Bush Gaining on Obama; Or, I Told You So!

[BeBMan]

Do you wish Blair back

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, he was great

Hell no, he was an arsehole.

[RGBVideo]

This is an amusing thread.

Yeah, but Reagan's first year wasn't so bad that close to half of the electorate wanted ****ing Carter back.

I'd like a source for this, please.

After his assassination attempt popularity surge which helped with pushing through his economic program through the Congress, Reagan had low approval ratings throughout his 1st and 2nd years in office. They were mostly in the 40a/50d -range, and lowest point was at the start of his 3rd year, 35a/55d. If you look at approval rate-graphs, Obama's popularity trend seems to develop very near to what used to be Reagan's popularity curve, and right now you're the one who's also arguing that it's because of the very same reasons, ie. public's frustration with on-going recession triggered at the end of his predecessor's term and high unemployement.

[David Floyd]

I'm not arguing Reagan's APPROVAL rating, I'm simply saying that I don't recall any polls that showed the electorate preferred Carter over Reagan. And no, 44% in this poll doesn't put Bush over Obama, it just puts him far closer than ANYONE would have predicted a year ago.

Also, I don't recall specifically saying why I thought Obama's popularity was waning - hell, if it's the recession, then why is Bush being increasingly seen as a better President? If you ask me, it's because Obama's a big fat liar, and if there's anything Americans hate, it's big fat liars

[Theben]

You mean he made campaign promises he didn't keep?!

I'm shocked; shocked, I tell you!

[Elok]

The funny thing is, he's doing a lot of things the way he said he would; he tried, at least initially, to build a strong bipartisan consensus. He's shown himself fairly open to diplomacy while escalating the war in Afghanistan. He's taken time to think things over carefully before coming to a decision.

I'm not saying those are all good (or bad) things, but he said he'd work that way, and so he is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama is mainly guilty of not closing Gitmo as fast as he said he would--and Congress has some of the responsibility for that delay--and not stopping "rendition" of terror suspects.

Anyway, now a sizable proportion of us feel they'd rather have our old "decisive" monkey-boy back, which just shows that we as a nation deserved to be afflicted with that bumbling ass.

[Jon Miller]

The main failures of Obama are domestic issues.

JM

[Wezil]

You mean he made campaign promises he didn't keep?!

I'm shocked; shocked, I tell you!

So long as you give pols a pass for this they will continue doing it.

[Straybow]

[Q=Elok;5721368]The funny thing is, he's doing a lot of things the way he said he would; he tried, at least initially, to build a strong bipartisan consensus.[/q] Ah, the naivete of youth... just don't drink the cool-aide.

He's made absolutely no effort for "bipartisan" anything. He's made speeches saying he's "open to suggestions" but they're lies. He listens to suggestions that agree with what he and his fellow leftist radicals already plan to do. Any time people oppose him they're racists, bigots, and torturing warmongers.

He's shown himself fairly open to diplomacy while escalating the war in Afghanistan. He's taken time to think things over carefully before coming to a decision.

He'd been in the Senate making votes and speeches about these issues for 4 years. He consulted with his own generals to the same extent that he consulted with Republicans on the auto bail-outs and health care. He said he "doesn't feel comfortable" with the idea of winning the war in Afghanistan.

I'm not saying those are all good (or bad) things, but he said he'd work that way, and so he is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama is mainly guilty of not closing Gitmo as fast as he said he would--and Congress has some of the responsibility for that delay--and not stopping "rendition" of terror suspects.

You are wrong. Gitmo is what the left is upset about; that's "I told you so" material for the conservatives. He also said he'd be the paragon of openness, and wouldn't sign a bill until it had been available for public review on the White House website for five days. I don't think he's done that once.

Anyway, now a sizable proportion of us feel they'd rather have our old "decisive" monkey-boy back, which just shows that we as a nation deserved to be afflicted with that bumbling ass.

Yes, we deserve a President who doesn't intend to turn this country into an Orwellian nightmare.

[Elok]

Ah, the naivete of youth... just don't drink the cool-aide.

He's made absolutely no effort for "bipartisan" anything. He's made speeches saying he's "open to suggestions" but they're lies. He listens to suggestions that agree with what he and his fellow leftist radicals already plan to do. Any time people oppose him they're racists, bigots, and torturing warmongers.

Revisionist memory. He made several overtures to senate Republicans in the beginning, offering compromises that pissed off a few Democrats. But the Republicans sulked and after a while the majority moved on without them. Because there's little need for compromise when you have a majority, and no point in trying if the other side won't play.

Also, it's "Kool-Aid."

He'd been in the Senate making votes and speeches about these issues for 4 years. He consulted with his own generals to the same extent that he consulted with Republicans on the auto bail-outs and health care. He said he "doesn't feel comfortable" with the idea of winning the war in Afghanistan.

Yes, I'm sure he said that: "I don't feel comfortable with the idea of winning the war in Afghanistan. Also, I hate my own freedom and Allah is just the bee's knees." Probable actual words: "I don't feel comfortable with [minute policy distinction practically nobody follows but which conservatives oppose once they parse it]."

You are wrong. Gitmo is what the left is upset about; that's "I told you so" material for the conservatives. He also said he'd be the paragon of openness, and wouldn't sign a bill until it had been available for public review on the White House website for five days. I don't think he's done that once.

That doesn't matter. Even the congresspeople who vote on the bills typically don't read all of them. How could they? The typical bill is 100+ pages, and they're all too busy campaigning for reelection to actually do their damned jobs properly. Quick, tell me: what was the last bill you actually read in its entirety, or even read the highlights of? Surely they're available to the public in some form besides the WH web site?

Yes, we deserve a President who doesn't intend to turn this country into an Orwellian nightmare.

I regret to inform you that you are a ****. The only infringements on civil liberties under Obama are leftovers from the Bush administration. Unless you count his childish vendetta with Fox News as a crackdown on freedom of the press.

[Straybow]

[Q=Elok;5721514]Probable actual words: "I don't feel comfortable with [minute policy distinction practically nobody follows but which conservatives oppose once they parse it]."[/q]
Yes, he did actually say it. Maybe if you paid attention to what he says and does you'd be in a better position to judge what he says and does.
[q=Obama on ABC News, July 24, 2009, when asked about his goals in Afghanistan]I'm always worried about using the word "victory," because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.[/q]

He made several overtures to senate Republicans in the beginning, offering compromises that pissed off a few Democrats.

He made some speeches offering vague compromises that vanished but as soon as his base whined at the very thought. No actual compromises made, which would indeed be bipartisan. Can you cite something that I've missed other than pork promised to liberal Republicans?

Quick, tell me: what was the last bill you actually read in its entirety, or even read the highlights of?

HR 3200. Wifey was mad that I spent all that time reading the excremental thing.

Yes, we deserve a President who doesn't intend to turn this country into an Orwellian nightmare.

I regret to inform you that you are a ****. The only infringements on civil liberties under Obama are leftovers from the Bush administration. Unless you count his childish vendetta with Fox News as a crackdown on freedom of the press.

Apparently you need to read Animal Farm. Orwell uses some big words, but with cute little animals it makes it easier, you know. It deals with concepts a bit more subtle than tossing journalists in the clink.

[RGBVideo]

He said he "doesn't feel comfortable" with the idea of winning the war in Afghanistan.

Now this is interesting. What was the policy of winning the war which Republicans support and Obama is opposing? How would you win the war in Afganistan?

[Elok]

[Q=Elok;5721514]Probable actual words: "I don't feel comfortable with [minute policy distinction practically nobody follows but which conservatives oppose once they parse it]."[/q]
Yes, he did actually say it. Maybe if you paid attention to what he says and does you'd be in a better position to judge what he says and does.
[q=Obama on ABC News, July 24, 2009, when asked about his goals in Afghanistan]I'm always worried about using the word "victory," because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.[/q]

Okay, I was wrong: "I'm uncomfortable with using a certain word, because it implies a situation unlikely to be actually realized in the real world." Even dumber to object to.

He made several overtures to senate Republicans in the beginning, offering compromises that pissed off a few Democrats.

He made some speeches offering vague compromises that vanished but as soon as his base whined at the very thought. No actual compromises made, which would indeed be bipartisan. Can you cite something that I've missed other than pork promised to liberal Republicans?

So he's a slave to his base...WHICH WAS MY ORIGINAL ARGUMENT!

Quick, tell me: what was the last bill you actually read in its entirety, or even read the highlights of?

HR 3200. Wifey was mad that I spent all that time reading the excremental thing.

You actually slogged your way through one of those turds? That could explain the poor reading comprehension; you might just have Philosophy Major Syndrome.

Yes, we deserve a President who doesn't intend to turn this country into an Orwellian nightmare.

I regret to inform you that you are a ****. The only infringements on civil liberties under Obama are leftovers from the Bush administration. Unless you count his childish vendetta with Fox News as a crackdown on freedom of the press.

Apparently you need to read Animal Farm. Orwell uses some big words, but with cute little animals it makes it easier, you know. It deals with concepts a bit more subtle than tossing journalists in the clink.

I've read Animal Farm and 1984, and there's no resemblance to either outside of your fevered imagination. He has not, for example, obliterated records of his past actions, nor sicced either attack dogs or secret police on his critics.

[David Floyd]

"Victory" implies a Douglas MacArthur-esque occupation of Afghanistan, in which he rules from the Afghan equivalent of the Dai Ichi building, following the unconditional surrender of Afghainstan?

****.

[Elok]

Not necessarily to that extreme, but that would still be a more sensible reading of what he said than "I am uncomfortable with the word 'victory' because I hate America and want Jihadists to win," or whatever ludicrous interpretation Straybow put on it. My reading was something closer to: "given that past victories have been against national governments, the term may be a bit misleading when applied to a war on an amorphous mass of movements and groups following a set of roughly similar ideologies. It won't be nearly as cut-and-dried as, say, Hirohito signing a treaty to end WWII." Now, if I had all the quote it'd be much less ambiguous, but I can't be asked to look it up.