I had to guess I'd say Obama's agenda is right on schedule.
That's his plan. I said last year that it wasn't enough for Democrats to lose the war, they had to discredit the military. Photos of torture (44 out of how many tens of thousands of detainees?) will be given far more prominence than stories of jihadi atrocities. How about a fairness doctrine that requires that each photo of a detainee be accompanied by a photo of someone jumping out of the WTC, or a video of an American being beheaded, or just a photo of suicide bomb victims, just so people can get a context for why they were detained and questioned in the first place?

This should be the straw that breaks the camel's back, IF the American voters are not beyond salvage.

For some voters, it will make no difference since they vote the party line anyway. But for some, it could be the deal breaker and we will find out next year. The O team made a lot of promises and anyone with a functioning neuron in their brain realized that is was political BS! But there is always that group that believes everything the lying politician speak is gospel.
Democrats are mainlining the Kool Aid at this point, but independents will start to wise up sooner or later. Of course, it's funny how the media used to trumpet every .001% jump in unemployment numbers under Bush, but now they hardly ever discuss them except when they're released, and even then, they don't mention the amount of the increase. If I didn't know better, I'd think that they were biased or something... :rolleyes:

scd1008
04-24-2009, 05:15 PM
Is Obama blowing it, no need to ask .......... I think this is going to be four VERY long years.
In the first hundred days, no doubt the worst President EVER, but an enemy of the American people .........
That's a new twist.
We are in deep, deep shit !

Rockntractor
04-24-2009, 08:05 PM
Is Obama blowing it, no need to ask .......... I think this is going to be four VERY long years.
In the first hundred days, no doubt the worst President EVER, but an enemy of the American people .........
That's a new twist.
We are in deep, deep shit !
Yes we are. Nowdays you can make a shit sandwich give it to someone tell them it's a shit sandwich and they will eat it and thank you for it.

AlmostThere
04-24-2009, 10:47 PM
Up until today, Obama was just destroying our economy, saddling generations with immense debt and replacing our capitalistic system with socialism. But I am pissed now. Our economic system wasn't enough, now he has to destroy our military. People are talking about 2010 and 2012; that's funny. Like there will be anything left of this country by then. Look what that bastard has done in under 100 days. :mad:

Have to give him credit. He is going to single-handily do more damage to our military than any enemy we've ever faced. No, by next year, there won't be anything left to save at all.

hazlnut
04-26-2009, 12:58 AM
That's his plan. I said last year that it wasn't enough for Democrats to lose the war, they had to discredit the military. Photos of torture (44 out of how many tens of thousands of detainees?) will be given far more prominence than stories of jihadi atrocities. How about a fairness doctrine that requires that each photo of a detainee be accompanied by a photo of someone jumping out of the WTC, or a video of an American being beheaded, or just a photo of suicide bomb victims, just so people can get a context for why they were detained and questioned in the first place?

I agree with you on this one--although I don't think it's part of any plan. The memos and any future photos should never see the light of day. IMO, it's part of the ugliness that goes on durning war. Something we accept without condoning, but we accept it for the every WTC worker who had to decide between suicide or being burnt alive. When I think of those images, I don't have a problem with Guantanamo, water boarding, or rendition.

The mistake, the hubris, took place long before Obama took office. IMO, when the old boss tried to codify it, tried to document it, tried make it acceptable by coming up with rules and SOP. It will never be acceptable, but it will always be necessary.

This is a mess Obama would like to avoid. Every memo and any forthcoming photos will only hurt his ability to get things done. But you have some very powerful people making the very legitimate argument that this is a nation of laws and we must enforce the law even when its inconvenient. He has to appease these ideologues on the left while not declaring all out partisan war with the right.

The Chief of Staff is not above using this info should it be politically useful. If Cheney doesn't shut his corrupt pie hole he could find himself the scapegoat--and there are more than a few in the GOP who wouldn't hesitate to throw him under the bus.

Rendition started under Clinton. Water boarding and torture has gone on under every modern President. However none tried to boldly (foolishly) put it on the books.

Odysseus
04-26-2009, 02:52 PM
I agree with you on this one--although I don't think it's part of any plan. The memos and any future photos should never see the light of day. IMO, it's part of the ugliness that goes on durning war. Something we accept without condoning, but we accept it for the every WTC worker who had to decide between suicide or being burnt alive. When I think of those images, I don't have a problem with Guantanamo, water boarding, or rendition.

The mistake, the hubris, took place long before Obama took office. IMO, when the old boss tried to codify it, tried to document it, tried make it acceptable by coming up with rules and SOP. It will never be acceptable, but it will always be necessary.
It's not hubris, it's the application of rules of conduct. The reason that it was codified was to ensure that there were limits on the amount of duress that could be applied to a subject. In other words, we were so concerned about the well-being of terrorists that that the administration directed that every action be documented in order to ensure that they conformed to the guidelines.


This is a mess Obama would like to avoid. Every memo and any forthcoming photos will only hurt his ability to get things done. But you have some very powerful people making the very legitimate argument that this is a nation of laws and we must enforce the law even when its inconvenient. He has to appease these ideologues on the left while not declaring all out partisan war with the right.
That might make sense if Obama cared about getting things done. If he's only concerned with creating and perpetuating a permanent Democratic majority, then why shouldn't he throw the previous administration's attorneys to the wolves? Why shouldn't he create a climate of fear in the armed forces and intelligence services so that we'll avoid taking any controversial action in the future? Why shouldn't he publish photos that make us look like indiscriminate torturers without any context that might mitigate their impact? His conduct only makes sense if you accept that Obama is first and foremost a partisan ideologue, not a statesman.

The Chief of Staff is not above using this info should it be politically useful. If Cheney doesn't shut his corrupt pie hole he could find himself the scapegoat--and there are more than a few in the GOP who wouldn't hesitate to throw him under the bus.
Exactly what evidence do you have to accuse Cheney of corruption? Oh, I know the whole Halliburton meme, but I'm talking real evidence. If you don't have anything better than the usual pablum, kindly refrain from slandering the former VP.

Rendition started under Clinton. Water boarding and torture has gone on under every modern President. However none tried to boldly (foolishly) put it on the books.

Again, where is your proof as to torture? First, Waterboarding is not torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions or the US Code. Second, the detailed documentation is, as I stated before, a reflection of our commitment to avoid physical damage to men who, were the positions reversed, would have happily beheaded their adversaries. The only hubris that I see is in a media establishment sitting in judgement of those who put their lives on the line in order to protect their right to pontificate about subjects beyond the scope of their knowledge.

hazlnut
04-27-2009, 05:57 PM
Again, where is your proof as to torture? First, Waterboarding is not torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions or the US Code. Second, the detailed documentation is, as I stated before, a reflection of our commitment to avoid physical damage to men who, were the positions reversed, would have happily beheaded their adversaries. The only hubris that I see is in a media establishment sitting in judgement of those who put their lives on the line in order to protect their right to pontificate about subjects beyond the scope of their knowledge.

Go do some reading on the history of clandestine services. Then get back with me.

It so much was hubris and stupidity. When they tried to codify it and get a legal opinion about it, torture, the extreme measures that are taken in wartime, had to be watered down.

Waterboarding for a 9/11 conspirator--f-that, man! You're the one who brought up the people jumping from the WTC to their deaths. Waterboarding??? Is that all??

My point is, by trying to come up with an SOP that was on the books, they had to limit what could be done to what they thought people would find acceptable. It's not acceptable, that's the point! But it's absolutely necessary to save lives. That's the way it has always been. Now, to appease the far-left, it's been 'officially' banned. Great! Thanks Dumsfeld, you nitwit.

Hubris and stupidity, plain and simple.

Odysseus
04-27-2009, 09:03 PM
Go do some reading on the history of clandestine services. Then get back with me.
Why? I'm already more dialed in to intel ops than you'll ever be, and that doesn't take into account the amount of time that I've been in uniform, with an active clearance, while you've been regurgitating open source pablum from the MSM echo chamber.


It so much was hubris and stupidity. When they tried to codify it and get a legal opinion about it, torture, the extreme measures that are taken in wartime, had to be watered down.
Waterboarding for a 9/11 conspirator--f-that, man! You're the one who brought up the people jumping from the WTC to their deaths. Waterboarding??? Is that all??
Yeah, waterboarding. Know why they use it? Because it works without doing any physical damage. Sooner or later, all of the other nastier measures cease to be effective, but the fear of drowning is primal and the simulation of it gets results.

My point is, by trying to come up with an SOP that was on the books, they had to limit what could be done to what they thought people would find acceptable. It's not acceptable, that's the point! But it's absolutely necessary to save lives. That's the way it has always been. Now, to appease the far-left, it's been 'officially' banned. Great! Thanks Dumsfeld, you nitwit.
Hubris and stupidity, plain and simple.
That only makes sense if they knew that the books would be released and that their goal was to cover their own asses, rather than to protect the nation. Waterboarding worked, it wasn't torture under the legal definition and it didn't turn us into a nation of slobbering thugs, despite the worst caricatures of your friends in the media. It's not about image, it's about duty and commitment to protecting America without betraying what we stand for.

hazlnut
04-28-2009, 02:45 AM
That only makes sense if they knew that the books would be released and that their goal was to cover their own asses, rather than to protect the nation.

Um... Duh.



Waterboarding worked, it wasn't torture under the legal definition and it didn't turn us into a nation of slobbering thugs, despite the worst caricatures of your friends in the media.

You just make shit up? Waterboarding worked? That's right, L.A. was spared the plot a detainee came up with while being tortured.

Tell you what, since there are many contradictory statements about what worked and what didn't--I'll wait until we have more information and not jump on the first statement from a bitter former V.P. You really got to learn to wade through your own side's talking points. And stop blaming the media for everything or at least be more specific--which network, which reporter--I'm getting sick of this sweeping MSM overgeneralization. That kind of ignorance implies that FOX isn't jerking you around at all.

Seriously: I commend you on your service to this country. But you asked for evidence of torturing in our nation's past, and I suggested you do some reading on the history of clandestine services. If your military service and background has given you evidence about the credibility of the facts on record in the volumes of books on military intelligence and clandestine services, then I suggest you write a book debunking them all.

I don't know if you read too quickly or don't read the entire posts in their context--but you sometimes seem to miss the point or veer off the point. So dial in a little more carefully.

djones520
04-28-2009, 08:38 AM
Hazelnut... honestly do you hear how much of a tool you sound like? A plot that a detainee made up while being tortured? So the people that where taken down with that information, preventing the attack, where just made up as well? :rolleyes:

I spent plenty of time showing Supercrash how water torture IS NOT CONSIDERED TORTURE by anyone but left wing nutbags. Why don't you go spend some time reading it.

Odysseus
04-28-2009, 12:22 PM
Um... Duh.
Okay... So in your mind, the manuals and SOPs had nothing to do with maintaining standards of conduct and civilized restraint on the part of the people who were tasked with protecting the nation from the very worst terrorist detainees, but were simply a cynical attempt to protect themselves from prosecution from a future administration that they could not have anticipated and the vitriol that the media would inevitably bring to bear on them when, not if, but when those books, which were highly classified, would be released? I'll remind myself of your characterization of the armed forces and intelligence services the next time you tell me that you honor my service in one breath and demean it in the next.

You just make shit up? Waterboarding worked? That's right, L.A. was spared the plot a detainee came up with while being tortured.
No, I'm a Soldier, not a journalist. I'll leave making things up to your profession. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the lead planner for 9/11, didn't simply make up a plot under duress, he gave up a plot for on ongoing op that he had already put into execution. He did this because he was subjected to coercive interrogation techniques. This is not open to dispute.


Tell you what, since there are many contradictory statements about what worked and what didn't--I'll wait until we have more information and not jump on the first statement from a bitter former V.P. You really got to learn to wade through your own side's talking points. And stop blaming the media for everything or at least be more specific--which network, which reporter--I'm getting sick of this sweeping MSM overgeneralization. That kind of ignorance implies that FOX isn't jerking you around at all.
But when I do cite specific examples, you tell me that they're anecdotal and mean nothing, which tells me that you don't want evidence, you just want to be able to deny inconvenient facts. I get it, but if you aren't going to accept anything that contradicts your worldview, then what are you doing here? The media has a responsibility to provide information to the American people so that they can make informed decisions. I don't expect neutrality or objectivity, but a semblance of integrity and some actual knowledge of the things that they report about would be appreciated. If you want to claim that you don't know what I'm talking about when I point out that CNN's staffers have made public statements that demonstrate their anti-US, anti-military biases, that The New Republic published fake atrocity stories that they could have easily fact-checked, that the NY Times published classified information that endangered American lives and hampered our ability to prosecute the war, or that CBS news ran forged documents in order to undermine an administration that they disliked, be my guest, but don't pretend that I'm the one who's not informed.


Seriously: I commend you on your service to this country. But you asked for evidence of torturing in our nation's past, and I suggested you do some reading on the history of clandestine services. If your military service and background has given you evidence about the credibility of the facts on record in the volumes of books on military intelligence and clandestine services, then I suggest you write a book debunking them all.
Well, that didn't take long, did it?
I've read lots of histories of intelligence agencies. I've also got firsthand experience with some, but that's beside the point. When I cite an example of malfeasance in your profession, you demand specific examples (which, BTW, you then complain are anecdotal, or find some other means of dissmissing them), but when I ask you for concrete examples of torture by the US military, you tell me to go look up sources for your arguments. Are you that lazy when you do your own projects? Do your own research, and then get back to me, or, as they say in poker, put up, or shut up.

I don't know if you read too quickly or don't read the entire posts in their context--but you sometimes seem to miss the point or veer off the point. So dial in a little more carefully.
I don't seem to be the one who's not dialed in. You're the one who seems to think that waterboarding was inadequate and that we have a history of torturing prisoners. You complain that waterboarding was never acceptable, but then complain that it was insufficient. If you can't maintain some level of intellectual consistency, well, I was going to say that you should consider another line of work, but given the standards in our media, you're probably doing quite well.

Hazelnut... honestly do you hear how much of a tool you sound like? A plot that a detainee made up while being tortured? So the people that where taken down with that information, preventing the attack, where just made up as well? :rolleyes:
I spent plenty of time showing Supercrash how water torture IS NOT CONSIDERED TORTURE by anyone but left wing nutbags. Why don't you go spend some time reading it.
To a member of the media, torture is being in an open debate with people who you can't pull the plug on. :D

cat714
04-28-2009, 09:11 PM
If the election could take place again, I wonder who would win.

enslaved1
04-28-2009, 11:13 PM
NYT 100 Days, 100 Mistakes (http://www.nypost.com/seven/04252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/100_days__100_mistakes_166177.htm?page=0)

Sums it up pretty well, don't you think?

hazlnut
04-28-2009, 11:17 PM
If the election could take place again, I wonder who would win.

Here, let me show you --


The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows the depth of the party's problems. Just 21 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans. That's the lowest since the fall of 1983, when just 19 percent identified themselves as Republicans. Party identification does fluctuate with events. But as a snapshot indicator, the latest figures highlight the impact of Obama's opening months on the Republican Party. From a high-water mark of 35 percent in the fall of 2003, Republicans have slid steadily to their present state of affairs. It's just not as cool to be a Republican as it once was. LINK (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/28/specters_departure_a_wake_up_c.html?hpid=topnews)



WASHINGTON -- A hundred days into his presidency, Barack Obama's standing with the public remains high, increasing the odds he can enact his ambitious agenda. Most Americans like their new president, even amid some reservations about his policy goals, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

The poll paints the image of a popular president, but also offers cautionary notes for the White House, including growing worry over the rising federal deficit, a solid majority opposing his release of Bush-era memos on interrogation techniques and slipping support for his signature economic-stimulus bill. Mr. Obama faces both a rising number of people who view him as a liberal rather than a moderate, and a populist concern that he's not tough enough on Wall Street.

--snip--

For the Republican opposition, the poll had scant good news. By a wide margin, the public is more likely to blame congressional Republicans for any gridlock. LINK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124095605121565495.html)


If the Republicans keep up their current policy of doing nothing but screaming “socialism” at every juncture, I could imagine the Democrats winning another few Senate seats in places like New Hampshire or Ohio next time around LINK (http://theconversation.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specter-survives-at-least-for-now/)

cat714
04-29-2009, 05:20 AM
Here, let me show you --

LINK (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/28/specters_departure_a_wake_up_c.html?hpid=topnews)


LINK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124095605121565495.html)

LINK (http://theconversation.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specter-survives-at-least-for-now/)

That's all very nice hazlnut, but I don't rely on polls nor do I hold any regard for a blog on the NY Slime. The "blame everything on Bush" is getting old. Obama is not my guy, but he's there and I expect him to act in the country's best interest and not his political party. He should stop asking the world for forgiveness and licking the assholes of those who hate us.

Molon Labe
04-29-2009, 09:52 AM
Here, let me show you --

LINK (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/28/specters_departure_a_wake_up_c.html?hpid=topnews)

LINK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124095605121565495.html)

LINK (http://theconversation.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specter-survives-at-least-for-now/)

The polls show one glaring detail....That most people genuinely still believe there is an iota difference between mainstream Republican's and Democrats. I am not encouraged.



That's all very nice hazlnut, but I don't rely on polls nor do I hold any regard for a blog on the NY Slime. The "blame everything on Bush" is getting old. Obama is not my guy, but he's there and I expect him to act in the country's best interest and not his political party. He should stop asking the world for forgiveness and licking the assholes of those who hate us.

The Democrat's would. Especially if McAmnesty was still the Republican nominee. Get a clue that it's swing voters that make these things. I would never vote Democrat, but then again I'm not voting for the guy with the 'R' either just because, he's "our guy"...especially when he doesn't have the answers.

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 10:47 AM
Here, let me show you --

LINK (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/28/specters_departure_a_wake_up_c.html?hpid=topnews)


LINK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124095605121565495.html)

LINK (http://theconversation.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specter-survives-at-least-for-now/)

Ooooh, the Washington Post and NY Times think that the Republican Party is finished. What will we do? What will we do? :rolleyes:

For a "moderate conservative," you sure seem to be taking pleasure in Republican losses and Democratic gains. Care to clarify your positions?

Molon Labe
04-29-2009, 11:49 AM
Ooooh, the Washington Post and NY Times think that the Republican Party is finished. What will we do? What will we do? :rolleyes:

For a "moderate conservative," you sure seem to be taking pleasure in Republican losses and Democratic gains. Care to clarify your positions?

Come on now....In today's political times? What exactly does it mean to have a Republican loss to a Democratic gain? To illustrate how similar both parties are today, one only needs to observe how seamless a transition it is for someone like Obama to step in for someone like Bush. Some will say it's the strength of our system, while I'd wager it's more because there really is no systemic change at all. Just minor details that keep us all in a worthless rage. Like spending TARP and stimulus relief money for constructing bridges rather than bailing out banks. Or reallocating military resources from one part of the ME to another. The media get's us focused on b.s. like bonuses for bankers and we miss out on the slight of hand going on elsewhere.
When the Republican party started being less about conservatism and more about Corporate/collectivism and federal intervention, I'll throw a party for each and every congressman defeated that has sold his soul for the almighty prestigiousness of the postion, rather than to serve the rights of individual people, regardless of party. I can't name too many I'd lose sleep over losing. Maybe a John Duncan TN, or a Jeff Flake AZ...maybe even Mark Sanford. Thie list grows shorter with each passing year.

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 02:01 PM
Come on now....In today's political times? What exactly does it mean to have a Republican loss to a Democratic gain? To illustrate how similar both parties are today, one only needs to observe how seamless a transition it is for someone like Obama to step in for someone like Bush. Some will say it's the strength of our system, while I'd wager it's more because there really is no systemic change at all. Just minor details that keep us all in a worthless rage. Like spending TARP and stimulus relief money for constructing bridges rather than bailing out banks. Or reallocating military resources from one part of the ME to another. The media get's us focused on b.s. like bonuses for bankers and we miss out on the slight of hand going on elsewhere.
When the Republican party started being less about conservatism and more about Corporate/collectivism and federal intervention, I'll throw a party for each and every congressman defeated that has sold his soul for the almighty prestigiousness of the postion, rather than to serve the rights of individual people, regardless of party. I can't name too many I'd lose sleep over losing. Maybe a John Duncan TN, or a Jeff Flake AZ...maybe even Mark Sanford. Thie list grows shorter with each passing year.

If you can't see the differences between Obama and Bush, then you're trying way too hard not to. Although Bush had his flaws as a conservative, he was dedicated to the defense of the United States. Obama made it a point to cancel new weapons systems and has abased himself before our enemies. Can you really see Bush ignoring a Taliban takeover of one Pakistani province and the imminent takeover of the whole country? When Pakistan falls, Al Qaeda will have nukes. Does Obama even have a plan for that contingency? You can be sure that Bush would have.

Even in the areas where you argue that they are the same, Obama has proven to be an order of magnitude worse. Would Bush have passed the stimulus package or used TARP as a wedge to impose federal control over the banking system and the automobile industry? Would Bush have instituted cap and trade or cardcheck? Bush's SCOTUS appointees, Alito and Roberts, are solid conservatives. In fact, he's done better than Reagan did on that score. What do you think that Obama will appoint? Bush's tax cuts actually cut taxes. Obama's fake tax cuts raise taxes and transfer wealth to non-taxpayers. Bush's approach to Social Security and health care were market based initiatives that Democrats fought tooth and nail against. Obama will socialize the latter and bankrupt the former. Bush sought to expand oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, while Obama hired Franklin Raines, the guy who cooked their books in order to get a fat bonus, as his economic advisor.

Again, Bush had his flaws. His fiscal policy lacked restraint (although compared to Obama's spending spree, he comes off looking like Coolidge), and while you disagree with his decision to invade Iraq, you must admit that he at least fought to win, while Obama has thrown away many of the gains made in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There are intelligent arguments for going to war and there are intelligent arguments for not going to war, but there are no intelligent arguments in favor of losing a war that we're already in.

Obama and Bush are very different men and very different presidents, and the differences are in Bush's favor.

Molon Labe
04-29-2009, 02:33 PM
If you can't see the differences between Obama and Bush, then you're trying way too hard not to. Although Bush had his flaws as a conservative, he was dedicated to the defense of the United States. Obama made it a point to cancel new weapons systems and has abased himself before our enemies. Can you really see Bush ignoring a Taliban takeover of one Pakistani province and the imminent takeover of the whole country? When Pakistan falls, Al Qaeda will have nukes. Does Obama even have a plan for that contingency? You can be sure that Bush would have.

Even in the areas where you argue that they are the same, Obama has proven to be an order of magnitude worse. Would Bush have passed the stimulus package or used TARP as a wedge to impose federal control over the banking system and the automobile industry? Would Bush have instituted cap and trade or cardcheck? Bush's SCOTUS appointees, Alito and Roberts, are solid conservatives. In fact, he's done better than Reagan did on that score. What do you think that Obama will appoint? Bush's tax cuts actually cut taxes. Obama's fake tax cuts raise taxes and transfer wealth to non-taxpayers. Bush's approach to Social Security and health care were market based initiatives that Democrats fought tooth and nail against. Obama will socialize the latter and bankrupt the former. Bush sought to expand oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, while Obama hired Franklin Raines, the guy who cooked their books in order to get a fat bonus, as his economic advisor.

Again, Bush had his flaws. His fiscal policy lacked restraint (although compared to Obama's spending spree, he comes off looking like Coolidge), and while you disagree with his decision to invade Iraq, you must admit that he at least fought to win, while Obama has thrown away many of the gains made in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There are intelligent arguments for going to war and there are intelligent arguments for not going to war, but there are no intelligent arguments in favor of losing a war that we're already in.

Obama and Bush are very different men and very different presidents, and the differences are in Bush's favor.

In reference to the highlighted....Uh...he did do that. And Bernake welcomed it and egged it right along. Tell me again how much of a free market capitalist Bush is?


"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," - W

Gosh...that's right out of the Collectivist playbook. :rolleyes:

What in THE hell....is...the...difference?

Here is the main point from another thread:

As I've noted numerous times, the extreme right and extreme left are both for more government; the only difference between the two is their agenda.

Yep.....
It really isn't that complicated. I don't get caught up in all the puny details like that somehow Obama has altered the course of the GWOT precariously close to failure in 3 months....or that Bush's "stimulus" is better than Obama's stimulus.
Actually it makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little..

When someone stops insulting me with tax cuts this and tax cuts that and actually dares to challenge and shift the paradigm that the size of government is "just A-OK" then I'll believe they actually get it.

In addition: I do see differences in Obama and Bush. I think Bush was flawed and didn't know what he was doing by listening to collectivist idiots. I'm certain that Obama knows the playbook forwards and backwards and is making sure he's surrounded by the same types.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 02:40 PM
Come on now....In today's political times? What exactly does it mean to have a Republican loss to a Democratic gain? To illustrate how similar both parties are today, one only needs to observe how seamless a transition it is for someone like Obama to step in for someone like Bush. Some will say it's the strength of our system, while I'd wager it's more because there really is no systemic change at all. Just minor details that keep us all in a worthless rage. Like spending TARP and stimulus relief money for constructing bridges rather than bailing out banks. Or reallocating military resources from one part of the ME to another. The media get's us focused on b.s. like bonuses for bankers and we miss out on the slight of hand going on elsewhere.
When the Republican party started being less about conservatism and more about Corporate/collectivism and federal intervention, I'll throw a party for each and every congressman defeated that has sold his soul for the almighty prestigiousness of the postion, rather than to serve the rights of individual people, regardless of party. I can't name too many I'd lose sleep over losing. Maybe a John Duncan TN, or a Jeff Flake AZ...maybe even Mark Sanford. Thie list grows shorter with each passing year.

Extremely well said.

Here's another example-- Homeland Security & the FBI. For eight years, the left has been calling them a bunch of fascists for trampling on our civil liberties with the Patriot Act. But, in just three short months, they apparently re-staffed the entire DOJ with people who are going to confiscate every gun in the U.S. and lock up every Christian.... Oh my, how did they hire and train thousands of agents so quickly??

Maybe that kind of talk gets ratings for Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, but it's partisan hyperbole plain and simple. The election is over. If the Republicans want to get back in the game, they need to make some decisions about who and what they are.

Are two gay men in West Hollywood really, REALLY, honest to goodness having an effect on your life? Then let it go and focus on what's important.

Senators and Congressmen will stay at the trough as long as we allow them.

Molon Labe
04-30-2009, 09:56 AM
Senators and Congressmen will stay at the trough as long as we allow them.



"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, Take a bow for the new revolution, Smile and grin at the change all around, Pick up my guitar and play, Just like yesterday, Then I'll get on my knees and pray, We don't get fooled again."

Ya think Pete figured it out long ago?

Rebel Yell
04-30-2009, 10:02 AM
The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows the depth of the party's problems. Just 21 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans. That's the lowest since the fall of 1983, when just 19 percent identified themselves as Republicans. Party identification does fluctuate with events. But as a snapshot indicator, the latest figures highlight the impact of Obama's opening months on the Republican Party. From a high-water mark of 35 percent in the fall of 2003, Republicans have slid steadily to their present state of affairs. It's just not as cool to be a Republican as it once was.

Who won the previous presidential election in 1983?

Who won the next presidential election in 1983?