How about if we just get out of the way and let the pros at Rasmussen tell Obama’s sad tale:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.
Over the past month, the number who Strongly Approve of the President’s performance has generally stayed between 27% and 30% (with one exception in each direction). Today’s drop to 26% matches the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded.
The number who Strongly Disapprove has stayed between 37% and 41% every day for over a month. The only previous time that Obama’s Approval Index rating was this low came on August 23. It remains to be seen whether the current low is just statistical noise or if it is something more lasting.
Just 47% of Democrats now Strongly Approve of the President’s performance. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove, as do 43% of those not affiliated with either major political party. These numbers reflect the concern some Democratic analysts are voicing about an enthusiasm gap heading into the 2010 mid-term elections. See other recent demographic highlights.
In the words of Chubby Checker’s immortal Limbo Rock, “How low can you go?”
Source: Rasmussen Reports
Subscribe, tweet, share, tell a friend!
Browse before and after this article
OLDER: Al Gore demonstrates that he is a scientific geniusNEWER: Apple hangs up on iPhone app featuring Nancy Pelosi caricature
Related Posts
- Can’t hide this decline: Obama’s approval rating plunges to new low
- Holy friggin’ moly. Obama approval rating plunges to new low after healthcare vote
- Another reason to give thanks: Obama approval rating hits new low
- Another day, another new Obama low. Can you
believe -19? - How low can it go? Obama approval drops again
{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }
Reality check. The Obama Money Stash, is a taxpayer printing press. It sends a thrill up some legs, China tells BHO.. show us the vigorish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6uHgx4zWto
Admin embedded the video for you.
Americans, when I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you. Just watch me.. Stuff A Health Care Turkey.
with Obama Money…
Of course you know that thos pros at Rasmussen are die hard conservatives. That’s why no one but Fox and conservative web-sites uses their stats.
I’m not claiming they’re doctoring the numbers, but polling is so easily affected by who you ask, and how you ask a question. It’s the old “Have you stopped beating your wife Senator?” type questioning. You can ask questions that can result in only negative answers. “Well no, I haven’t stopped beating my wife” or “Yes I have stopped beating my wife”. Either way the Senator is a wife beater.
What’s more you can lead people (which is what Rasmussen does) to answers you want, by “priming” them with preliminary questions.
Example:
1. Do you agree that tax payers should pay for health insurance for people who don’t want to buy it themselves? Y N
2. Would you agree that, spending billions of tax dollars on a national health care program that does not reduce medical costs is a waste of tax payer money? Y N
3. Do you strongly oppose the presidents national health care program?
Y N
Most people are somewhere in the middle. This poll says “Strongly Agree” or “Strongly Disagree” If you force people to take a position that is not truly theirs, the end data is not going to reflect any real truth.
yea, I’ve taken their polls before and you forgot to mention the “slightly agree” and “slightly disagree” choices that are always there not to mention no opinion and refused to answer.
and actually, I’ve never seen the questions asked in quite that way.
I have noticed however that the main difference between the Rasmusson polls and polls like Gallop is there is a time lag. Rasmusson reports a trend, then two weeks later the other polls do.
“Hope and Change” is fast becoming “No Hope for Change.”
Yeah, as long as the Republicans keep stalling the business of America. We’re in a serious recession, and we have a health care crisis to boot and the handful of Republicans that didn’t get fired in the last two elections are determined to not earn their pay and get on with the business of America.
I wonder who gets fired next election?
This is no surprise. Just look at the RCP numbers for the Congress in which the Democrooks are in control.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
40 pecentage points in the red and they have had control since 2007. That should tell any fair-minded person how well they have done.
The direction of the country poll is not much better either.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html
Are you referring to the congress that is being stone walled by the Republicans? How do you know the dis-satisfaction isn’t an indication of peoples reaction to “ditto head” Republicans refusing to conduct the nation’s business?. This is your plan? road block congress until the next election? If so I say the Republicans should give their paychecks back becuase they are not doing what they were elected to do. No one sent them there to sit on their hands. O.k. they don’t have a majority, not the fault of each of those Republican’s respective districts or constituancies. Get over it and earn your paycheck.
We didn’t send them there to negotiate with a bunch of Looney Tune characters……….Time to just say “NO”.
This “must compromise and be bi-partisan” crap is just that. If your next door neighbor demanded 1/2 of your front yard at no cost to him, would you negotiate with him and split the difference giving him only a 1/4 of your front yard? That’s the Libretards idea of negotiating.
I agree on the bi-partisanship deal. The Dems should just steam-roll over the hand full of fat little momma’s boys left in the Re-suck-lickin’ party.
Funny how the last Democrat left office with a budget surplus and a booming economy and when Bush was done we had massive deficits, job loss, two un-paid wars that are at about a trillion dollars and counting, lost billions in tax revenues to help out the affluent, and a weakened constitution in the form of “free speech zones”, illegal wire taps, secret prisons, and torture.
You’re a joke man. How many times and in how many ways do the elitest have to run it up your back side before you will finaly come to terms with the fact that you were tricked? They want money and power and they get it by convincing suckers like you that they are on your side. How? in what way have the Republicans ever helped you? Will they help you by doing away with Social Security? there’s going to come a time when you’ll live or die by that program. You hate people getting food stamps or welfare? I know personally three people who in the last four years have had to apply for food and cash assistance and all of them are conservatives and vote Republican. Although I myself have been a little more fortunate, thank God there are lots of people like me who fight to preserve those programs so that they can now feed their children in spite of all their efforts. And they’re still conservative. They have a complete inability to look at even themselves in an honost light. No doubt that in their minds they ended up on food stamps through no fault of their own. But everyone else, well they’re just leeches living off the tax payer’s dime. And when my friends are back on their feet, they’ll look down their nose and fight to starve someone else’s child and I’ll still be here stopping them. Thank God you are at once, both stupid and weak, otherwise you might truly damage our society.
The reason the Democrats have been reluctant to “steamroll” their agenda is they don’t want to have to take the complete blame if everything goes to sh*t. If they can get a few Republicans to go along they can call the bill bi-partisan and hide from responsibility.
Can you tell me when the last time, or any time, that anyone has tried to abolish Social Security, WIC, food stamps, etc. The scare tactics employed by the left during each election since the 70’s is that Republicans were going to take these programs away. Yet when they had the opportunity, they never even discussed it in congress. That claim is tired and false, though it seems to work to get the the elderly and the poor to the voting booth, which I guess is the goal. However, you should avoid using it as an argument with thinking people because it just doesn’t fly.
The real reason the Dems don’t steamroll the Republicans is the reason that you yourself have pointed out. The Democrats that have to run in conservative areas are reluctant to sign on. I can assure you that there are a great many Democrats that would gladly vote liberal on every issue.
The Republicans do not try to remove these social programs you are correct on that. They do try to reduce or slash funding at every opportunity but not abolish them. But they did fight against their implementation to start with. They fought against Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. Reagen starred in a video tape the conservatives were circulating in the sixties to try to defeat the Medicare legislation. Just as now the Republicans are trying to defeat the health care initiative. Once these programs are up and running, and the American people see the clear benefits of them the Republicans know that it is political suicide to try to dismantle them so they attack funding and other aspects in order to weaken the programs rather than attack head on.
not only do they not have a majority, they can’t stop the Democrats from doing anything. To be fair Jon, you should look back when the Republicans were the majority and see how cooperative the Democrats were. The truth of the matter is that what Pelosi and Reed are trying to do under cover of darkness scares even some Democrats. If this wasn’t true, health care reform and the rest of the Obama agenda would already be passed.
Arlan,
I always give credit where credit is due and you touched on a very real issue.
When the Republicans have the majority they always get the straight up and down vote.
When the Democrats have it, it gets more complicated, but not for the reason you suggested.
Here’s the deal. Republicans don’t so much represent their constituencies, as they carry the party line. That is to say, the legislation doesn’t really matter to the individual Republican or how it affects his/her home state or district. All they need know is if it is a Republican bill or not. After that they “ditto head” it.
With Democrats, each and every one is a representative of their state or district, and want’s to make sure that the legislation (Republican or Democratic) does not adversely affect the voters they represent. In other words, Republicans go to washington to play partisan politics, Democrats go there to represent the people and advance the cause of their nation.
Huh, you really are a cool aid drinker if you think there is any difference between the two parties in that regard. Once again, I think you should re-visit history and see how independent the Democratic law maker was. They all (meaning Repub and Dem) vote the party line unless it adversly affects their constituants. Then they go to the party leadership to get permission to vote the other way. The party leadership does a head count and allows the most vulnerable to vote the other way as long as they have enough votes to pass the legislation. Didn’t you pay attention last week to the house vote on health care reform.
If I’m not right, then explain why you had one single Republican vote for the health care bill when it passed the Senate Finance Committee.
Ditto Heads.
Huh, who showed independence? Olympia Snowe or the Democrats?
Did you ever think that maybe conservatives just disagree with what is happening? Not agreeing with turning 1/7 of the nations economy over to the government is not walking in lock step with party leadership, it might be following they’re own convictions. Unless you think that only Liberals, sorry Progressives, have convictions.
you still haven’t addressed the fact that the Democrats have a super majority in both houses of congress and don’t need the Republicans to do anything.
You’re right, the Democrats don’t need any Republicans to get it done. And they will. But it is going to take more time because the Republicans are all speaking in one single voice. The Dems will have to do it on their own because they can’t count on one Republican voting thier conscience.
When the Republicans control the congress, not only can they count all of their numbers to ditto head, but usually don’t have to do it on their own because some Democrats cross the isle and vote their conscience.
And I do beleive that Republicans have convictions.
With any luck, Thom Delay will have multiple convictions soon. Ha!
Come on hit me with the ex-governor of Illinoise, I don’t care, you left the door open and I seized the breach.
Yea, you got me all right. Charlie Rangle and Kent Conrad will be glad to hear it. Anybody have any kool aid.
Arlan, you gotta relax man. It’s not that serious. I know there are crooked Dems as well as Republicans. You set up the joke and I took it.
the big problem is america needs to get ready for a trade war. why do are leaders want to trade with the poorest nations of the world, because they make it there cheap, sell it here at a outrages profit. while claiming the are bringing democracy to that region. truth is they are paying these people just enough to get by.
we wont trade with communist cuba, but communist china owns everything we got.
its time we start putting tariffs on imports until the rest of the world allows us the same free trade we give them. its time for buy american, our trading partners all have buy at home, but our leaders are whores of wall street, chamber of comm. and business round table.
yea, well, I hope you are ready to pay the price.
You make a good point. In the late eighties american businesses were taking a pounding from foreign competitors and they were pushing this “buy american” thing. Americans responded and started purchasing products with the little american flag on them.
Then, when they got the trade agreements they wanted, they packed all the jobs off to China and Mexico and said fu*k american workers. The ones that stayed hired illegal aliens for a fraction, or used the threat of moving to China or Mexico to get workers to conceed pay and benefits. And yet another group laid off american workers even as they applied for thousands of HS1B Visas so they could bring people over from India to work for less.
Your heart is in the right place, but let’s be more specific, buy products made by american companies, who make those products in america.
Why not? look at Japan, the Xbox and the Playstation are close rivals in america. In Japan, Xbox makes up like 3% of the market and Sony and Nintendo own the rest. Even if you prefer the Playstation, the Xbox is a damn good console and should sell way more units than it does in Japan.
Like I said, you have to be willing to pay the price. Walmart does so well because they buy products from overseas that were built with slave labor. We as a people have put our money where our mouth is and buy American. Damn Jon, we kind of agree. Got to go. Have a good evening.
Read “Dr. Deming: The American Who Taught the Japanese About Quality” (a book) that is why the 80s belonged to the Japanese. We forgot how to play the game we started. Then Al Gore and other f*ckers get the Free Trade agreements (some good things and much ill came of that too) and jobs jumped ship. The business were now fighting to stop the unions from bleeding them dry and the world was coming online an making more goods. The 90s were the ‘lost decade’ of Japan and the US had the 90s tech boom start from their failed heavy industry losses to overseas players. What caused the shifting fortunes of the USA?
JFK dropped taxes, so did Regan and Clinton lowered capital gains taxes. The 60s, the 80s and the 90s had major booms in them (difference sectors). When the government lowers the taxes it lets the market open up WHOLE NEW sectors that did not exist before and those that would not/could not compete before to get into the mix. Our growth as a nation has been from lower taxes when compared to others and less government intervention (good or ill- look at all the boon and burden Clinton made from his 90s deregulation movements).
There will always be shipping jobs off shore and MNCs taking over different sectors. Business do need to stop hiring illegals and then we will have the illegal flood stopped. The shift from goods to services is part of America’s new business model as it has been for sometime. New technology is also a part of that shift- but only when the government lets the market kill off the old and weak and have the new generation come in. If GM had died we might very well see NEW transportation companies come in with wacky but feasible tech like mag lev trains and personal helicopters that would be the norm in 20 years. Now we get 20 years more of GM… So no new jobs for the USA on USA soil with a new sector- but the unions are safe!
Obama has not done a damn thing to make the services market (just bailing out all the wrong guys) grow not has he tired to stop the illegals and those who hire them. Beyond that, the USA us the largest single country market (EU is more but they are many sates and nations) and if we KEEP our buying power then the homegrown market will recover. Obama wants to kill off that option too it seems.
That is why people cast him as failing. He is too hands on in the wrong way and does not know when to stop putting his mitts on the goods and soiling them.
The Deming book is good. I read that in ‘94 and that guy turned Japan around. Good book.
It’s not that trade agreements themselves are bad. I think NAFTA could have been good for us if they would have structured it right. It seems like every time we sign an agreement American people are on the losing end. It’s almost as if we were the ones with a third world economy and needed Mexico to trade with us. If we had required certain wage, environmental, safety and other protections we would have been fine. In fact, the alien problem would have went away after a while because the pay in Mexico would have been commenserate to that in the U.S. Instead, we place no contingencies on it and no tarifs to speak of. So of course American manufacturers ran to Mexico. Hell you don’t even have the shipping costs you pay coming from China.
As far as G.M. goes, I’ll say my peice about the unions and then address whether we should have bailed them out or not. The unions in many cases are corrupt and greedy. This is a fact. Equally true of the companies the unions do business with. I’ve made the argument before about the government for better or worse, is the lesser of two evils, and keeps the corporations from writing our laws and setting our standards. Equally true, unions; for all of their flaws are the only real protection for workers. This is a fact, workers who are employed in non-union jobs make less money, get less time off, are less likely to have health care benefits, and have fewer incentives. As for the UAW I agree that those people were making more money than they deserved. They had a stranglehold on the auto industry and really got carried away with it. But understand, if not for unions, how do working Americans get even a fair amount of the benefits I mentioned above? The government can’t come in and say who gets what, so who does? For all their faults the unions are the only check to balance big business. The G.M. workers, seeing the writing on the wall did negotiate down to help the company. Their fate is tied to that of G.M.’s.
You say that dying companies should be left to die. But you are talking about normal circumstances, and in that case they would have. We are in a severe recession, we are trying to stop as much job loss as is possible. Understand that there are more stakeholders than just the G.M. workers. If G.M. employs a hundred thousand directly, consider ten times that amount who rely on G.M. for the bulk of their business. They say Detroit is the motor city, what they don’t mention is all of the regional cities that rely on Detroit’s car companies. Lansing, Flint, Toledo, Cleveland, Dayton and all kinds of small towns in between. In fact some of the smaller towns feature a stamping, or logistics plant for one of the big three and almost nothing else.
You say that we are moving toward a service based economy. But what services are you referring to? Look into what’s been happening with the HS1B Visas. Once again, corporations have taken advantage of a law so that they can exploit cheap labor. They have laid off thousands of American service and tech. workers while simoultaniously bringing in Indians to work at reduced pay and benefits. Right now there are thousands of American service workers out of work, who are qualified to the jobs that Indian’s are doing right now, not just in this country but overseas.
$50 says this president sets the record for worst approval rating. And that’s really saying something, especially after Bush.
No bet. Anything could happen between now and the end of his term or terms.
Let me say this though, consider what you are saying. You betting that Obama will have the all time lowest approval rating is the same as you laying money on his presidency failing. Now this could possibly happen because of a sex scandal or something personal like that. But most likely, his numbers will only get that low if the nation fails to come out of the recession, or we suffer another bad terrorist attack, or the health care initiative fails and we continue to suffer under the same system.
Think about what you are saying, you are wagering on the misfortune of your nation.
Unfortunately, it would probably be a good bet for the very reasons you listed.
Well if you’re referring to his promiscuity it’s certainly a possibility. Many U.S. Presidenst have engaged in ilicit affairs and God knows our current crop of politicians are not exactly writing the book on monogomy.
I think the legislation will get done and things will get better economically.
naw, couldn’t care less if he gets a little on the side, the press wouldn’t report it anyway. I am specifically talking about a possible deepening recession, (which Obama said the other day was a real possibility) and continuing terrorist attacks such as the one at Ft. Hood the other day.
I can’t say that we “suffer” under the current health care system. A large majority of people in this country like what they have. The problems we do have could be fixed without a major overhaul that includes a take over of 1/7 of the US economy. Mostly, I don’t want the government to have that much control over my life.
Well terrorist attacks like that at Ft. Hood seem to be unavoidable and I don’t know why. All the info was there to take this guy down just like before 9/11 but it just didn’t make it’s way up the chain of command. I would have thought that after the 9/11 commision and the advent of Homeland Security they would have gotten better at identifying these guys and getting the information to the top and acting on it. Having said that, as long as we have firearms people are always going to be able to walk up into a crowded building and start shooting. Look at Virginia Tech. Same thing as FT. Hood. American citizen who’s gone off his rocker and starts murdering people. Just because this guy was of arab decent, and did it for the same reasons as the jihadists doesn’t really make a difference. Homegrown terrorism is hard to stop. I don’t think anyone ever even saw Timothy McVey coming.
The recesion will only get worse if we don’t start creating jobs. Remember we were hemmoraging jobs for a long time before the banks took a dive. So even though Wall Street has all but recovered, there’s still no jobs. To fix that we almost have to create them all over again. And that has been hampered by the fact that AIG and Wells Fargo and the rest took the TARP and invested in the stock market and wouldn’t loan to home buyers and small businesses. Obama has diverted the remaining bail out money to smaller local banks and credit unions with the understanding that they will use the money for it’s intended purpose.
If everyone walked around armed Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech and Columbine would never have happened.
Yeah we might prevent those mass shootings. What is equally true is that extraordinary numbers of bar fights and road rage and arguments between neighbors would end in shootings. Look at the old west. Yes, it was a different time, and a harder world, but the fact that almost everyone walked around with a gun was a big reason for the violence. Look at some of the things people got shot over. A lot of towns in the west made people surrender their firearms when they came into town. They knew that guns made disagreements deadly.
Also, understand there are a lot of cowards in our society who would rather pull out a gun and shoot someone than engage in a physical confrontation.
A dude named Jeff who was on my boxing team when I was younger got into a fight with two black guys outside of a club about three years ago. He was kicking both their asses. One got to their car, got a gun and killed him. A coward with a gun is a very dangerous thing. These are realities. Also, most criminal’s get their guns from legal citizens by way of theft. The drug dealer has money and drugs with which to purchase guns from the burgler who is looking to score drugs or money from the guns he stole out of Arlan’s house. More citizens have guns, more criminals have guns.
Promoting gun posession would be the worst thing you could do. Homicides would skyrocket as a result. Many more people would die if we pursued that line of thinking.
Do you really think that if guns are outlawed, the criminals will give them up, too?
Killings in the old west weren’t as common as Hollywierd would lead you to believe. Only a scattered few were responsible and the local citizenry usually took care of the problem when it got out of hand. (see Northfield, MN and the James gang.)
States with concealed carry laws did not have an increase in homicide rates after passage of these laws. The main places where people shoot each other is where the criminal element holds sway. (See progressive strongholds such as DC, Detoilet, Chicago and LA. All places with strict gun control laws.)
The criminals would have to give them up because they would have no access to them. Speaking of Hollywood, most gang bangers and crooks in the city do not get their guns from Columbian arms smugglers. Also, if you are implying that random citizens carrying fire arms somehow cuts down on crime you are mistaken. The fact is people who have guns look for excuses to use them. Also, in bad situations like home invasions, gun owners many times have their own weapons used against them by the assailants.
You refer to the larger cities as Liberal strongholds and your trying (purposely) to mis represent the situation. What you mean to say is that the criminal element is concentrated in the cities. That is true just like everything else is concentrated in the city. Also, it doesn’t matter how strict the gun laws are in any one city or state, if guns are flooding in from all the surrounding areas then the criminals are going to have them. What’s more, I’m not suggesting that banning guns would stop every criminal from ever having a gun. But it would seriously cut down on the number of criminals who do.
But let’s not get too far off the point, you said if more people carried guns then we wouldn’t have these mass shootings. I countered by saying that while that may be true, we would see many more shootings over minor altercations all accross the country.
Actually when I say that crime is worse in liberal strong holds that’s precisely what I mean. Thus I mentioned several of the worst who just happened to have been controlled by the liberals for decades.
You really do live in a dream world if you think that criminals that want a gun wouldn’t have them in a Utopian world where guns are outlawed. If they couldn’t get them from other sources, someone would start making them.
“The fact is people who have guns look for excuses to use them. Also, in bad situations like home invasions, gun owners many times have their own weapons used against them by the assailants.” Do you have a source for these “facts” or do you just make them up as you go? The NRA puts out a magazine every month. I haven’t read one for years, but it used to list dozens of incidences each month of people defending themselves and their homes with firearms. In this world of liberal media I believe that anytime someone had their own weapon used against them would be highly publicized, yet you hardly ever hear of it. I think you exaggerate your point. In addition, states that have concealed carry laws didn’t have a raise in shooting accompany passage of these laws. What support do you have for your position that people carrying guns around would look for reasons to use them. They put a person in jail for using a firearm in an inappropriate manner. There are millions of people legally carrying guns in this country everyday. Even the main stream media can’t provide stories of people legally carrying firearms using them inappropriately.
No. The nation can turn around (in 2010? Too many factors to guess at the future) and the disapproval of BHO can be directed at him for his actions.
After two years people hated Clinton and that lead to the 94 win and the Contract with America (Right wing) who had the house and senate for the 90s run. Clinton got his mojo back after going against an underwhelming Dole but the had his scandal. The venom at him had nothing to do with the fail then win turn around of the USA’s fortune for those years; it was divorced and pointed at Clinton for Clinton’s actions.
Most of Obama’s actions,if not all, seem to hurt the USA and our standing. So if he fails our nation could benefit from that screw up of his. How is it that we have gotten benefit from Obama’s leadership thus far? We have not.
Recall how close the victory for his win really was. He made a lot of big talk promises and has dropped the ball on them. How does surrendering 1/6 of the economy (Obamacare take over), in a time when his lies about the stimulus success and polices to keep the USA in a recession, make this guy a man who offers a “I win as POTUS and you the USA win” deal? It does not- if Obama fails it gives a chance for counter points to his polices to be tried and used; those 180 degrees from what Obama would have us take.
Obama set himself up with his radical actions to make it a win/lose situation. So if he was for the aims of the USA and he did good- we do good as well. He is not acting that way with this polices. When he wins the nation seems to get hit by the s*it hammer. So a fail for Obama is a win for the USA in the current running.
You say that all of Obama’s policies hurt America. I say name them and demonstrate the damage they have done.
I say that even his mis-steps have benefitted America to some extent. For example, there should have been more restrictions on the TARP money. To this I give Bush credit as well. While the banks didn’t laon money to small business and home buyers, they did invest in wall street which has all but recovered. Mis-step to be sure, and yes they did it with tax payer money that adds to the deficit but that was bound to happen no matter what. Money had to be spent, Bush and the Republicans knew it and so did Obama and the Democrats.
Also you cite “Obamacare” which incidently is being entirely crafted by congress. The CBO says that the bill will actually reduce the deficit over the next ten years. The CBO is not a partisan office. It is a team of bean counters, all they do is crunch the numbers, they make no judgements. Republicans are free to turn the bill over to any accounting firm and get a second opinion but they don’t because they know the truth.
Also, health care is one seventh of our economy and growing because we seriously overpay. Who knows, maybe twenty years from now, healthcare will only represent one twentieth of our economy.
Why do people hate Obama?
From email land:
” If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s
holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM,
would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the
Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of
inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him
a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod
containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this
embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia ,
would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to
the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have
brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of
advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income
taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to
refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it
was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried
again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word
“advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe
as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to
go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s
a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force
One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in
downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood
victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made
homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing
political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who
report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is
happening in America , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a
major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority
to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt,in one year,
which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, would
you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt
again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had referred to the 57 states that make
up these United States, would you have thought him “geographically
challenged”?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so
brilliant and impressive? Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry.
He’s done all this in 10months — so you’ll have three years and two months to come up
with an answer.”
Why do people hate Bush?
1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.
2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.
3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.
4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.
5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.
6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
7. Deriding “nation-building” during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.
8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.
9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.
10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.
11. Trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to topple Saddam.
12. Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq’s water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country’s infrastructure.
13. Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if weapons existed in Iraq.
14. Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.
15. Announcing that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a “Mission Accomplished” banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush’s announcement than before it.
16. Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food.
17. Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited aid from European allies or the U.N.
18. Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important.
19. Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.
20. Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to “coalition partners,” unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia.
21. Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.
22. Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for “inciting violence” – the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had.
23. Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell.
24. Allowing several members of the Bin Laden family to leave the country just days after 9/11, some of them without being questioned by the FBI.
25. Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11.
26. Thinking al Qaeda could not attack without state sponsors, and ignoring evidence of a growing threat unassociated with “rogue states” like Iraq or North Korea.
27. Threatening to veto the Homeland Security department – The President now concedes such a department “provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before.”
28. Opposing the creation of the September 11th commission, which the President now expects “to contain important recommendations for preventing future attacks.”
29. Denying documents to the 9/11 commission, only relenting after the commissioners threatened a subpoena.
30. Failing to pay more attention to an August 6, 2001 PDB entitled “Bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S.”
31. Repeatedly ignoring warnings of terrorists planning to use aircraft before 9/11.
32. Appointing the ultra-secretive Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission – Kissinger stepped down weeks later due to conflicts of interest.
33. Asking for testimony before the 9/11 commission be limited to one hour, a position from which the president later backtracked.
34. Not allowing national Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 commission – Bush changed his mind as pressure mounted.
35. Cutting an FBI request for counterterrorism funds by two-thirds after 9/11.
36. Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
37. Failing to adequately secure the nation’s nuclear weapons labs.
38. Not feeling a sense of urgency about terrorism or al Qaeda before 9/11.
39. Reducing resources and troop levels in Afghanistan and out before it was fully secure.
40. Not providing security in Afghanistan outside of Kabul, leaving nearly 80% of the Afghan population unprotected in areas controlled by Feudal warlords and local militias.
41. Committing inadequate resources for the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
42. Counting too heavily on locally trained troops to fill the void in Afghanistan once U.S. forces were relocated to Iraq.
43. Not committing US ground troops to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, when he was cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November, 2001.
44. Allowing opium production to resume on a massive scale after the ouster of the Taliban.
45. Opposing an independent inquiry into the intelligence failures surrounding WMD – later, upon signing off on just such a commission, Bush claimed he was “determined to make sure that American intelligence is as accurate as possible for every challenge in the future.”
46. Saying: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”
47. Trusting intelligence gathered by Vice President Cheney’s and Secretary Rumsfeld’s “Office of Special Plans.”
48. Spending $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year to develop new nuclear weapons this year – 50% more in real dollars than the average during the cold war – while shortchanging the troops on body armor.
49. Ignoring the importance of the Middle East peace process, which has deteriorated with little oversight or strategy evident in the region.
50. Siding with China in February, 2004 against a democratic referenda proposed by Taiwan, a notable shift from an earlier pledge to stand with “oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives.”
51. Undermining the War on Terrorism by preemptively invading Iraq.
52. Failing to develop a specific plan for dealing with North Korea.
53. Abandoning the United States’ traditional role as an evenhanded negotiator in the Middle East peace process.
54. Signing a report endorsing outsourcing with thousands of American workers having their jobs shipped overseas.
55. Instituting steel tariffs deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization – Bush repealed them 20-months later when the European Union pledged to impose retaliatory sanctions on up to $2.2 billion in exports from the United States.
56. Promoting economic policies that failed to create new jobs.
57. Promoting economic policies that failed to help small businesses
58. Pledging a “jobs and growth” package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 and 5.5 million new jobs by 2004—so far the president has fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of the mark.
59. Running up a foreign deficit of “such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy.”
60. Issuing inaccurate budget forecasts accompanying proposals to reduce the deficit, omitting the continued costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and elements of Homeland Security.
61. Claiming his 2003 tax cut would give 23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042 when “nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less” than that amount.
62. Passing tax cuts for the wealthy while falsely claiming “people in the 10 percent bracket” were benefiting most.”
63. Passing successive tax cuts largely responsible for turning a projected surplus of $5 trillion into a projected deficit of $4.3 trillion.
64. Moving to strip millions of overtime pay.
65. Not enforcing corporate tax laws.
66. Backing down from a plan to make CEOs more accountable when “the corporate crowd” protested.
67. Not lobbying oil cartels to change their mind about cutting oil production.
68. Passing tax cuts weighted heavily to help the wealthy.
69. Moving to allow greater media consolidation.
70. Nominating a notorious proponent of outsourcing, Anthony F. Raimondo, to be the new manufacturing Czar—Raimondo withdrew his name days later amidst a flurry of harsh criticism.
71. Ignoring calls to extend unemployment benefits with long-term unemployment reaching a twenty-year high
72. Threatening to veto pension legislation that would give companies much needed temporary relief.
73. Under-funding No Child Left Behind
74. Breaking his campaign pledge to increase the size of Pell grants.
75. Signing off on an FY 2005 budget proposing the smallest increase in education funding in nine years.
76. Under-funding the Title I Program, specifically targeted for disadvantaged kids, by $7.2 billion.
77. Freezing Teacher Quality State Grants, cutting off training opportunities for about 30,000 teachers, and leaving 92,000 less
teachers trained than the president called for in his own No Child Left Behind bill.
78. Freezing funding for English language training programs.
79. Freezing funding for after school programs, potentially eliminating 50,000 children from after-school programs.
80. Not leveling with Americans about the cost of Medicare – the president told Congress his new Medicare bill would cost $400 billion over ten years despite conclusions by his own analysts the bill would cost upwards of $500 billion over that period.
81. Silencing Medicare actuary Richard Foster when his estimates for the Administration’s Medicare bill were too high.
82. Letting business associate David Halbert, who owns a company which stands to make millions from new discount drug cards, craft key elements of the new Medicare bill.
83. Underfunding health care for troops and veterans.
84. Allowing loopholes to persist in Mad-Cow regulations.
85. Relaxing food labeling restrictions on health claims.
86. Falsely claiming the restrictions on stem cell research would not hamper medical progress.
87. Reducing action against improper drug advertising by 80 percent.
88. Abandoning the Kyoto Treaty without offering an alternative for reducing greenhouse effect.
89. Counting on a voluntary program to reduce emissions of harmful gasses—so far only a tiny fraction of American companies have signed up.
90. Gutting clean air standards for aging power plants.
91. Weakening energy efficiency standards.
92. Relaxing dumping standards for mountaintop mining, and opening the Florida Everglades and Oregon’s Siskiyou National Forest to mining.
93. Lifting protection for more than 200 million acres of public land.
94. Limiting public challenges to logging projects and increased logging in protected areas, including Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.
95. Weakening environmental standards for snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles while pushing for exemptions for air pollution proposals for five categories of industrial facilities.
96. Opposing legislation that would require greater fuel efficiency for passenger cars.
97. Reducing inspections, penalties for violations, and prosecution of environmental crimes.
98. Misleading the public about the Washington mad cow case and the likely effectiveness of USDA’s weak testing program.
99. Withdrawing public information on chemical plant dangers, previously used to hold facilities accountable for safety improvements.
100. Cutting grants to state and local governments in FY 2005, forcing states to make massive cuts in job training, education, housing and environment.
There’s a hundred to start with. I’ll go get more if you can’t see why people hate Bush yet.
Nobody cares anymore. Get over Bush. He left office almost a year ago and was a lame duck for two years before that. If you can’t answer the mans points without changing the subject, why bother to answer at all.
You cannot get over Bush while his legacy remains. Remember, the two wars and the financial crisis were born out of his presidency and we are still dealing with those. So I will continue to reference Bush as his policies are pertinant to the situation we find ourselves in today. What’s more, I clearly recall debating with conservatives as recently as 2007 who still made constant referances to Clinton’s affair and how “Clinton gave us a black eye”. You guys used Clinton for the entire eight years of Bush’s Presidency (maybe not you personally) and you expect liberals to forget Bush after eleven months? That would be pretty unfair don’t you think?
In this particular instance, I refer to Bush just to demonstrate that if you don’t like the president you can find endless greivances against him. Most of the items on the list against Bush are water under the bridge, but not all.
my only problem with Clinton and Monica was that he put himself in a position that weakened his ability to do his job.
I have always supported Bush on the war in Iraq because there is no doubt they had weapons of mass destruction in the form of poison gases (that he used on the Kurds) so it was only logical that they probably had more, especially since the entire western intelligence community reported that they had them. The fact that none were found once we went in doesn’t prove or even indicate that Bush lied especially since both Clintons indicated that they believed the weapons were there. However, once we were there it was necessary to finish the job. I don’t know what’s happening in Afghanistan. I think we should sh*t or get off the pot. Send in enough troops to finish it or leave. Now.
The economy is rapidly becoming Obama’s baby. When you campaign on a platform of fixing the economy and it continues to deteriorate, when the people can’t figure out what you are trying to do, you can only blame the prior administration so long.
It’s funny, I have no problem with many of your points and consider them positive. Go figure.
Likewise. You are clearly an intelligent and insightfull person and I enjoy our conversations. I just can’t figure how someone so bright got off track!
actually, you misunderstood what I meant. I found many of the things you listed positive in that I agreed with Bush. Guess I’m not as intelligent and insightful as you thought.
Why try terrorists in military tribunals, if you can add to our deficit & NYC’s crippled economy w/ more costs for security, clogged courts, cheap media photo-ops?
If thoughtful and sincere, would you skip the photo-op in Oslo for the Peace Prize and visit our troops? Peace? Well he did save one turkey. Another saved job, no doubt !
You don’t get the troops man. They are sick and tired of conservative lip service. They are tired of you using them for political purposes.
Obama has already passed two wage increases for our troops and has signed into law the new G.I. Bill (which he and Jim Webb crafted while Obama was still a Senator). Also, he has appointed Shinzeki as head of the V.A. and he is a pro-soldier general. They are currently working to streamline and update the entire V.A. system so that returning soldiers can get the aid and benefits they need without months of run-around and red tape.
Like I said, you’ve abused our service men and women long enough. Instead of another pointless visit, Obama and the Dems are showing their appreciation in deed, rather than a handfull of adulations before hitting the links.
The troops say you can keep your self-serving and hollow words.
Confusius say: The essence of knowledge is, having it and to apply it. Not having it, is simply a means to express one’s ignorance.
goodness! whoever do you mean?
certainly not you arlan.