Reply With Quote
Would that be the 'all time high' of the 10 months he's been in office?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Ga...-Approval.aspx
What are the reasons for this?
Afghan strategy? Climategate? Health-care? Deficit? Failure to comply with the promises about the economy recovery/stimulus package?
Would that be the 'all time high' of the 10 months he's been in office?
Oh, he took a progressive hit for Afghanistan...and to appease who? Republicans who will never like him...
Jobs, jobs, jobs.
...me think those numbers were already reflected...
When are people going to stop using time as an excuse for Obama sucking ass? He wanted to be president. He should have known that he wasn't going to be able to magically fix everything right away. Its his fault. He shouldn't have acted like he was going to magically fix everything in America and make it all better when he was running for president. He should have been realistic.
However, people apparently enjoyed hearing all of the unrealistic promises made by Obama.
Is it realistic to think that he is being unrealistic, or realistic to believe that Obama could fix all our problems in 1 year? Who's being unrealistic?
Its obviously tied to the economoy.
maybe, but a lot of people are mad about not getting the out of Afghanistan....mostly because they don't GAF about the geopolitics involved...
Pretty much sums it up. Nice move by the most intelligent President we've ever had.
The war and the economy, both things that people across the political spectrum take issue with.
Not really. Progressives are mad, but they're not a huge portion of the population. It is obviously the economy. Everything else is secondary to 10% unemployment.
It is the ecomomy. And no matter how charismatic you guys think Obama is, or how you lame you think the Republicans prospects are in 2012, if the economy is still stagnant like it is now, you will be sorely challenged to keep Pat Robertson from winning, much less someone like Sarah Palin. Reagan was an absolute joke in 1976....he wasn't after 4 years of Carter's clueless economic ing around.
And the poor people are the ones taking it up the ass the worst in this economy, and that novel feeling of thinking they have one of their own in office is going to fade real fast if their economy does not improve. They don't like Obama more than they like their lives.
Credit where it is due:
Obama's been much better and realistic on his foreign policy than he is getting credit for. Plus he's actually got diplomatic skills(although he does come off as preoccupied with himself), the major problem with W's foriegn policy. W was the worst diplomat to ever sit in the oval office. He was absolutely horrible at it, and he was from the day he took office. He was a privileged brat and he had the diplomacy skills of one.
I am satisfied with Obama's foreign policy for now, I have watched this change in his at ude and it was something that started before he was elected President, after he visited Iraq. There is absolutely no doubt he now thinks some of his far left buddies need a reality check. You can tell by the decisions he is making...
However, there is absolutely no way anyone can say Obama has had a tougher task to fixing the economy than Bush did, don't even attempt to make that claim with the way the US changed after Sept 11th, and he hasn't been as good. The Democrats would be all over Bush if the employment numbers dropped at all, and time and time again that admin would get the economy kickstarted, with tax reduction policies, or some kind of stupid spend speech...then the complaint would be that they aren't quality jobs and it shallow superficial improvement.
Low quality jobs are better than no jobs.
The Democrats held Buh up to Clinton and arguably the greatest economic period in American history, for 8 years, and while Bush didn't match up to Clinton's record, he had a tougher road, and he held serve.
And I'm sorry, but you guys weren't saying "it's only been 10 months" about the economy when Bush was President, and there was an economic downturn. The demand was instant results and he was pretty effective at providing them, while the Democrats have produced nothing...and the only reason they haven't produced negative results is because they haven't been able to implement the changes they want. Carter is still looming right around the corner.
I said it in another thread, but I'm almost certain Afghanistan has more to do with securing Pakistani nukes and deterring Iranian ones than anything else.
I guess I can understand why they wouldn't come right out and say this, but in a bare sense, it is plausible.
It doesn't seem to be working vis a vis the Iranians, and repeated US statements about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to not exactly inspire confidence. It's not intuitively clear to me how our current strategy conduces to solve these problems, or even, whether it does at all.
It seems to me to verge on spiritual hubris to think that what we do right now will decisively solve the nuclear security of Pakistan, the nuclear future of Iran and the democratic futures of Iraq and Aghanistan. The objectives seem unreasonable, even unattainable. By us, anyway.
I'm not saying these aren't problems that cry out to be managed. I just happen to doubt that regional security is best served by two wars of occupation and escalating predator strikes on Pakistan.
Pakistan is too modern and volatile a country to endure an American occupation (they already complain about our scouting and bombing drones flying in their airspace), so a staging ground in the vacant lot next door is the next best thing. I don't think the concern is that Paki nukes will fall into the wrong hands through the current administration, but that insurgent forces from the northeast will again surge towards the capital. Were this to happen, it would be a good war for the administration politically.
As to Iran, with Afghanistan, we'd have two staging grounds along two borders of Ahmadenijad's roost. It may be that he remains unbowed and continues uranium enrichment, etc, but I think the state department is tired of his and he knows it. I think he is quickly pushing the situation towards a fight-or-acquiesce situation, and given that he knows his country would be obliterated in the sort of formal war our troops have been trained to fight, he should back down. If he doesn't, he provides another popular war for the administration to fight around election time.
No question the line we've been sold about our commitment to Afghan reconstruction (wait... was it ever constructed?) and Iraqi sovereignty seems futile and arrogant, but given that the former country has zero strategic value in and of itself, and the latter country has already been reduced to a turbulent colony, I'm forced to assume we aren't really in either place to fight wars we can't afford for nothing.
This.
Americans are watching the unemployment rate go up and up and up, and in the mean time Obama and congress are busy talking about healthcare, global warming, the olympics, and a bunch of other stuff not related to jobs.
+1. It's the economy stupid.
It'll get better stupid.
If some pollster called me and asked the standard approve/disapprove question I might be inclined to go with Somewhat Disapprove. As I do.
Is there a chance in that my 2012 vote would go to Obama's GOP opposition?
Disappointment is not going to mean defection. And if the GOP splits itself into The Insane vs. The In bent, then , it wouldn't really matter anyways.
It's the 10% unemployment or is it the 10% unemployment vis a vis the Administration promises about the evolution of the economy just a few months ago?
Damn, some people get it. Especially C_G. Healthcare, Afghanistan, bank bailouts, global-who-gives-a-flying- -warming...all while 1 in 10 Americans have no job.
Thats why Obama, so far, sucks major balls.
EDITED to include the others.
Last edited by DarkReign; 12-08-2009 at 01:04 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
