Jan 25 2009
The Obidiot Arises, Opinion Polls Start Falling
It has not taken Obama long to destroy the image of hope and change he presented the American People. As Pew just noted yesterday the top issues for this country – per the voters – is the Economy, Jobs and Terrorism. To date all of Obama’s actions have been irrelevant or undermining to these issues. And now Obama feels the heat of the conservatives (and conservative independents) and has jettisoned ‘hope and change’ for his little tin dictator hat. When faced with requests to be bipartisan as promised, Obama just gave the finger to all of us fed up with the partisan bickering from the left and right:
After less than a week in office, Mr Obama’s presidency is already encountering the very partisan bickering he had pledged to stamp out during his first 100 days.
He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.
The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: “I won. I’m the president.”
This ain’t the change voters were promised. In fact, the snippy attitude is an indicator of a much worse and long lasting problem – Obama is not ready for the job. George Bush was able to guide partisans into reasonable compromises to address this nation’s problems. From stimulus packages to tax cuts to education reform to immigration reform, Bush was able to forge solutions so well the far right went into a panic mode they have yet to recover from. Bush was adept at bringing people together.
Obama is not adept, he is inept. He cannot control his far left base and he cannot handle the challenges of bringing competing or warring factions together. One way to destroy the Democrats is to show how Obama and the Dem Congress are LESS capable than Bush and the GOP Congress. After all the hype and mud thrown at Bush, the last thing they Dems and Obama need is to look like they are incapable of even meeting his standards of accomplishment.
Look at those top priorities of the American voter and then look at the headlines Obama is getting. His signature ‘success’ to date is to recklessly close GITMO – a favor to only terrorists and left wing echo chambers. This idiotic act does nothing for the economy and most Americans are positive it is not strengthening our position against al Qaeda. As suspected, al Qaeda sees this as a sign of weakness, and attacking the now weakened America looks better and better. Too many see GITMO as a white flag of surrender in the war on terror, which is a green light to terrorists.
What has Obama done on the economy? Nothing. Recall Bush was able to get tax cuts and rebates through a split Congress when he came into office. He was able to guide the nation’s economy through recovery after 9-11. Why is it all of a sudden the Dems can’t do something over a recession? Nothing they are proposing will hit the economy for months or years. The only near term, solid change they plan is to raise taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. They plan to HURT the economy, not help it.
The economy is tanking further because it is clear Obama has no spine when it comes to his party’s far left destructive impulses. He is spending his political capitol and precious time making sure America funds abortions overseas instead of focusing on problems here in America. What do the prisoners at GITMO and abortions overseas have to do with fixing the economy, creating good and upwardly mobile jobs and defending the nation from terrorists? Nothing!
And America’s patience is wearing thin. Obama has seen his support drop 20% in the first week in office:
The Gallup Poll on Saturday released the first job-approval rating for President Obama, based on interviews during his first three full days in office: 68 percent.
Now that he’s in office, Obama’s approval ratings are starting to normalize, as partisan back-and-forth picks up. Just a week ago, Gallup found an astonishing 83 percent approval of how he has handled his transition, showing he had even won over most Republicans.
Well, that’s a fairly delusional way to view things. Look, everyone gives a new President a chance. I do and most do because of the office and our country, not because of any special magic with the person. But that window of opportunity can only be held open by producing results. Something Obama has never done in his entire life. He talks a good talk, but that doesn’t meet muster when people are hurting. And people are hurting.
Moreover, people are not pleased with the juvenile and bitter tactics of the liberal nut jobs. Disrespecting our former President and our Military was a huge mistake during the inauguration. Wallowing in childish giddiness that Nirvanna is here simply because we elected the first black male to the top slot is not helping anyone. All America sees is another group of whacky elitists with too much time and money on their hands binge partying now that they survived the retirement of Bush/Cheney.
Here is my prediction. As Obama and the Dems fail to make any difference in the economy and jobs, as al Qaeda and their ilk start rattling their swords and executing successful attacks to unbalance the shaky democrats, those opinion polls will continue to ‘normalize’ southward.
And it will happen at a rate that is stunning. First off, it took YEARS for Bush’s sky-high opinion polls to settle back down to earth. What Obama lost in one week it took Bush years to shed and he did it by trading it in on legislative accomplishments. He lost 20% of his support really fast. I am not saying it will continue to fall at this rate, but if he loses the non-liberal elements of society – which is the path he is on by sucking up to the liberals only – he could dip below 50% by summer of this year. And if he dips below 50% then the Dem Congress is on a path for another 1994.
But before that can happen the GOP needs to get its act together. It is too far into the clutches of its extreme (and now extremely rejected) far right wing to offer an acceptable alternative. The people threw out the GOP and its extremists for being just as tone deaf and insulting to the rest of the country (who exist from the moderate right to the far left) as the far left is now being with everyone to the right of liberal progressives! Being the flip side of the same bad coin will not provide an alternative.
Without some contrition and some acceptance of past bad behavior – along with a promise to not insult and fight with their allies – the far right is not going to get back into power. One example of what I see as short sighted, knee jerk, simple-minded conservatism that will not fly I found over at Jim Geraghty’s Campaign Spot. Which is sad, because I find Jim one of the few people on the right capable of bringing the movement back from oblivion. However, in this one instance the incoherence of the thought that went into sending a conservative message exemplifies how not to win back America as Obama and the Dems implode:
Here are the types of spending priorities you find in an examination of the text of the Economic Recovery Bill:
…
An additional $150 million to NASA for “aeronautics.”
An additional $4.5 billion (with a B) to improve, repair and modernize Department of Defense facilities, restore and modernize Army barracks, and invest in the energy efficiency of Department of Defense facilities.
An additional $1.7 billion (with a B) for projects to address critical deferred maintenance needs within the National Park System.
What struck me as just 3rd grade thinking is the fact that simply because someone doesn’t know what ‘aeronautics’ means they assume it is wasteful spending. Well ‘aeronautics’ means investing in safety and improvements in our civilian airline sector. It means investigating ways to save lives and make flying more efficient. It means, by government investment, these advances are owned by the people of this nation and are not the intellectual property of a corporation alone, so that all who fly in the US for business and pleasure can reap the rewards of these programs.
It is the kind of work that leads to devices and systems and training programs that allow a plane full of people to make an emergency landing in the frigid Hudson River and live to tell about. It is something government should be doing more of, not less. For those who don’t understand why this money is worth spending, there is a little tutorial for you to educate yourself. It is called the NASA Website (see here, here, here and here).
Additionally, is Geraghty (and whomever he linked from) really saying we should not maintain the facilities of our fighting forces? Are we not pro military? Are we not, as conservatives or Americans, willing to spend what it takes to support those in harms way?
The little advertised sad truth is the Feds have not only been tapping into Social Security to fund the pet projects of Congress, they have also been deferring much needed maintenance and upgrade programs for well over a decade to fund these slush funds of friends. They have been ‘porking’ the funds needed to keep our federal facilities simply running. These are not ‘additional’ spending activities in most cases – these are IOUs from the past.
Earmarks come from some place, and the Federal facility infrastructure is rotting out from within because it too has been a source of pork funds. Buildings are in disrepair and their decor is a flashback to the 1940’s. We have computer systems operating critical infrastructure which belong in museums. They are being held up by maintenance depots that include E-Bay, where a lot of people hunt for aging spare parts. I am not overstating how badly we have let our facilities rot so we could get more pork out the door.
And since the GOP has been porking out for all those years of neglect as the leaders of a greedy Congress, it is not a good idea to throw stones from a fractured and barely standing glass house, like this post does. Don’t go there.
Look, so far we still see a race to the cesspool going on left and right. The GOP can pull itself out of the tail spin, but it has to go back to a broad and moderate coalition. And it has to be serious and stop acting like liberal democrats. Only then can it be in a position to step in when the far left policies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid destroy the Dems.
I think this is interesting, found at FREEREPUBLIC
On Wednesday, the president met with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen and Central Command commander four-star Gen. David Petraeus. Gates, supported by Mullen and Petraeus, vigorously argued that the president should back away from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from Iraq within the next 16 months and space out the withdrawal over a longer period of time. However, the president instructed the three officials to prepare a plan that would still implement the 16-month withdrawal period, Pentagon sources said.
The discussion between the president and the three officials was friendly and respectful. However, the president’s determination to implement his stated policy took the officials by surprise, one of the sources told UPI.
kathie:
I don’t know what that means, because Obama has plans to keep a force there to fight AlQaida or whatever. So far as I know he has not as of yet explained how large that force will be.
Hugh Hewitt had an idea, if this money has to be spent, how about a new power grid and nuclear power plants. Bush wanted the plants, but environmental groups have done a great job of stalling them. If Obama wanted to do something big he could get Congress to pass some legislation to speed up that process.
I don’t trust Obama or the Democrats. They say whatever they have to in order to get elected but when push comes to shove there is not much there.
Terrye, I don’t really know what it means either. A little worrying is that it took the group by surprise. I thought he had spoken to the group before, so why the surprise?
AJ:
“He lost 20% of his support really fast.”
1) I love that you like to accuse others of having “a 3rd grade math education”, and then somehow forget that 83-68 = 15, not 20. Subtraction is tricky, I guess.
2) You’re comparing a poll about his transition, to a poll about his Presidency. I could write a few sentences about how they are two completely different things, but you must already know that – I simply refuse to believe that you truly think a comparison of those numbers is apt. Sure, it makes for an easy zinger in your blog post, and I guess you figure you can live with your own hypocrisy.
3) The difference between the two polls is, as stated above, the partisan effect: support from Democrats is practically the same, but Republicans give him much higher marks for the transition (due to appointments that they liked, like keeping Gates), then they do for the first few days of his Presidency, where he did things they really don’t like, such as closing GITMO (an action that, of course, his Democratic supporters are WELL in favor of, by overwhelming numbers).
So, if your big conclusion here is that Republican voters are giving a relatively low approval rating to a new Democratic President – wow, color me shocked.
Oh, and I loved this too:
“What has Obama done on the economy? Nothing.”
ZOMG!! Obama wasn’t able to fix the biggest economic collapse since the 1930’s in three days! OH NOES!!!!!!111one!
And of course, when the Republicans in the Senate are holding up the passing of the stimulus package next month, I fully expect you find a way to blame that on Obama too.
kathie:
Consider the source. I put as much faith into a post from FreeRepublic as you would a random diary on DailyKos.
Guy. UPI wrote the article, not the FREEREPUBLIC
I about laughed my head off when Pelosi came out and said that there was a remarkable bi-partisan agreement led by Obama that “there is a problem”. Good grief, they don’t even have McCain’s support on the stimulus proposal yet.
kathie and Terrye
I think what it means is that Obama didn’t dare fire Petraeus as the surge succeeded (he may even be a Democract….) and that he kept Gates as window dressing to lull his opposition, or to make Bush’s guy implement Obama policy to make it seem more bipartisan.
This Obama guy is smart, he is devious, and he is an extreme leftist radical. He is exceptionally dangerous.
“He lost 20% of his support really fast.
1) I love that you like to accuse others of having “a 3rd grade math educationâ€, and then somehow forget that 83-68 = 15, not 20. Subtraction is tricky, I guess.” -GFawkes-
It’s just an average, GuyFawkes. Other polls have his approval rating dropping even more. Rasmussen has him dropping to 60%.
83-60 = 23 point drop
60% approval on day three is still good! But, you can’t deny the massive slide.
If Obama quits being arrogant and starts actually getting Pelosi/Reid to incorporate some ideas from across the aisle into a compromise…..he will stay in high favor. Time will tell who will win the Obama/Pelosi head butt.
The Republicans had better be smart enough to vote against this stimulus plan. Obama and the Democrats know that they have the votes to pass it. And they should go ahead with the vote…without the Republican vote. Why? Because we should make sure that they are responsible for their actions and we know that those actions will backfire on them.
As for Petreaus, Gates, and Mullen, they had better make sure that their objections are made available to the public so that they are not responsible for whatever happens after the pullout. The troops are going to be very furious with Obama. Fine by me…as all of these will vote Obama and the Dems out of the office in 2010 and 2012 AND it will keep Hillary from winning 2012.
Obama called for a “residual” group to stay behind in Iraq, which I take it to be a very small, marginal size, which has no strength of defending themselves at all.
This tells me that Obama, his adm, and the dems believe that Osama is the only enemy we face and that Osama should be treated as a criminal.
CatoRenasci, I agree with your post. I have a feeling that there are enough witnesses out there to make sure that Obama will not blame Bush for everything that goes wrong under his watch.
I have come to the conclusion at this point that Obama and McCain were poor choices to replace Bush. Because of the economic situation that we face, Mitt Romney would have been the best choice to replace Bush. But then he would have been completely ineffective against the 111th Congress. Had Bush won a third term with this 111th Congress, he would also have been completely ineffective.
Kathie, do you have the link to that Free Republic UPI article? Thanks.
Guy, why are all liberals unable to do elementary school math?
The 20% drop was in his support levels, not 20 percentage points.
83-68 = 15, Yes. But to put it into percentage you do 15/83 X 100 and you learn Obama lost around 19% of his support – which I rounded up to 20.
Now, that means 1/5th of his support has bolted in a week. If he loses another 1/5th (another 15 points) his is at 53% (which is basically 50% given the MoE). It will take probably more than a week, but if it takes 4 times as long then by March he will be playing with 50%. And it is only a short step from 50% to a major disaster.
Did you really think your math skills were comparable to a rocket scientist???
How embarrassingly funny!
It is now on the 3rd page of FREEREPUBLIC, I hope AJ won’t mind.
Gates, Petraeus want longer pullout period from Iraq
By MARTIN SIEFF
Published: Jan. 23, 2009 at 1:05 PM
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 (UPI) — U.S. President Barack Obama faced down his three top military officials in a policy confrontation during his very first day in office, U.S. military sources have told UPI.
On Wednesday, the president met with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen and Central Command commander four-star Gen. David Petraeus. Gates, supported by Mullen and Petraeus, vigorously argued that the president should back away from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from Iraq within the next 16 months and space out the withdrawal over a longer period of time. However, the president instructed the three officials to prepare a plan that would still implement the 16-month withdrawal period, Pentagon sources said.
The discussion between the president and the three officials was friendly and respectful. However, the president’s determination to implement his stated policy took the officials by surprise, one of the sources told UPI. Petraeus, in particular, had expected the recommendation to extend the period of the withdrawal timetable to be accepted, several sources said.
The sources all stressed that the necessity for the troop withdrawal was never at issue. Since July 7, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki repeatedly has demanded a firm timetable and deadline for the completion of U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. He made it a condition of the Status of Forces Agreement that he finally signed with the outgoing Bush administration. The deadline in the SOFA for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces is three years hence.
Once the president made his position clear, Mullen made clear he was determined to implement the policy, the sources said.
A statement was issued after Obama met with Gates, Mullen and Petraeus, but it contained no reference to the immediate implementation of the 16-month timetable.
On Thursday Gates told a news conference at the Pentagon that the 16-month withdrawal timetable was just one of several options the United States had on the table in its withdrawal plans from Iraq.
“From really ever since the election, we have been looking at several options, and obviously 16 months is one of them. We are very aware of what the president has said, and we have an obligation and a responsibility to provide him with a range of options that include the one that he has spoken about,” Gates said.
The president’s hands-on role in shaping key strategic policies and goals is consistent with the behavior of U.S. presidents in their role as commander in chief. However, his predecessor, President George W. Bush, during his two terms in office established a consistent pattern of passively following the recommendations of his two secretaries of defense. He never challenged or overruled Donald Rumsfeld during his highly controversial six years as secretary of defense when the U.S. armed forces, with allied support, invaded Iraq to topple longtime President Saddam Hussein.
Bush fired Rumsfeld after Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in the midterm elections of November 2006. He then appointed Gates to replace Rumsfeld, and Gates then reversed or changed many of Rumsfeld’s polices. In particular, he appointed Petraeus as the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Petraeus introduced radically different, classic counterinsurgency tactics, especially working with local sheiks in Anbar and Diyala provinces that led to a dramatic improvement in security conditions in Iraq. However, while Bush praised and welcomed the results of these new polices, he stayed hands off in the implementation of them, just as he had done with Rumsfeld’s far more controversial policies earlier.
While Bush generally followed the advice of his military leaders, he did push strongly against it in insisting on the “surge.”
Pentagon sources told UPI, however, that the debate over the 16-month timetable is far from over. They said many senior Army officers believe Obama’s timetable is far too tight; they say it is unrealistic to withdraw the 140,000 or so U.S. troops still operating in Iraq, along with their equipment, without running the risk of letting Iran vastly increase its influence and power in Iraq, or facing a resurgence of al-Qaida and other insurgent groups, or both possible outcomes.
According to a published account by Bob Woodward, Bush rejected the urgings of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States that he immediately start planning to attack Iraq and topple Saddam. However, over the following year and a quarter, Bush was swayed by the arguments of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their allies, and he approved that change in policy.
However, Obama appears determined to impose the 16-month withdrawal timetable, and he has a staunch ally in his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. Clinton told her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that she favored a policy of seeking dialogue with Iran.
Also, Obama and Clinton have emphasized the appointing of two veteran senior U.S. diplomats as their negotiators to bring peace to various conflicts and tensions around the Middle East and South Asia — former Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan and former Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine, who was President Bill Clinton’s peace envoy to the successful Irish Peace Process in the 1990s, for the Middle East.
Holbrooke and Mitchell both have unsurpassed experience in peace negotiations over the past 20 years around the world. The announcement of their appointments so soon was consistent with Clinton’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Both men are believed to have been Clinton’s first choice for the positions and were also strongly approved by Obama.
The president was fiercely criticized by anti-war activists for asking the widely respected Gates to stay on as secretary of defense from the Bush administration. It was the first time in U.S. history that any secretary of defense has been asked to stay in office when the party out of power in a presidential election took control of the executive branch.
Obama was widely praised for his efforts to maintain stability and continuity in national security policy by asking Gates to stay on.
So, you compared a percentage to a percentage, and you decided to use a percentage of the percentages as your means of comparison? (And that’s still ignoring the fact that these two polls were measuring TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.) And then bragged about it, since you’re a rocket scientist?
Well, okay – if it makes you feel better. But please note that no one else here could figure out where the 20% number came from either – the best was a guess that you were an “average” poll number.
I just want to make sure I’m clear on this:
If a politican went from polling at 60%, down to 30% – you would then say he had a 50% drop?
Well gosh – that sure is intuitive, ain’t it?
It’s dropping, a lot – and quickly. There’s your math.
Let’s hope Obama is the great listener that his grandma in Kenya said he is and that listening is not just a Tommy Tune type act. I think he’s strangely touched by discovering how nice everything is and everyone is to him, but it might be confusing him, too. If you can’t just complain about others, then what do you do? Let’s HOPE BO does well so that his approval ratings can go back UP.
AJ,
This post is so hilarious I can barely stop laughing. 8 years of Bush in the White House and you don’t hold him accountable for any of the disasters that occured on his watch. Obama has been in office for less than 6 days and you are already declaring him a failure because he hasn’t waved his magic wand and cured all of our economic problems.
“Look, everyone gives a new President a chance. I do and most do because of the office and our country, not because of any special magic with the person. But that window of opportunity can only be held open by producing results.”
Yeah, except most reasonable, objective and sane people give a president more than a week. Especially when the president inherits a mess from his predecessor. I’m sure McCain/Palin would have had us out of this recession by now! Too funny.
“All America sees is another group of whacky elitists with too much time and money on their hands binge partying now that they survived the retirement of Bush/Cheney.”
Yeah, except for the 68% that still give Obama a positive approval rating. For the apparent math challenged, that is a large MAJORITY of the country and well more than twice Bush’s approval rating before he left office. But Bush is still our greatest president ever!
“What has Obama done on the economy? Nothing. Recall Bush was able to get tax cuts and rebates through a split Congress when he came into office.”
Yeah – in June of 2001, more than 6 months after he took office. It has only been 6 days since Obama took over. Name one, just one, major piece of legislation Bush got passed in his first week in office. Yeah, I didn’t think you could.
“What do the prisoners at GITMO and abortions overseas have to do with fixing the economy, creating good and upwardly mobile jobs and defending the nation from terrorists? Nothing!”
Let me try and explain how the government works, and I’ll try and simplify it as much as possible so maybe, just maybe, you will get it. There are some things a president can do pursuant to an executive order that doesn’t require Congressional approval. President’s typically adopt exectutive orders to carry out certain campaign pledges their first few days in office because they are able to do so unilaterally. Obama signed these orders because they are things he campaigned on. You may not like them, but YOU LOST THE ELECTION so you will have to deal with our president doing what people elected him to do. Other things must be done legislatively, such as the economic stimulus package. Obama has been focusing on pushing his package forward (why do you think he convended a meeting with Congressional leaders – to talk sports?), but he cannot do it unilaterally. Blaming him for being unable to pass legislation of this significance and magnitude less than a week after taking office makes it obvious you have no idea how government works.
AJ, why don’t you save us the “I’ll give Obama a chance” a rest. You’ve shown your true colors. You will blame Obama for everything, regardless of what he does.
Yup guy, I’m going to blame him for every little misstep that he makes as well as any missteps by anyone in his administration as if he did it himself. I’ve learned something about politics these last 8 years. Blame, blame, blame lie, lie lie, bring down those high approval ratings because it is the best way to get back in the game. Good strategy, the dems are good teachers.
kathie:
Well, see, there is a difference between us. When the Democratic President screws up, I plan on calling him on it. When the Republican President of the past 8 years screwed up in several catastrophic ways, no one here even considered calling him on it – instead, you found ways to blame everyone else but him. 9/11 wasn’t his fault. “Mission accomplished” wasn’t his fault. The civil war in Iraq wasn’t his fault. The fact that we don’t have OBL in custody isn’t his fault. Torture wasn’t his fault. Illegal warrantless wiretapping wasn’t his fault. The pathetic federal response to Katrina wasn’t his fault. And the failing economy isn’t his fault.
It’s amazing, really, when you think about how much happened during the last 8 years that he apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with. Who knew that 6 years of Republican control over both houses of Congress and the White House could result in so many actions that were the fault of Democrats?
What AJ wrote above is a farce. Comparing the approval of the transition to his approval as President is nonsensical. Trying to claim that a 68% approval rating is “bad” (significantly higher than Bush when he took office, btw), or that somehow it’s a sign that he’s well on his way to a sub-50 approval rating, is breathtaking intellectually dishonest, and/or mind-bogglingly ignorant.
There has been exactly one poll so far that shows Obama’s approval rating as President. How someone forms a trend out of a line with one data point is beyond me – but I guess a “rocket scientist” has access to some special form of linear algebra, where you don’t actually need something as inconsequential as a “line” in order to find a slope.
In the past year or so, Obama has done two things I was very displeased about: the FISA vote, and the bending of the lobbyist rules for William Lynn. I don’t expect any politican to always act and/or vote the way I want them to – but those two were very disappointing. Now, are they balanced out for me by closing GITMO, ending torture and rendition and CIA black sites, pulling the troops out of Iraq in 16 months, and the proposed stimulus plan? Well, yes – those are quite a bit more important, IMO. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore the two things that do annoy me, or bend over backwards to find ways to blame it on someone, anyone, else.