Obama Approval Rating 53-44
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
First thing that comes to mind, uninformed, bias, inability to focus on more than a 30 second sound bite
So that was different when his approval rating was underwater? People were more focused then, more informed, less bias?
Certainly possible...I preferred him to Clinton in 08 and still do now, even as I am mighty fine with her as well. I most certainly prefer him to Trump. Obviously a decent chunk of people don't like either of them, and realize Obama is better.
I am indifferent to President Obama ,but I dislike the Todd Young ad that asks if you are counting down the days until Obama leaves office.It just shows a nasty attitude toward the President and toward his office that is seen too often in politics nowadays.I thought Young was running for the Senate,not President.
Add Cruz and Bernie to the list as well. Bernie is a real likable guy and seems real, but for most he is just way to far left and has done nothing while a Senator. Cruz has run a less than stellar campaign in terms of ethics, and is generally just not real likeable.
Totally agree - and add Cruz to Trump and Clinton. This election campaign is surreal. Obama looks like the only adult in the room.
Kasich is the best option but the extreme right has zero common sense.
Yes, surreal is right, Clinton can't even separate from freaking Sanders to face Cruz or Trump in the GE? WTF, where are we as a nation, how did we get here, and who knew it first?
Pinch me, because I must be dreaming that these 4 chuckleheads are the best options available to run this once great nation.
The nation is pissed at its elected officials. They line their pockets with special interest money, both domestic and foreign. They lie and continue to mislead the populace all the while selling current and future generations down the river for their own political and financial gain.
It's as if the Republicans and Democrats all are playing a game to distract the people - Republican vs. Democrat, white vs. black, gay vs. straight, Christian vs. Muslim, rich vs. poor...
Meanwhile the country continues to choke on its debt, governmental inefficiency, awful trade and foreign policies, and nothing is being done to address and fix the problems that most rational people can see exist.
It's as if the elite in this country and the world all want the same thing ultimately - more money and power for themselves, and to hell with the "little people" and "rabble-rousers" who don't drink their Kool-Aid. They want control, and they will do everything in their power to destroy this country and the personal freedoms we often take for granted.
Two years ago Democrat Allison Grimes ran against Mitch McConnell for the Senate seat in Kentucky. The Bluegrass Poll, funded by the lunatic liberal Louisville Courier-Journal, had her ahead by two points on the day before the election. She lost by 15 points.
These political polls tend to get findings that please the sponsor that funds them.
These political polls tend to get findings that please the sponsor that funds them.
I dont think Obama is a miracle worker. He's disappointed me on a few things. But I also recognize that Mitch McConnell is not Tip O'Neill, who worked with Reagan to get compromises (you get increased military spending, we get increased social spending and tax raises). Tip didn't have a meeting at the start of Reagan's first term about ways to make him a one term President...so it's amazing Obama has gotten anything done quite frankly.
Obama hasn't gotten anything done. Obamacare is unfolding as a fiscal a train wreck and the ISIS (ISIL?) JV team is stronger than ever. The forthcoming 100,000 moslem immigrants are an achievement?
Obama passed legislation that, while you may not like it, has insured a further 20 million Americans between the marketplaces and Medicaid expansion. While you and I may not agree with it ideologically, that's something.
Obama gave the order that killed Osama Bin Laden in spite of it being a technically illegal action. Also something.
Open dialogue and entry-level trade with Cuba is something.
Bush had as much to do with ISIS as Obama's rapid withdrawal from Iraq did, and the Iraqis no longer wanted us there. So while I agree that Obama's response to ISIS has largely been too passive for my taste, blaming him for the rise of ISIS is at least partly incorrect.
Now, I don't agree with two of those three policy actions either, but to say he hasn't done anything is nothing but partisan. He's certainly not been a do-nothing President.
At this point, I would opt for four more years of Obama over Hillary or Trump/Cruz.
Obama gave the order that killed Osama Bin Laden in spite of it being a technically illegal action. Also something.
Open dialogue and entry-level trade with Cuba is something.
Bush had as much to do with ISIS as Obama's rapid withdrawal from Iraq did, and the Iraqis no longer wanted us there. So while I agree that Obama's response to ISIS has largely been too passive for my taste, blaming him for the rise of ISIS is at least partly incorrect.
Now, I don't agree with two of those three policy actions either, but to say he hasn't done anything is nothing but partisan. He's certainly not been a do-nothing President.
At this point, I would opt for four more years of Obama over Hillary or Trump/Cruz.
Well, I mean you can't "do nothing" and "have completely destroyed America."
Those two things don't go together. Folks gotta pick one!
So, now this loser is Reagan.
All the radical leftists hated Reagan... until they think they can make the incompetent one seem more ... "Presidential"...
Obama has nobody to blame but himself for that. His State of the Union remark where he said his major regret is not bringing R and D together is an absolute joke. He should have taken some notes from Reagan on how to build coalitions or ways to get a majority through Congress. Even Clinton or either Bush would have sufficed too. Hell, Dems had to play political games with legislation with a majority in the House and a basically a filibuster proof Senate and he still had trouble getting bills passed.
When one votes against Supreme Court Justices, votes to filibuster Justice nominations, pretty much single handedly destroys Immigration Reform in 08, lobbied hard to be the POTUS to sign SOFA/Withdraw from Iraq, talks down McCain on national tv about consequences of winning election, is the leader of the party that basically locked out Reps from negotiation on bills, is the leader of the party that compares Reps to terrorists(al-Qaeda), the list goes on, and people want to blame Republicans for the partisanship going on.
Get real. If he had a clue about leadership he would have realized and/or known that as President he would need to work with other parties, and should have been much more cognizant of burning bridges he would later need to get things done in the future. Leadership 101.
He simply did not realize that DC was not going to be like Chicago and IL in general.
Sure, Reps played politics from the beginning too. BS on their part as well. But to blame them for the game Obama played more than anyone is a display of serious projection issues.
Yeah, when Mitch had that meeting in Jan 09 where it was decided everything possible to make him a one term President, it was all Obama's fault. What a joke of an analysis. Reagan didn't build coalitions without WILLING partners. If Tip O'Neill had held a similar meeting, Reagan wouldn't have gotten jack squat done.
Republicans plotted against Obama from day one, but his own public rhetoric has done nothing to overcome that and put the pressure on Republicans otherwise. In addition, the passage of the ACA as they did also didn't help one bit.
Yeah Qaz, just dismiss everything one disagrees with as others do not understand or it is a joke. You are just so much smarter than others. If you would have took the time to read the post, one would have seen the majority of the items that were done by Obama were well before Jan 09.
The two things Reagan did that Obama did bot 1) Invited Tip and other top Dems to WH for dinner every Sunday when he was in DC. That let them all get to know each other as people and their families 2) Did not piss everyone off by his inauguration date
As far as ACA, that was a deal done behind closed doors, that it is now known was not really read but by a handful of people, and it needed procedure members to pass even with majorities in both houses. I am just talking about the bill passage-not going to debate the claimed 20 million people insured number.
No 97, just you...just you. The "items" you talked about before 09? lol hilarious. So, IOW, he was a democrat who held democrat positions...how dare he!
The ACA was based on a republican idea, initially championed by the Heritage Foundation. He COULD have forced through the public option. Or you know the republicans, instead of steadfastedly deciding to do nothing but actively oppose the ACA in any form, could have tried negotiating with him.
Are you seriously suggesting that the guy who gave up the public option (you know a pretty dear to liberals position that he's still criticized on pretty heavily to this day) wouldn't have talked to the republicans? Of course he would have, but they were too busy trying to make sure he was a one-term President.
They did the same thing then they are doing now. They could get a reasonable, moderate Supreme Court justice. But they want to play hard ball and give Obama nothing, so they'll probably end up with a worse option than what they originally so stringently opposed. Which is fine with me.
The bottom line is when you start with we will do nothing to work with you from day one, what exactly do you expect a President to do? It's not the President's job to "overcome total opposition and intransigence from the opposition" because that's an impossible job. And it would be no different if Obama had come in and said I'll never budge one inch or work with republicans while the republicans tried to compromise. They guy who's "not really an American, or Christian, or not a secret Muslim, or not secretly gay, or not secretly an anti-white radical..." is probably not as responsible for the "rhetoric" as you make him out to be.
And it won't be any different with Hillary, because that's where we are now. The reasonable folks in your party are now being drowned out, and have been since Obama won.
Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Obama himself might've negotiated on the bill, but there was no interest, nor a need, for "your party" to do so, so they didn't. That, in part, is what's sown the seeds of polarization in Washington, along with about a dozen other things by BOTH parties. To pretend that Democrats were willing to talk about anything related to the ACA is pretty silly. They had a majority in both houses, they had the White House. They acted on it. Kudos to them.
No, I'm sorry, he could not have forced through the public option at the time. Had he waited and built up his Presidency, maybe late in his first or at the start of his second term he could have, but no way he, or any POTUS, could have FORCED the public option early in their first term.
ACA is here to stay and it sucks because Obama didn't have the power to manage such a large piece of legislation that early and it was handed to those who had the power, special interests representing health insurers.
Is nice that people who didn't have insurance now have access, but from my perspective, and I don't care what some talking head says or the data they throw out, the cost far exceeds what any tax would have been necessary to have a public option, and in the next few years will probably exceed what national health care would cost.
Insurers are not in business to pay claims, they are in business to take in premiums and because Obama was not prepared, or maybe he was prepared to pay off those who got him elected, who knows, we have handed out health care to a group who DO NOT want to pay a claim, they only want the premium, brilliant.
Just goes to show that his polarization causing partisanship strategy had been intact and in operation for awhile. That is why items were listed before 09 as well as after.
Even you with this post are stating that he should be allowed Democratic positions, but that somehow is not ok for Republicans. Now when the strategy was reversed on him, he cried wolf. Go back to my first post, and you will see that is why I say do not burn bridges, especially in politics, never know when one will have to reach across the aisle.
That is also why the only Presidential Candidate worth a shot now Kasich.
And yes, I did mention I thought it was bs on part of Republicans as well.
They absolutely were willing.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/index.html
April 21, 2009 -- Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley hold the first of three roundtables of health policy and industry experts to discuss the development of health care legislation. (this was a bi-partisan committee made up of three Democrats and three Republicans that met 31 times for a period of over 60 hours to develop what would ultimately become the Affordable Care Act.)
July 15, 2009 -- The Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passes The Affordable Health Choices Act. The bipartisan bill includes more than 160 Republican amendments accepted during the month-long mark-up, one of the longest in congressional history.
February 25, 2010 -- Obama holds a televised heath care summit with leaders from both parties to explain the health care bill.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...admission-republicans-helped-write-obamacare/
The willingness to negotiate wasn't just in 09 or even while he was facing re-election:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ng-republicans-democrats-098037#ixzz45Rg4Jixc
Obama says he’s willing to talk about his health care law, after the crisis is over. “If you disagree with certain aspects of it, tell us what you disagree with, and let’s work on it,” Obama said at a press conference Tuesday afternoon.
So, you were saying?
Sure he could have. He had 60 votes. He COULD have cajoled/strong-armed/offered incentives to those 60 Dem Senators to get the public option. It would have been tough, it would have sucked up all of his credit so to speak, but he could have done it.
And just so I'm clear...the insurance companies "got him elected??"
Yes, he was totally partisan, as a democratic senator, voting for democratic issues. Totally crazy. No one has ever done that before! I said nothing about republicans not being allowed to have republican positions. Your powers of reading comprehension once again fail you. There's a huge difference between holding a tough line on republican positions, and having a meeting where your entire goal is to keep the President from a second term from the start, and where even a compromise on issues is verboten because that could mean Obama gets some credit too. Obama never said, my goal is to oppose any and all republican initiatives. Take a moment, go look up his senate record, and tell me when you find that he never ever agreed on anything the republicans did, never co-sponsored or negotiated.
When you can't find that, come on back.
Newsflash for you-Parties out of the power of the executive office want the other party only to be in power for one term. And in congress, where there are elections every two years, it(change of power) is always being planned as well.
My comprehension is fine, thanks for your concern. No, you did not say Republicans could not have Republican positions. But on the other hand, scolded them really well for it when dealing with Obama, but were ok with him having different view points than Republicans. That is called being a hypocrite.
His record with bipartisanship and lack thereof speaks on its own. No need to look anything up.
you will need someone to explain to you the logical disconnect between the first half of your post, and your second half...I don't have the energy.
No-he could not have. That just shows the inability he had to build a coalition in his own party let alone be bipartisan. Look at the procedure moves utilize just to get the train wreck, I mean ACA through. No way all of the Democrats get on board with a public option. And yes, health care/insurance/fiance industry played a large roll in getting Obama elected. Look at all the money he raised from them.
Fi(n)ance?
Go ahead and list for me the amount the health care/insurance industry raised for Obama v McCain in 08. Thanks.
Correction: You do not have the brain power or the ability to see that you think it is ok for Obama to do something but not good when he he gets that same treatment from opposing party.
Dude, go work on your JAG skills. Going broke giving money to soldiers for private counsel that gets them out of trouble that JAG could not.
lol you want to re-write that last sentence in English? And you think the way to lamely attack me is to attack all JAG attorneys, folks who work hard in service to their country? lol ok, that's one way to go.
http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...t-obama-spent-684-million-to-get-elected.aspx
And that was the tip of the iceberg. I have seen/read/heard other sources state that Obama raised the most money from the different categories of financial firms for the first decade of the new century even though he was only in DC for lest than half of it.
I believe Sanders when he says his donations are from citizens and not firms. Obama, yes, his claim on that was a bit of a fib. And of course he was not going to beat Romney in that Department. But yes, the original claim/or what was implied by I lbelieve Kesweci has merit.
