Obama thread

[bazzer]

Man, does this guy have the shortest bounces ever or what? Seems like every time he goes on TV for a major address, it's good for 10 points in the polls. Problem is, it spikes like an EKG (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) and before you even notice the bounce there's no trace of it left.

So who the hell are these 10% with the accelerated fickle switches? They remind me of those co-eds who fall for a smooth act and a cheap line, wake up in his bed the next morning wondering how they could have been so stupid, and then spend the whole walk of shame swearing they'll never do that again... until the next time the teleprompter comes out.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/february_2010/obama_approval_index_february_6_2010/285332-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_february_6_2010.jpg

[klubkleb]

Rasmussen? LOLOLOL

[CRB]

Rasmussen is the Republican's John Zogby.

[bazzer]

Rasmussen? LOLOLOL

From the guy who last week started a thread with a DailyKos poll. ;)

[Datalapper]

From the guy who last week started a thread with a DailyKos poll. ;)But it wasn't a daily kos poll. It was conducted by Research2000. Do they have a track record of provable bias? I don't think you responded to that earlier question. And conservative blogs conceded that the questions asked 'were very straightforward'.
I asked in my last post if you were going to continue to use Rasmussan after 'attacking the source' (dailykos) in the other thread. Didn't think it would be less than a week later you would start a new Obama (think you left the 'anti' off the title) thread. ;)

Well, at least with Rasmussan, they are up front about their bias. (although they take up to half a page explaining 'why' they are more fair,balanced & accurate -sounds like a certain cable news outfit); and i think they both doth protest too much (about their *fairness*)

Rasmussan comes right out & admits that they don't count young people because although they may (strongly) support the President, they aren't likely to vote.

So this poll really not a 'national' approval rating, but rather a sampling of which of the most polarizing opinions (strongly approve/strongly disapprove) of the President people who are 'likely' to vote for Obama's successor currently identify with.
I guess that is too much of a mouthful for a soundbite, or for an 'Obama thread'. I don't really don't think 'most Americans' have 'STRONG' feelings either way and are much more in the middle; they like some things, and disapprove of others.

Maybe the poll should be 'more accurately' named "which of these two most kneejerk, visceral reactions do you feel at the mere mention of Obama's name?"
-And although 'young people' may be far and away much more educated about current events and actual policy than GlennBeck's viewership, we'll just dismiss them out of hand because of their propensity to get stoned & forget to vote!


It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. -Rasmussan (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)Oh, and if they actually asked the question the poll purports to represent, you know, -"Approval", Rasmussan concedes that yes, half of America does indeed 'approve' (and would probably approve a few points more if they asked and included any 'young adults'):rolleyes:


However, we got different results when we simply asked if people Approved or Disapproved.
When we took away the options of Strongly Approve/Disapprove the results were 50% approve and 46% disapprove. -link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/november_2009/question_wording_and_job_approval)More meaningless polls IMO. As each individual (assuming they were informed, and that's a big 'if') would be responding to what Obama has & hasn't done on issues that relate to them personally. The parents of an Arabic translator who's son/daughter was dishonorably-discharged under DADT may rightly 'strongly disapprove' of Obama's failure to fulfill a campaign promise to repeal that over a year later. -And the contractor that just got a stimulus-bill government contract that kept his business afloat would likely be a 'strong approver'.
And lets not discount the power of the FoxNews Nation who are nothing if not united in their unwavering strong disapproval. Maybe if he produced his birth certificate? Nahhh. That kind of strong disapproval runs deep to the bone. Can't be swayed with any facts like the onerously high tax rates they are tea-bagging about are acually LOWER now than anytime during the those two terms of GW Bush.
All comes back to Richard's 'Hannity quote': "keep that stuff away from me. I don't want to see anything that doesn't support my position"

[bazzer]

I find Rasmussen to be a good pollster with a discernible Republican slant. Zogby, by contrast, is a bad pollster with a discernible Democratic slant. I check Rasmussen frequently because it's a convenient site with tons of current polls and daily tracks that are free, and, well, he has a pretty good track record of predicting election outcomes. If you've got a better polling resource let me know, and I'll start using it.

[bazzer]

Too bad Sarah Palin didn't do this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0), because that would be funny and worthy of mention here.

[CRB]

If you've got a better polling resource let me know, and I'll start using it.

I use this one:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[johnr]

Too bad Sarah Palin didn't do this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0), because that would be funny and worthy of mention here.

Reminds me of the signs we may have seen in the UK or Canada:
English spoken ,American understood;)

I bet Obama cannot do this with a black marker:;)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/139139/thumbs/s-CRIB-large.jpg

[bazzer]

I bet Obama cannot do this with a black marker:;)


Ya got me there. ;)


And memo to Robert Gibbs: This (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DOREHG0&show_article=1) would be much more LOL if your own boss didn't feel the need to bring a teleprompter to a sixth-grade classroom and to staff meetings.

[CRB]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/139139/thumbs/s-CRIB-large.jpg

Best part is she still made two mistakes that were crossed out.

[klubkleb]

Unfairly or not, why is it very time I see her photo, the phrase "lights are on, nobody's home" springs to mind?

[bazzer]

Best part is she still made two mistakes that were crossed out.

Puts her ahead of Robert Gibbs. ;)

http://www.cynicalnation.com/img2/gibbs-hand.jpg

[Datalapper]

Ya got me there. ;)
And memo to Robert Gibbs: This (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DOREHG0&show_article=1) would be much more LOL if your own boss didn't feel the need to bring a teleprompter to a sixth-grade classroom and to staff meetings.His critics have charged that he can't leave home without one. Now it seems the TotUS problem is far worse (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obamas_home_teleprompter) than we had even imagined!

[bazzer]

Okay, so the Obama thread isn't going to be all bad. I'm grateful to the president for this. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4e9dabc2cc4c91405b490a1b8900b36 d.281&show_article=1) I think it's a good start to what I hope is a new trend.

[klubkleb]

And it's a good bet he'll be able to pronounciate "nuclear" as "nuclear" instead of "nucular."

[bazzer]

And it's a good bet he'll be able to pronounciate "nuclear" as "nuclear" instead of "nucular."

That may depend on whether his teleprompter includes a phonetic guide. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0)

[Bart Lidofsky]

Okay, so the Obama thread isn't going to be all bad. I'm grateful to the president for this. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4e9dabc2cc4c91405b490a1b8900b36 d.281&show_article=1) I think it's a good start to what I hope is a new trend.
As long as no license can be granted until all lawsuits, regardless of how frivolous, are concluded, there will be no nuclear reactors built in the U.S. (that's how Shoreham and LILCO got killed; they had to defend against dozens of frivolous lawsuits, while paying interest on the borrowed for the construction of Shoreham).

[Bart Lidofsky]

And it's a good bet he'll be able to pronounciate "nuclear" as "nuclear" instead of "nucular."
Well, President Carter claimed to be a "nucular engineer". Since then, Merriem-Webster has listed "nucular" as a secondary pronunciation.

[marie from yonkers]

[QUOTE=bazzer;18109]Ya got me there. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The inside of a black person's hand is not the color of a marker...the inside is light...and people usually use very think markers or pens...to make it readable. I know, one of my black friends did it all the time. Me, I wouldn't have any room on my hand, unless I used my steno skills.

[johnr]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2009/3/19/1237463799875/British-Design-Awards-09--003.jpg



Brit Insurance Design awards 2009: The winners


7 / 7

And the overall winner ... Shepard Fairey's Obama Hope poster. Now an iconic image replicated and refashioned the world over, the poster was originally commissioned by the initiative Artists for Obama to raise awareness for the presidential campaign. Based on an image taken by Mannie Garcia, the poster, said the judges, "demonstrated the power of communicating ideas and aspirations from grassroots level

Link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2009/mar/19/design-awards-british-winner?picture=344797215

[unionguy]

LMAO,:D Oh my God, I think Ron Paul reads my posts!!! LMAO


Ron Paul: Obama no socialist

President Obama is not a socialist, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) told conservatives gathered at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference today.

"The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist," Paul said, according to Talking Points Memo. "I am sure there are some people here who believe it," Paul said. "But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no he's not a socialist."


Paul went on to call Obama a "corporatist" instead:

"He's a corporatist," Paul continued. "And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican Party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country."

Paul said examples of President Obama's "corporatism" was evident in the heath care reform bill he signed into law last month. Paul said the mandate in the bill put the power over health care in the hands of corporations rather than private citizens. But he said the bill wasn't the only place where corporatism is creeping into Washington.

The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/91491-ron-paul-obama-no-socialist-)- April 10, 2010

[PeteE]

LMAO,:D Oh my God, I think Ron Paul reads my posts!!! LMAO

Who do you think those "guests" are?

[bazzer]

UG, I saw that and immediately thought of you.

And for the record, I pretty much agree with you both. I'd just prefer the type of "corporatist" who doesn't enact massive new entitlements at a time of national insolvency. :)

[PeteE]

UG, I saw that and immediately thought of you.

And for the record, I pretty much agree with you both. I'd just prefer the type of "corporatist" who doesn't enact massive new entitlements at a time of national insolvency. :)

Is it any different than when Congress was in the pockets of the railroad barons? The ascent of unions offered a competing source of honest graft, but their ascent has been a descent for some time now.

[bazzer]

Is it any different than when Congress was in the pockets of the railroad barons? The ascent of unions offered a competing source of honest graft, but their ascent has been a descent for some time now.

Yes, I think that pretty much sums it up. I don't view corporations as inherently evil as UG seems to, but I also don't view them as pure expressions of free market capitalism either, as many on the right seem to think.

Corporations, after all, are created by the government, and continually lobby government for special treatment for themselves and for tighter regulations on their competitors -- all too often successfully. Call it "corporatism" or "economic fascism" or whatever you want, but pure market capitalism it ain't.

[Richard Bey]

Yes, I think that pretty much sums it up. I don't view corporations as inherently evil as UG seems to, but I also don't view them as pure expressions of free market capitalism either, as many on the right seem to think.

Corporations, after all, are created by the government, and continually lobby government for special treatment for themselves and for tighter regulations on their competitors -- all too often successfully. Call it "corporatism" or "economic fascism" or whatever you want, but pure market capitalism it ain't.

Wow...I couldn't have said it better myself.

[unionguy]

Is it any different than when Congress was in the pockets of the railroad barons? The ascent of unions offered a competing source of honest graft, but their ascent has been a descent for some time now.


The Railroad Barons Are Back - And This Time They'll Finish the Job - Part I

The railroad barons first tried to infiltrate the halls of government in the early years after the Civil War.

The efforts of these men, particularly Jay Gould, brought the Ulysses Grant administration into such disrepute, as a result of what were then called "the railroad bribery scandals," that Grant's own Republican party refused to renominate him for the third term he wanted and ran Rutherford B. Hayes instead. As the whitehouse.gov website says of Grant, "Looking to Congress for direction, he seemed bewildered. One visitor to the White House noted 'a puzzled pathos, as of a man with a problem before him of which he does not understand the terms.'"

Although their misbehaviors with the administration and Congress were exposed, the railroad barons of the era were successful in a coup against the Supreme Court. One of their own was the Reporter for the Supreme Court, and they courted Justice Stephen Field with, among other things, the possibility of support for a presidential run. In the National Archives, we also recently found letters from the railroads offering free trips and other benefits to the 1886 Court's Chief Justice, Morrison R. Waite.

Waite, however, didn't give in: he refused to rule the railroad corporations were persons in the same category as humans. Thus, the railroad barons resorted to plan B: they got human rights for corporations inserted in the Court Reporter's headnotes in the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, even though the court itself (over Field's strong objections) had chosen not to rule on the constitutionality of the railroad's corporate claims to human rights.

And, based on the Reporter's headnotes (and ignoring the actual ruling), subsequent Courts have expanded those human rights for corporations. These now include the First Amendment human right of free speech (including corporate "speech" to influence politics - something that was a felony in most states prior to 1886), the Fourth Amendment human right to privacy (so a chemical company has successfully sued to prevent the EPA from performing surprise inspections - while retaining the right to perform surprise inspections of its own employees' bodily fluids and phone conversations), and the 14th Amendment right to live free of discrimination (using the free-the-slaves 14th Amendment, corporations have claimed discrimination to block local community efforts to pass "bad boy laws" or keep out predatory retailers).

Interestingly, unions don't have these human rights. Neither do churches, or smaller, unincorporated businesses. Nor do partnerships or civic groups. Nor, even, do governments, be they local, state, or federal.

And, from the founding of the United States, neither did corporations. Rights were the sole province of humans.

As the father of the Constitution, President James Madison, wrote, "There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by... corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." It's one of the reasons why the word "corporation" doesn't exist in the constitution - they were to be chartered only by states, so local people could keep a close eye on them.

Early state laws (and, later, federal anti-trust laws) forbade corporations from owning other corporations, particularly in the media. In 1806, President Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." He was so strongly opposed to corporations owning other corporations or gaining monopolies of the media that, when the Constitution was submitted for ratification, he and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution that would "ban commercial monopolies." The Convention shot it down as unnecessary because state laws against corporate monopolies already existed.

But corporations grew, and began to flex their muscle. Politicians who believed in republican democracy were alarmed by the possibility of a new feudalism, a state run by and to the benefit of powerful private interests.

President Andrew Jackson, in a speech to Congress, said, "In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages [votes] or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions."

And the president who followed him, Martin Van Buren, added in his annual address to Congress: "I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion - the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government - would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities."

Even Abraham Lincoln weighed in, writing, "We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that the nation might live. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

"As a result of the war," Lincoln continued, "corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." Lincoln held the largest corporations - the railroads - at bay until his assassination.

CommonDreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1211-01.htm) - December 11, 2002

An older article, but I'd say "nuff said", but there's more.....

[Richard Bey]

I've always compared corporations to the sun--one a vital source for life itself, the other a vital source of economic vitality. Neither inherently 'good' or 'evil'. But each without regulation and prudent oversight of exposure will lead to damaging, even tragic effects.

[unionguy]

The Railroad Barons Are Back - And This Time They'll Finish the Job - Part II

But then came the railroad barons, vastly enriched by the Civil War.

They began brining case after case before the Supreme Court, asserting that the 14th Amendment - passed after the war to free the slaves - should also free them.

For example, in 1873, one of the first Supreme Court rulings on the Fourteenth Amendment, which had passed only five years earlier, involved not slaves but the railroads. Justice Samuel F. Miller minced no words in chastising corporations for trying to claim the rights of human beings.

The fourteenth amendment's "one pervading purpose," he wrote in the majority opinion, "was the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppression of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."

But the railroad barons represented the most powerful corporations in America, and they were incredibly tenacious. They mounted challenge after challenge before the Court, claiming the 14th Amendment should grant them human rights under the Bill of Rights (but not grant such rights to unions, churches, small companies, or governments). Finally, in 1886, the Court's reporter defied his own Chief Justice and improperly wrote a headnote that moved corporations out of the privileges category and gave them rights - an equal status with humans. (Last year we found the correspondence between the two in the National Archives and put it on the web. By the time the Reporter's headnotes were published, the Chief Justice was dead.)

On December 3, 1888, President Grover Cleveland delivered his annual address to Congress. Apparently Cleveland had taken notice of the Santa Clara County Supreme Court headnote, its politics, and its consequences, for he said in his speech to the nation, delivered before a joint session of Congress: "As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."

The Founders of America were clear when they wrote the Bill of Rights that humans had rights, and when humans got together to form any sort of group - including corporations, churches, unions, fraternal organizations, and even governments themselves - that those forms of human association had only privileges which were determined and granted by the very human "We, The People."

But, as if by magic, even though in the Santa Clara case the Supreme Court did not rule on any constitutional issues (read the case!), the Court's reporter rewrote the American Constitution at the behest of the railroad barons and moved a single form of human association - corporations - from the privileges category into the rights category. All others, to this day, still only have privileges. But individual citizen voters must now politically compete with corporations on an equal footing - even though a corporation can live forever, doesn't need to breathe clean air, doesn't fear jail, can change its citizenship in an hour, and can own others of its own kind.

Theodore Roosevelt looked at this situation and bluntly said, in April of 1906, "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

And so now, corporate-friendly Michael Powell's FCC is moving toward lifting the last tattered restrictions on media ownership, allowing absolute concentration of the voices we hear into a tiny number of corporate hands.

Any day now a case involving a multinational corporation claiming the right to deceive people in its PR - its 1st Amendment right of free speech - may be coming before the Supreme Court. (The New York Times corporation editorialized on December 10th that corporations must have free speech rights: the lines are being drawn.)

As much as half the federal workforce is slated to be replaced by corporate workers under a new Bush edict. Government (which doesn't have constitutional human rights of privacy, and so is answerable to We, The People) will then be able to use corporate-4th-Amendment-human-rights of privacy to hide what those workers do and how they do it from the prying eyes of citizens and voters. In a similar fashion, corporate-owned and thus unaccountable-to-the-people voting machines are being installed nationwide; in the last election these machines often produced vote results so different from the polls that pollsters who have been successfully calling elections for over 50 years threw up their hands and closed shop.

This administration is set to complete what the railroad barons pushed the Grant administration to start: to take democracy and its institutions of governance from the hands of the human citizen/voters the Founders fought and died for, and give it to the very types of monopolistic corporations the Founders fought against when they led the Tea Party revolt against the East India Company in Boston Harbor in 1773.

And, in the ultimate irony, the new man in charge of economic policy as Secretary of the Treasury will be a multi-millionaire Bush campaign contributor, chairman of The Business Roundtable (an elite corps of 100 of the nation's most powerful corporate CEOs), and, himself, a railroad baron.

CommonDreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1211-01.htm) - December 11, 2002

As for the comparisons of unions and corporations, you can see that corporations are people too.....


Thus, the railroad barons resorted to plan B: they got human rights for corporations inserted in the Court Reporter's headnotes in the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, even though the court itself (over Field's strong objections) had chosen not to rule on the constitutionality of the railroad's corporate claims to human rights.


and...


Interestingly, unions don't have these human rights. Neither do churches, or smaller, unincorporated businesses. Nor do partnerships or civic groups. Nor, even, do governments, be they local, state, or federal.

[unionguy]

I've always compared corporations to the sun--one a vital source for life itself, the other a vital source of economic vitality. Neither inherently 'good' or 'evil'. But each without regulation and prudent oversight of exposure will lead to damaging, even tragic effects.

No, as pointed out above, corporations in America are so much more. They are supposedly living, breathing entities like you and I.


But individual citizen voters must now politically compete with corporations on an equal footing - even though a corporation can live forever, doesn't need to breathe clean air, doesn't fear jail, can change its citizenship in an hour, and can own others of its own kind.

[Bart Lidofsky]

I've always compared corporations to the sun--one a vital source for life itself, the other a vital source of economic vitality. Neither inherently 'good' or 'evil'. But each without regulation and prudent oversight of exposure will lead to damaging, even tragic effects.
And far too many people, including people who work for corporations, treat corporations as young children treat their "imaginary friends", notably blaming them for their own misdeeds.

[unionguy]

And far too many people, including people who work for corporations, treat corporations as young children treat their "imaginary friends", notably blaming them for their own misdeeds.

Well if in the U.S., corporations are recognized as having the same rights as natural persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate), then why can't they also be considered young children or even "imaginary friends"? :D

[Bart Lidofsky]

Well if in the U.S., corporations are recognized as having the same rights as natural persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate), then why can't they also be considered young children or even "imaginary friends"? :D
Can corporations vote in elections? Can they hold public office?

I do agree that corporations should have no more rights than any other organization of people (such as, for example, labor unions), save the limited liability of the members.

[PeteE]

I have a brief statement to make.

First, I have a low opinion of politicians in general and my hopes for Barack Obama wasn't that he wouldn't be a politician, but that he'd be better than most.

In my opinion, he has been better than most. He's made compromises, but I think in general what he's achieved has moved us forward in a difficult time.

So I think he's doing a decent job. I'm not disappointed, given that I've never had unreasonable expectations to begin with.

Thank you. End of statement.

[unionguy]

I have a brief statement to make.

First, I have a low opinion of politicians in general and my hopes for Barack Obama wasn't that he wouldn't be a politician, but that he'd be better than most.

In my opinion, he has been better than most. He's made compromises, but I think in general what he's achieved has moved us forward in a difficult time.

So I think he's doing a decent job. I'm not disappointed, given that I've never had unreasonable expectations to begin with.

Thank you. End of statement.

I also have a brief statement to make.

Barack Obama is acting pretty much like I expected he would. He is searching for compromise in every issue insted of showing strength, independence or any new ideals. He is a puppet to higher powers.

I am neither pleasently surprised nor disappointed. He is exactly like I read him before the election.

Thank you. End of statement.

[Richard Bey]

I also have a few questions to ask:

Would America have elected a black president if he had campaigned as more of an activist ideologue? The slogan was 'Change you can believe in'...is the confrontational activism of a Roosevelt (Teddy or FDR) a viable stance for a modern progressive to win an election?

End of questions.

[bazzer]

I also have a few questions to ask:

Would America have elected a black president if he had campaigned as more of an activist ideologue? The slogan was 'Change you can believe in'...is the confrontational activism of a Roosevelt (Teddy or FDR) a viable stance for a modern progressive to win an election?

End of questions.

Okay, I'll have a go. I say "No" and "No."

[PeteE]

The slogan was 'Change you can believe in'...is the confrontational activism of a Roosevelt (Teddy or FDR) a viable stance for a modern progressive to win an election?



Was "Change you can believe in" that much different than "Want to Change Trenton? Change Governors!"?

I don't remember Chris Cristie promising to cut library funding or layoff teachers. Instead, he pretty much avoided any specifics -- which is not unusual in American politics.

[Bart Lidofsky]

Was "Change you can believe in" that much different than "Want to Change Trenton? Change Governors!"?

I don't remember Chris Cristie promising to cut library funding or layoff teachers. Instead, he pretty much avoided any specifics -- which is not unusual in American politics.
True. But nobody talked about the shortfall in funds; Governor Corzine even denied that the shortage existed. While Christie may or may not have had longer term plans, he has to cut a big chunk of spending; the fact that the majority of the funds left are already earmarked to items that he cannot legally cut severely hampers his ability to cut items. What can he legally cut that you recommend he cut, instead?

[bazzer]

What can he legally cut that you recommend he cut, instead?

That's the 64-dollar question, isn't it? As I wrote elsewhere (also on Facebook) everyone is at the ready with a strong opinion about what *shouldn't* be cut, but there are very few whole offer a viable alternative as to what *should* be cut instead.

[PeteE]

That's the 64-dollar question, isn't it? As I wrote elsewhere (also on Facebook) everyone is at the ready with a strong opinion about what *shouldn't* be cut, but there are very few whole offer a viable alternative as to what *should* be cut instead.

I'm not against a lot of the cuts, starting with wage freezes or cuts. I also wonder whether if he can ask teachers to give up what is in their contract whether he can curb retroactively pension abuses. Why can't the government outlaw government officials receiving a pension at the same time they are receiving a salary? (Ending double dipping is one promise Christie did make.)

I'm not against cutting hours and cutting back programs. I am against measures that would essentially destroy infrastructure (such as the state library's database and intranet server) that would be costly to rebuild once better days do return.

My point about Christie is that he, like nearly every politician, was vague about what he'd actually do. I think one ad said, "Cut taxes. Better services. THAT'S A PLAN!" (Well, no, a promise perhaps, but not a plan.)

[CRB]

Was "Change you can believe in" that much different than "Want to Change Trenton? Change Governors!"?

I don't remember Chris Cristie promising to cut library funding or layoff teachers. Instead, he pretty much avoided any specifics -- which is not unusual in American politics.

Chris Christie is governor not because of anything he promised, rather he got more of the "Not Corzine" vote.

I still find it amazing that when the fiscal crisis is the biggest problem facing the state, we replaced the smart finance guy in charge with a lawyer. And we wonder why things turn out like they do.

[CRB]

That's the 64-dollar question, isn't it? As I wrote elsewhere (also on Facebook) everyone is at the ready with a strong opinion about what *shouldn't* be cut, but there are very few whole offer a viable alternative as to what *should* be cut instead.

There is very little that a governor can cut that will have an immediate positive budgetary effect.

Which is why Corzine focused on generating more revenue in the short run while reducing the number of state employee through early retirement programs. Monetizing future Turnpike tolls wasn't just a gimmick, it was a way to pay down the debt and reduce current interest payments.

Instead, we have a governor who balances his budget by shifting fixed costs down to local government. How is that a solution to anything when the taxpayer just ends up paying even more in taxes? Unless you are a millionaire, of course.

[unionguy]

Well, look what that "commie, socialist" Obama is doing now. He is privatizing one of the greatest government agencies ever. Another wrapped gift to his corporate overlords. Again I ask, is there anything Obama does that doesn't benefit a private industry?


Obama: America's still got adventures in space

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Near the launch pads where U.S. space voyages begin, President Barack Obama will try to reassure workers that America's space adventures sail on despite the coming end of space shuttle flights.

And Obama on Thursday will also try to explain why he aborted his predecessor's return-to-the moon plan in favor of a complicated system of public-and-private flights that would go elsewhere in space, with details still to be worked out.

It's a tough sell. So Obama is bringing deal sweeteners with him to Kennedy Space Center, pitching work that will save jobs, provide training for others and extend the life of the International Space Station.

And he's doing it on what once was the home turf of his most prominent critics.

This is the place where astronauts Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell and Eugene Cernan became American heroes. And they're all opposed to his ideas, warning they will end America's supremacy in space.

Obama will speak in the building the Apollo astronauts lived in before they launched.

Obama will outline a strategy that "will provide more jobs for the area, greater investment in innovation, more astronaut time in space, more rockets launching sooner, and a more ambitious and sustainable space program for America's future," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

The Obama space plan relies on private companies to fly to the space station, giving them almost $6 billion to build their own rockets and ships. It also extends the space station's life by five years and puts billions into research to eventually develop new government rocket ships for future missions to a nearby asteroid, the moon, Martian moons or other points in space. Those stops would be stepping stones on an eventual mission to Mars.

Florida elected officials are hoping for one more thing: More space shuttle flights. Sen. George LeMieux, R-Fla., in a conference call with reporters Thursday morning, said the Kennedy Space Center director told him there were enough parts for one or two more shuttle flights. That's what Florida officials want today, he said.

This all happens as the orbiting space shuttle Discovery winds down a day of resupplying the space station.

After Discovery lands, there are just three more shuttle flights, a retirement ordered by then-President George W. Bush in 2004 to pay for the return-to-the-moon mission, dubbed "Apollo on steroids." This year, Obama canceled the moon mission, called Constellation, saying it was not sustainable and was long underfunded.

But to Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan this was killing more than a moon program, but the entire American manned space program.

"Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity," the three Apollo veterans wrote in a letter to the media. "America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space."

To counter, the administration brought out Armstrong's Apollo 11 crewmate Buzz Aldrin, who in a statement said, "The steps we will be taking in following the president's direction will best position NASA and other space agencies to ultimately send humans to Mars and other exciting destinations as quickly as possible."

Earlier this week, the administration said it would rescue a small part of the moon program: its Orion crew capsule. But instead of taking four astronauts to the moon, the not-yet-built Orion will be slimmed down and used as an emergency escape pod on the space station.

When Obama speaks Thursday afternoon, he will be in the vast launch complex's Operations and Checkout building. It is the place where Orion is scheduled to be eventually prepared for launch.

LeMieux said the saving of Orion made him feel slightly better about the president's proposal. But he added that by killing off the moon plan, the president needs to provide more details on his alternative: "What's his destination and what's his time frame?"

Technically, this is more than a speech. It is a space conference, organized by the White House, with four sessions after the president talks to go into more depth about the details and challenges ahead.

Obama becomes the first sitting president in 12 years to visit Kennedy Space Center, but he won't stay long. After a couple hours he'll jet to Miami and spend more time in South Florida at two Democratic National Committee fundraisers.

Associated Press (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100415/D9F3HI380.html) - April 15, 2010

[unionguy]

Speaking of Obama "The Socialist", I feel it is my duty to bring the truth to the un-educated and to the TeaBaggers. This should amaze and enlighten you.


Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?

Billy Wharton should be happy.

"Socialized health care" is on its way. The "socialist agenda" is taking over America. And best of all, Barack Obama, a "committed socialist ideologue," is in the Oval Office.

But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.

"We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."

Are many Americans secret socialists?

Obama's opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton.

"He's the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans."

He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.

"It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is."

Definitions of socialism vary, but most socialists believe workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own or control them.

Not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.

Some of the socialist agenda is already part of American life, according to Wharton and others.

Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits -- all reflect socialistic values, says Van Gosse, an associate professor of history at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who has researched socialist movements in the United States and Latin America.

The widely accepted notions of public education and Pell Grants for college students are socialistic in origin, Gosse says. They fit well with the socialistic premise that government should provide basic security from the cradle to the grave to all of its citizens, he says.

"We assert that education should not be left up to the private market -- where those who can pay, get it and those who can't, don't get it," Gosse says. "It's a common good and in that sense it is a socialistic institution even if the U.S. remains a capitalist nation."

Why socialists hate Obama's health care bill

Those who call Obama a socialist, though, point to his policies. Big on their hit list: "Obamacare," which they call "socialized medicine."

Socialists scoff at the notion. They don't applaud the passage of the recent health care bill either. They wanted a national "single-payer" health insurance plan with a government option. The bill that Obama championed didn't have any of those features.

Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change -- something a socialist wouldn't accept.

"Most of it was authored by the health care industry," Wharton says. "I call it the corporate restructuring of health care."

Other critics point to Obama's Wall Street bailout -- which actually had its roots in the Bush administration. Critics say it's socialistic for government to assume control of private industry.

Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says the bailout had nothing to do with socialism.

Llewellyn says a socialist leader would have at least nationalized some of the troubled banks.

"He gave them [the banks] too much with no strings attached," Llewellyn says. "Banks that were too big to fail are bigger, and they can still fail."

How about Obama's bailout of the Detroit auto industry? During the bailout, the federal government assumed partial ownership of General Motors.

"It's not socialism," Llewellyn says. "The mere fact that the government owns something or has a stake in it, doesn't make it socialist. If that was true, you would say that we have a socialist army. The government owns the army."

Defining socialism is complex, Llewellyn says, but it starts with a simple goal: Socialists want to introduce democratic features into the economy to reduce inequality.

The economy has "to be run for the overall benefit of the entire population, not for the benefits of a very few people."

By that measure, Obama's economic policies are not socialist, he says.

"He's trying to save capitalism from itself rather than a radical trying to change into a new system," Llewellyn says.

This kind of name-calling is not new. Civil rights demonstrators and the politicians who passed Medicare were also called socialists and communists, Llewellyn says.

"Every time an expansion of the public's right has been put forward, Republicans have called it extreme, communistic and socialistic. It's a repeated tactic because they can't defeat the idea."

A Tea Party member explains why Obama is a socialist

Those arguments don't sway Conrad Quagliaroli, a Tea Party member who says Obama is a socialist.

He says that Obama's voting record as a senator was more to the left than the U.S. Senate's sole socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

He says Obama's association with radicals and his pledge to "spread the wealth" seal his socialistic credentials.

"The role of government is to provide a safe environment to conduct business, not to take from one and give to the other," says Quagliaroli, a financial planner who lives in Woodstock, Georgia.

Quagliaroli was not persuaded by the arguments of other socialist leaders who reject the idea that Obama is a socialist.

"He's just not socialist enough for them."

Quagliaroli says he doesn't like socialism because it breeds mediocrity and encourages people to "live on the dole." Capitalism "breeds excellence" because it encourages initiative, he says.

Does that mean that Quagliaroli will refuse his Social Security checks, a government program that has been described as socialistic, and which he opposes?

Not necessarily, says Quagliaroli. He says he'll accept his Social Security checks for two reasons.

"They confiscated it from me to begin with, and the more money they give me, the less they'll have to waste," he says. "I can spend it better than they can. I don't pay $500 for a hammer."

The argument over Obama's ideology may rage on, but at least one socialist says another prominent politician ought to be inserted into the debate.

Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America (http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html), says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.

This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.

If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don't look to Obama.

"To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/index.html?hpt=C1) - April 15, 2010


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/DemocraticSocialistsOfAmerica.jpg/145px-DemocraticSocialistsOfAmerica.jpg

[johnr]

Thats a good one UJ.
How about those socialist military academies (West Point,Airforce in Colorado and Annapolis?
Like the one McCain went to,Annapolis ?:D

[bazzer]

So, uh... can we have our $800 billion (http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/) back?

[unionguy]

Obama Open to Reviewing Miranda Rules (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/11/politics/main6471471.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.5) - CBS News May 11, 2010


Of course he is. Am I the only one seeing the dangerous road we are heading on? :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

[Bart Lidofsky]

Of course he is. Am I the only one seeing the dangerous road we are heading on? :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:
Nope. It's the government 2-step; they create a precedent against unpopular groups, then use it on their real targets, because they know they wouldn't have been able to get away with it otherwise.

The textbook case was when the IRS created a precedent by estimating the income of drug dealers and prostitutes, and put the burden of proof on them to prove the IRS wrong. Once this passed the courts, the IRS then used it on waitstaff and taxi drivers, to estimate their tip income.

[unionguy]

Well it's about time!! Where have you Liberals been??? :confused: :D


U.S. liberals: Time to make Obama uncomfortable

Nineteen months after celebrating President Barack Obama's historic election win, disappointed liberal activists promised on Monday to turn up the political heat on a White House they said is too quick to compromise.

At an annual conference of grassroots progressives, they said the euphoria and high expectations after Obama's victory had lulled them into a false sense of security, and hopes for his success had sometimes limited their criticism.

That has changed, they said, because of what they called Obama's go-easy approach on Wall Street, ineffectual efforts to reduce high unemployment, watered-down healthcare and financial regulation reforms and escalation of the Afghanistan war.

"It is not our job to make this president or this administration comfortable. It is our job to make him do the right thing," said Darcy Burner, head of the Progressive Congress Action Fund.

"There were far too many of us who thought our job was done" after the election, she said.

Opinion polls show the surge of grassroots liberal activism that helped propel Obama and his fellow Democrats to power in 2008 has diminished, while enthusiasm has picked up among conservative Republicans eager to fight Obama's agenda and unhappy over the jobless rate and budget deficits.

Signs of the disparity were abundant at the three-day "America's Future Now!" conference, attended by more than 1,000 liberals at a Washington hotel where an exhibition hall housed just a handful of group booths and displays.

A similar conference of conservatives in Washington earlier this year drew 10,000 participants and packed a hotel ballroom with dozens of booths manned by powerful conservative lobbies like the National Rifle Association.

The contrast has contributed to expectations of big Republican gains in November elections, which could wipe out Democratic majorities in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Liberal activists said it was time to crank up the pressure on Obama, who they said had been too willing to compromise with Republicans determined to obstruct his agenda.

WAITING FOR OBAMA?

"We have to stop waiting for Obama. We have to stop taking the president's temperature. We have to stop being critics and start being actors," said Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, which sponsored the conference.

"People are strongly feeling that they need to push more. He has compromised too readily, too early," he said.

Borosage said the challenge to Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln from the left in Tuesday's run-off election in Arkansas was a sign of a rebirth of progressive political activism.

Labor unions angry at Lincoln's reluctance to back a bill to make it easier to organize and activists unhappy with her lukewarm support of the healthcare overhaul have been heavily involved in the Arkansas race.

Some activists said high hopes for Obama made it hard to criticize him.

"There is still an extraordinary loyalty to Obama and that creates this sense of conflict," said Gloria Totten, head of the Progressive Majority, which recruits liberal political candidates at the state and local level.

But Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, who heads an environmental activist group called Green for All, said Obama's initial acceptance of what he was told about the Gulf Coast oil spill by officials of London energy giant BP Plc was a sign of his hands-off approach with the corporate world.

"The handling of BP has been atrocious at best. I believe in the president, but I believe in the needs of the Gulf Coast residents more," she said.

Still, some activists said passage of a broad economic recovery plan, a sweeping healthcare overhaul, an increase in student aid and the looming approval of financial regulatory reforms -- even if each initiative was not perfect -- was an impressive record for a new administration.

"We have achieved much more in the last 18 months than progressives typically give ourselves credit for," said Deepak Bhargava, head of the Center for Community Change.

"The arrow of change is now headed in the right direction, even if it's not far or fast enough," he said.

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6565RA20100607?type=politicsNews) - June 7, 2010

[unionguy]

The Liberal rebellion - Day #1.

Looks like the Liberals ripped a page out of the teaparties playbook.


Pelosi heckled at liberal activist conference

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was heckled during a speech she gave before a gathering of liberal activists Tuesday in Washington.

A short YouTube video recording has emerged of the flap at the "America's Future Now" conference. Protesters unfurled at least three banners, one of which read "Stop Funding Israeli Terror," likely a reference to the Gaza flotilla controversy.

At points, Pelosi can be heard raising her voice trying to speak over the protesters' shouts. During the video, rounds of applause for the Speaker can also be heard.

President Barack Obama has also been interrupted by protesters at campaign events twice this year; each time over the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy against openly gay military service members.

The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/101939-pelosi-heckled-at-liberal-activist-conference-) - June 8, 2010

[bazzer]

Honestly, when I first saw this story (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379) about the Feds stopping Louisiana's oil-sucking barges from cleaning up the Gulf because of OSHA-like concerns, I thought it must be some sort of conservative parody. Alas, however, it seems to be true.



But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

[unionguy]

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

Well I don't know, if I was on a boat whose sole mission was to pull flammable crude off the surface of the gulf, I don't think that I would have too much problem if someone took the time to make sure there was fire extinguishers on board. Then again, I'm sure that all private contractors always do the right thing and make sure that there is always the proper safety equipment on all there vessels and never cut corners to save money.

[bazzer]

It's a good question. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/29/jon-stewart-asks-david-axelrod-has-government-proven-itself-competent)

[unionguy]

There is no room for even a good regulation in the new corporatocracy we live in.

[bazzer]

"Smart diplomacy!" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/europe-warns-obama-relationship-working/)



Europe Warns Obama: This Relationship Is Not Working

Europe’s disappointment with Persident Barack Obama’s presidency was laid bare Thursday as the EU’s most senior figure called for a dramatic effort to revive transatlantic relations.

The President of the European Commission said the new era at the White House was in danger of becoming a “missed opportunity” for Europe.

José Manuel Barroso said the EU-U.S. relationship was not living up to its potential. The criticism follows a series of fundamental disagreements on how to deal with the economic crisis, climate change and trade reform.

[unionguy]

Despite what the Teapartiers would like us believe, most Americans still blame Bush for all our woes. Everything corporatist Obama has done, corporatist Bush did first. Leading me to believe that with the teabaggers, its a "black thing".


Americans Blame Bush, Not Obama, for Deficit, Jobs, Afghan War

Democrats, facing a U.S. electorate angry about the economy and other issues, still have one political asset: George W. Bush.

The former Republican president is blamed more than President Barack Obama for the budget deficit, unemployment and illegal immigration, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9-12.

Most surprising is that 60 percent say Bush is primarily responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan. Just 10 percent point to Obama, who has ordered 51,000 additional troops to that country since taking office, doubling the number deployed by Bush.

When Obama entered office in January 2009, there had been 568 U.S. casualties associated with the Afghanistan conflict, a number that has grown to 1,086, as of yesterday, according to the Defense Department. The president has vowed to start withdrawing forces in July 2011, with the pacing determined by conditions on the ground.

“The public remembers the Bush years as a tumultuous time of costly wars, and the years when a budget surplus became a deficit,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the survey.

Katrina, Gulf Spill

Asked to compare Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina with Obama’s handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, 51 percent say Bush’s performance was worse, while 35 percent name Obama. Republicans are more likely to pan Obama’s performance on the oil spill, with 69 percent saying he did worse than Bush.

Facing a tough environment in the November congressional elections, when their control of both chambers may be at stake, Obama and his fellow Democrats often mention the problems they inherited from the previous administration, which left the White House 18 months ago.

“They spent a decade driving the economy into a ditch,” Obama, 48, said at a Las Vegas fundraiser on July 8 for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. “And now they’re asking for the keys back. And my answer is, ‘no, you can’t have the keys. You can’t drive. You don’t know how to drive. You drive in the wrong direction.’”

Still, Bush won’t be on the ballot and there has been no indication that he will campaign for congressional candidates. Democratic and Republican lawmakers share some of the blame for the country’s problems, including the increasing cost of Medicare and Social Security, as well the failure to fix the nation’s immigration system, according to the poll.

Blame the Predecessor

It’s been common in U.S. politics to blame previous presidents for problems. For generations, Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover’s Depression-era economic policies and some Republicans still talk about President Jimmy Carter’s supposed softness on foreign policy, three decades after the Democratic president left office.

Bush, 64, has stayed mostly quiet in public since leaving the White House. His book, “Decision Points,” is scheduled to be released around the November election.

Because Democrats are most likely to blame Bush for the problems the country is facing, the political benefits for their party may be limited, says Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas in Austin.

Still, Obama and the Democrats may be helped somewhat by voters’ attitudes toward Bush, especially on the issue of unemployment, Buchanan says.

“You could blame Bush for losing your job, even if you’re a Republican,” he says.

Bush’s Deficit

More blame Bush than Obama for the federal deficit, 32 percent to 24 percent. Among Republicans, 39 percent say Obama is to blame, while about a quarter of independents hold that view.

The Obama administration expects a record budget deficit this year of more than $1.5 trillion, or 10.6 percent of GDP, according to projections the White House released in February. It was $1.4 trillion for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, which covers the end of Bush’s presidency.

Obama gets more credit for increases in the stock market over the past year, with 28 percent of Americans giving him recognition, compared with 13 percent for Bush. Even among Republicans, a quarter give Obama credit for the increases.

On unemployment, Bush is listed as most responsible by 32 percent, compared with 22 percent for Obama. Those with incomes below $25,000 are more likely to blame Bush for the unemployment rate, which was 9.5 percent in June.

‘Getting Worse’

“Bush was there for eight years and everything just kept getting worse,” says poll participant Kelly Redding, 31, an independent voter from Columbus, Ohio. “Obama can’t perform miracles overnight.”

Jeremy Dawson, 31, who has served three tours in Iraq, is among those who blame Bush more than Obama for some of the nation’s biggest problems.

“He focused so much on Iraq and Afghanistan and not enough on America,” says Dawson, who votes as an independent. “There was little or nothing being done in this country.”

The poll’s findings on Afghanistan contrast with Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele’s comments July 1 that the war is “not something that the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.” Steele later amended his remarks after he was criticized by both parties and some Republican leaders called for his resignation.

The poll also finds that almost 6 in 10 respondents say the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause.

There isn’t a lot of buyer’s remorse when it comes to the 2008 presidential election, the poll shows. Asked if things would be better or worse if the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona, had been elected, 37 percent say worse, 27 percent say better and 32 percent say things would be the same.

The Bloomberg National Poll is based on interviews with 1,004 U.S. adults ages 18 or older. Percentages based on the full sample may have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-15/americans-blame-bush-for-deficit-afghanistan-war-jobless-more-than-obama.html) - July 15, 2010

[johnr]

Good Find UG.
I read an headline that George had crashed his boat near the family mansion in Maine.
I think Maine ,during the Summer months, is populated with wealthy Texas Republicans

[unionguy]

Good Find UG.
I read an headline that George had crashed his boat near the family mansion in Maine.
I think Maine ,during the Summer months, is populated with wealthy Texas Republicans

Yeah, but look who's hanging with the wealthy Texas Republicans this year.



Obama, family take weekend getaway on Maine coast

TRENTON, Maine (AP) - President Barack Obama and his family visited the coast of Maine on Friday for his latest getaway from the pressures of Washington, one day after getting a double-dose of good news from Congress and the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama, his wife Michelle, and daughters Malia and Sasha touched down at Bar Harbor airport in a smaller version of Air Force One and were greeted by Gov. John Baldacci and his wife, Karen. The Obamas' dog, Bo, and staff had arrived earlier on a separate plane.

The Obamas planned to stay through Sunday, with much time spent enjoying the beauty of Acadia National Park, including its hiking trails and scenic coastal views. No public events were planned.

Obama's latest getaway from the Washington bubble he regularly decries came a day after the Senate sent him a far-reaching new banking and consumer protection bill that had been one of the president's top domestic priorities since taking office. It also came a day after BP managed to cap the well that has been spewing oil into the Gulf since April.

Obama no doubt hopes this latest jaunt doesn't fall victim to the family's travel hex. That would be the one in which events seem to scramble the plans whenever Obama has his wife and daughters in tow.

In a mere 18 months on the job, Obama has rolled up an impressive record of diversions, interruptions, delays and outright cancellations of planned family travel - all thanks to the nonstop demands of a turbulent presidency.

The visit to Acadia National Park follows last summer's Obama family trip to Yellowstone National Park and Grand Canyon National Park, which included whitewater rafting and peach-picking.

But that schedule was altered to include town meetings in Montana and Colorado, so Obama could address the growing furor over his health care plan.

It set a pattern, which has continued this year.

Their Memorial Day weekend in Chicago was overtaken by the Gulf oil spill. After the Obamas slept at their Chicago home for the first time in a year, the president got up and left for a daylong Gulf inspection tour.

That followed the Obamas' Christmas trip to Hawaii, interrupted repeatedly for briefings and comment on the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet.

And it followed last summer's Martha's Vineyard stay, marred by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, whose Boston funeral Obama and his wife, Michelle, attended.

Then there was the planned visit to Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his youth. He'd hoped to show his daughters his old haunts. But the trip was scrubbed twice, first in March as health care neared its climax in Congress, then again in June because of the oil spill. It's now expected late this year.

The spill could further scramble the family's plans. In an NBC interview Thursday, Obama didn't rule out a vacation trip to a Gulf beach.

Despite two wars and an economic collapse crowding his plate, Obama's taken comparatively little time off.

According to a tally kept by Mark Knoller, a CBS News reporter long recognized by the White House as authoritative on such matters, Obama has spent all or part of 65 days on vacation, including days at Camp David. At this point in his tenure, George W. Bush had logged 120 days. That included 13 trips to his Texas ranch.

That hasn't stopped critics from complaining. GOP Chairman Michael Steele, for one, has been scathing - calling it incredible that Obama goes on golf outings while oil flows into the Gulf.

The White House dismisses such gripes.

Bar Harbor and its surroundings are famed as a summer getaway for the rich and famous, from the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts who built homes there to Hollywood stars who often turn up.

Associated Press (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100716/D9H09AA01.html) - July 17, 2010

[unionguy]

Well it's about time!! Where have you Liberals been??? :confused: :D

I guess the administration is finally noticing that if they want to win again, they may have to listen, at least a little, to their Liberal base.


Democrats wary of motivation problem with liberals

The Democratic Party has a motivation problem.

Party officials acknowledged low morale within their left wing and urged liberal bloggers and activists Friday to keep faith with President Barack Obama in an election year as Democrats brace for losses in Congress.

"We need to find a way to get our voters really engaged in this election," Democratic National Committee executive director Jennifer O'Malley Dillon said at the annual Netroots Nation convention. "It's more important, every single day, to know what's at stake."

Jon Vogel, executive director of the Democratic House campaign organization, predicted Democratic voters would get energized when they focus on what Republican gains would mean for the Democratic agenda.

"You start to educate folks as to differences in candidates, the enthusiasm gap certainly will close," Vogel said.

Liberals who helped put Obama in the White House in 2008 are disillusioned over the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, slow movement on gay rights and the failure to create a government-run insurance option in the health care overhaul.

The racially tinged furor surrounding the ouster of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, who was forced to resign but later received a personal apology and job offer from Obama, left many feeling the White House was manipulated by the conservative media.

"People are in a down mood," said Michael Lux, who heads Progressive Strategies, a Washington-based consulting firm.

Carol Olszewski, 65, of Schenectady, N.Y., said she traveled as far away as North Carolina and Ohio to campaign for Obama. But she believes the party has been too accommodating to Republicans who "want to destroy him." She puzzles why the party backed former Republican Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's Senate race rather than Democrat Joe Sestak, a two-term congressman who won the nomination.

"I am discouraged. I'm fighting against my inclination to say, 'The hell with it all,'" said Olszewski, an administrative judge for New York state.

Democrats are trying to hold on to control of Congress in a year when polls show the president's popularity is slipping, particularly among independents. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has seen the rise of tea party activism, which is shaking up races across the nation.

J.B. Poersch, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged there is frustration that that the Democrat-led White House and Congress haven't achieved the party's full agenda but quickly added, "We're not done yet."

Earlier in the day, former White House environmental adviser Van Jones urged activists and bloggers to have patience with the president. Jones resigned last year after he was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

"Change is still possible," he said, echoing the president's 2008 campaign slogan.

Associated Press (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100724/D9H545JG0.html) - July 23, 2010

[unionguy]

Oh boo-whoo! Obama has tried so hard to be a moderate corportist and win the indepentent support. He has turned his back to his liberal base. He deserves everything he gets........


AP-GfK polls show Obama losing independents

WASHINGTON (AP) - Independents who embraced President Barack Obama's call for change in 2008 are ready for a shift again, and that's worrisome news for Democrats.

Only 32 percent of those citing no allegiance to either major party say they want Democrats to keep control of Congress in this November's elections, according to combined results of recent Associated Press-GfK polls. That's way down from the 52 percent of independents who backed Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain two years ago, and the 49 percent to 41 percent edge by which they preferred Democratic candidates for the House in that election, according to exit polls of voters.

Independents voice especially strong concerns about the economy, with 9 in 10 calling it a top problem and no other issue coming close, the analysis of the AP-GfK polls shows. While Democrats and Republicans rank the economy the No. 1 problem in similar numbers, they are nearly as worried about their No. 2 issues, health care for Democrats and terrorism for Republicans.

Ominously for Democrats, independents trust Republicans more on the economy by a modest but telling 42 percent to 36 percent. That's bad news for the party that controls the White House and Congress at a time of near 10 percent unemployment and the slow economic recovery.

"People are just struggling, they need a job but there's nowhere to get a job," said independent Leilani Buxman, 55, of Greeley, Colo. Of Obama, she said, "It seems like he talks but he doesn't do anything about it."

Both parties court independents for obvious reasons. Besides their sheer number - 4 in 10 describe themselves as independents in combined AP-GfK polling for April, May and June - they are a crucial swing group.

To try winning them over, Republicans say they will contrast Obama's campaign promises of change with the huge spending programs he's approved. Democrats say they will warn independents that a GOP victory will revive that party's efforts to cut taxes for the rich and transform Social Security into risky private investment accounts.

Targeting independents is tricky, though, because the makeup of independents evolves over time.

Their numbers have swollen from 3 in 10 two years ago, due partly to the weakened political loyalties that typify years without presidential elections. While some are conservatives dissatisfied with Republicans, similar numbers are disillusioned Democrats, underscoring a frustration with the party in power often seen when the economy is bad.

Reflecting these conflicting dynamics, today's independents are likelier to be minorities, conservatives, less educated, lower paid and from rural areas than they were in 2008. Sixty-seven percent think the country is heading in the wrong direction, compared with 59 percent of all voters who think so.

"Why not stop bickering and do something. Pull together," said Chip A. Hoeye, 54, of Fort Atkinson, Wis., an independent and Obama voter who says he doesn't care which party controls Congress because of their constant battling.

Independents trust Republicans far more than Democrats for handling national security, but give Democrats a 42 percent to 36 percent edge for dealing with health care - a potential sign that distrust over Obama's signature issue is receding.

Hope is not lost for Democrats.

The AP-GfK polls show a narrow 44 percent to 41 percent overall preference for a Democratic Congress. The party is holding its 2008 edge among women and urban residents, and still splitting the vote of pivotal suburbanites and people earning $50,000 to $100,000.

But less than three months from Election Day, independents aren't the only part of Obama's 2008 coalition that shows waning enthusiasm for a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Other groups that supported Obama but show less fervor include young whites, unmarried women, people who live in the West, people earning under $50,000 a year, college graduates and urban whites. The falloff shows that Democrats have work to do with blocs the party hoped an Obama presidency would cement into dependable supporters.

There's even erosion among minorities. While 8 in 10 voted for Obama, fewer than two-thirds want a Democratic Congress, and 1 in 9 don't care which party controls.

Democrats are also losing further ground with GOP-leaning groups such as white men, married men and people earning over $100,000 a year.

Ebbing support for Democrats, compared with the vote for Obama, partly reflects that a president's popularity doesn't necessarily help his party in Congress. It also comes as Obama's own image has suffered: 49 percent approve of his job performance in the AP-GfK polls, compared with 67 percent who approved in February 2009, days after he took office.

The data from the AP-GfK polls combines surveys conducted June 9-14, May 7-11 and April 7-12 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. A total of 3,047 randomly chosen adults were interviewed by cell and landline telephone. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.

The exit poll for the November 2008 presidential election was conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the AP and television networks in 300 precincts nationally. The data was based on 17,836 voters, including telephone polling of 2,407 people who voted early, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 1 percentage point.

Associated Press (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100815/D9HK33T00.html) - August 15, 2010