WSJ poll: Obama approval rating at 60%, handling of economy at 56%
posted at 8:50 pm on March 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
The public will get tired of the spending eventually but they’re not there yet. 68 percent view The One very or somewhat positively, and while support for the stimulus has narrowed, it’s still 44/36 in favor. So far they’re willing to give him plenty of time to right the ship, too:
In both questions you’ve got more than 40 percent looking ahead two years or more. I wonder what another six months of disintegrating Dow and rising unemployment would do to those numbers. Would the timeline be further extended or would people get impatient? Note the trend below as an early warning that even as support for the stimulus and his handling of the economy remain positive, clouds are gathering:
On the other hand:
Looking at that, it’s hard to believe it’s still a center-right country. And looking at these, it’s even harder:
The “positive” numbers for the GOP there are the lowest yet, although “negatives” have been worse. (The difference is in the neutral category.) You’ll also be pleased to know that those agreeing with the statement that we need to spend more on defense have declined from 73/21 a few months after September 11th to … 42/49 now.
Silver lining: 53 percent now say the Iraq war has been very or somewhat successful, up 10 points from last year. So Bush may yet have a legacy even if we, er, never get elected again.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
* Limbaugh. Told you I’m not a regular listener.
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 10:19 PM
PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS THAT BARACK OBAMA REFUSES TO RELEASE -. OBAMA’S SECRECY AND “CLOSED RECORDS” POLICY
Indonesian Passport – Not released
Application for U.S. Citizenship (as former citizen of Indonesia) – Not released
Immigration Records – Not released
Original Vault Copy Birth Certificate – Not released
Certificate of Live Birth – Counterfeit Version on Obama Web Site
Obama / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro Adoption Records – Not Released
Fransiskus Assisi School Application – Not released
Punahou School Records – Not released
Selective Service Registration – Counterfeit version generated
Occidental College records – Not released
Columbia College Records – Not released
Columbia Thesis – Not released
Harvard College Records – Not released
Baptism Certificate – None
Medical Records – Not released
Illinois State Senate Records – Not released
Law Practice Client List – Not released
University of Chicago Scholarly Articles – None
searcher484 on March 3, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Take your conspiracy theories somewhere else.
terryannonline on March 3, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Only 6 per cent of Americans think this economic situation is Obama’s fault.
Someone tell me again how influential Rush Limbaugh is.
YYZ on March 3, 2009 at 10:22 PM
terryannonline on March 3, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Well-put.
Only *one* of my friends who voted for Obama still likes him; everyone else I know who voted for him feels rather embarrassed.
Still, a nation that believes the ‘I inherited’ meme, etc., & who wants to stab our military in the back is asking for trouble. Didn’t we learn anything on 9/11?
youngTXcon on March 3, 2009 at 10:22 PM
It’s so tiresome always waiting for the freakin’ “public” to catch up.
Zombies at the mall.
PC14 on March 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Huh? I wouldn’t say that the current economic situation is Obama’s fault, either. The question is what he’s going to do to make it worse.
How influential is Limbaugh? You’re commenting about him on this blog. Do you do that for Olbermann?
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Seriously, Searcher, I quite like your conspiracy, but spamming is not cool. Please stop it.
Fortunata on March 3, 2009 at 10:25 PM
The economy is getting worse. Much, much worse.
Obama’s approval ratings will get worse. Much, much worse.
In the meantime, stock up on guns and gold.
Norwegian on March 3, 2009 at 10:25 PM
I’ll clarify that. The market right now is OBAMA’S MARKET. I don’t care if 6% of the public thinks so or not. There was a time when 99% of the population believed the earth is flat. Didn’t change reality.
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 10:26 PM
You’re not Rush Limbaugh. But he’s been blaming this economy on Obama for months and months. And, you know, some suggest he’s the most important voice in the GOP.
Not sure what that means, but this is one of the rare posts on this blog that’s not about Rush.
YYZ on March 3, 2009 at 10:27 PM
If your ideology is that superior, 2010 will be a whipping for your team against the Dems. Anybody giving odds on that happening?…
athensboy on March 3, 2009 at 10:03 PM
You better hope so, ‘cuz otherwise you and your ilk are fried chickens, wanker.
GlocknRoll on March 3, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Seems the President thinks so…Einstein.
Jamson64 on March 3, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Funny how now that Obama is Prez he can blame the former Prez….Seems that was not allowed previously by the left wing loons.
You trolls are a JOKE.
Jamson64 on March 3, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Yep, a coworker was happy that socialism was coming. I bet he would say these problems are due to Bush having screwed things up so bad or are necessary to teach the fat cats a lesson. Dailykos fan he is.
aikidoka on March 3, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Obambi will still be blaming Bush after he wins his third term in office. Hell, the Democrats blamed Herbert Hoover for all of the nation’s troubles for 50 years.
Percy_Peabody on March 3, 2009 at 10:32 PM
This is just lovely.
Conservatives have spent all this time bashing Obama for what.
The public will eventually turn, right?
Now you guys REALLY have a problem if the economy turns around.
Will the public trust the GOP ever again with anything if that happens?
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM
The only message the country has gotten from its leaders the past year is that the answers to the country’s problems lie in government. 2008 was the year of the bailout – $1.5 trillion worth of bailouts… Now Obama has vaguely defined stimulus plans and budgets, none of which were ever critically examined by the press, that get pushed. Republicans cannot cogently argue for an alternative. So the country says “well, government is the answer, and Obama says this… so ok, let’s try this, since nobody else has any better ideas.”
What do you expect?
Outlander on March 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Are you a real Greek in Greece? Or just a lefty Dem troll? Because your countrymen are the welfare queens of the EU. They and you are going to be seriously disappointed in both Obama and the EU as the welfare fountain dries up and you understand that you were living off the backs of the American and EU taxpayers respectively.
Fortunata on March 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM
keep lowering that bar for your high jump there champ….
“dream dream dream”
sven10077 on March 3, 2009 at 10:35 PM
No, assuming we don’t fall into the abyss and that we’re not actually in the Endtimes, the economy will eventually turn around. The editorial in the WSJ this morning makes it clear that financiers think that Obama’s policies will strengthen and lengthen the depression, not alleviate it. But we will eventually come through (most of us) and it’ll be a theoretical game as to how much better off we should have been.
Fortunata on March 3, 2009 at 10:38 PM
It is a long list but I see no “conspiracy theory” hidden in there.
MB4 on March 3, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Perhaps as a public service you could report here at the start of each month on the latest on that number. Thanks in advance.
MB4 on March 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Yet Rasmussen today has the gap between Republicans and dems narrowing to 2 points in the generic Congressional ballot, 41 to 39, and shows unaffiliated voters favoring the Republican over the democrat 35 to 25 percent. The democrat brand, it seems, is suffering a bit under the weight of this “popular” president.
Rational Thought on March 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Saying that Obama is somehow hiding his birth certificate when it’s not the truth….
Perhaps, you might call it “conspiracy theory” but what ever it is contemptuous.
terryannonline on March 3, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Let’s put the fear mongering aside for a minute with these “End Times” predictions and how the world of darkness will be upon us.
What do you have to loose if and when the Obama administration does turn it around? Personally, what will you lose with the success of Obama’s administration in getting the economy back on track?
The REAL fear that you guys have is that the conservative movement (and the Republican party) will be a minority party AT BEST for a quarter century.
At the worst, your movement, like monarchies, feudalism, and other ancient ideologies, will be just that.
Ancient, old, impractical, and just plain crazy.
I understand the fear. But you need to calm down. If you guys WORK WITH the President and offer CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISISM you may survive and get back in power.
But if you keep listening to Rush….
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM
You don’t read or watch serious financial reporting do you?
Jamson64 on March 3, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I don’t mind the conspiracy theory but Searcher’s posts are repetitive, off-topic spamming. Smack him.
Fortunata on March 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM
how bout you get some sex with barry allah?
ousoonerfan15 on March 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Searcher: Thank you for your post. The snide comments by the self-appointed content judges about your post reveal more about those posters than about the content of your post.
Your post is not any longer than many other posts I see here at Hot Air and one post on the subject hardly constitutes spamming.
One quibble, however: Obama did NOT attend “Harvard College,” which is the undergraduate segment of the sprawling Harvard University enterprise. Rather, he attended another Harvard University asset: Harvard Law.
sanantonian on March 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Take your long distance pop psychology and shove it up from whence your “intellect” sprang from.
aikidoka on March 3, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Oh Hell’s Bells, look at the freaking party breakdown they used for the damn poll:
Strong Democrat ………………………………….. 23
Not very strong Democrat ……………………… 8
Independent/lean Democrat ………………….. 12
Strictly independent………………………………. 20
Independent/lean Republican………………… 10
Not very strong Republican …………………… 7
Strong Republican………………………………… 13
Other (VOL) ……………………………………….. 4
Not sure …………………………………………….. 3
Looking at the breakdown, of course they got the results they got. The poll is as phony as a three dollar bill.
eyedoc on March 3, 2009 at 10:57 PM
You don’t do irony, do you? Neither are you a close reader. Please Kos, at least send your more literate trolls, not those paid by the keystroke.
Fortunata on March 3, 2009 at 10:58 PM
There’s no “may” about it as far as Bush’s place in history. Such tiresome and inane hand-wringing complete with hyperbolic “We may nevah get elected again” (I picture this said with a fist shake at the sky ala Scarlett in the vegetable garden, LOL).
KittyLowrey on March 3, 2009 at 10:59 PM
The same financial reporting that said the recession won’t last as long or that the situation in the financial markets weren’t that bad until it was too late?
No, I don’t.
However, I get well rounded news from a variety of sources that point to liquidity problems as the REAL item of concern (and not Obama’s policies as fear mongers would have us believe).
Once that works out we will have SLOW BUT SUSTAINED growth.
Stop this fear BS. You are the people that are spreading the fear and causing needless pain.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Not so. There’s a big party gap right now (except at Rasmussen, natch). They’re mirroring that.
Allahpundit on March 3, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Sorry, but he/she’s been posting that list over several days and on several threads today (right now). It is spamming, and as said, I quite like the theory but you have to argue it cogently, not just cut and paste, or you’ll annoy people.
Fortunata on March 3, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Your putdown was OK. Not reall
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Of course not, but the Democrats themselves know that it’s not about stimulating the economy; it’s not about economic growth. That’s why there’s the concern over getting Republican collaboration in these spending sprees: the Democrats don’t want to be on the hook for it.
But as I said, this isn’t about economic growth. It’s about Democratic party growth. It’s about creating dependent classes to vote reliably Democrat.
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Perhaps as a public service you could report here at the start of each month on the latest on that number. Thanks in advance.
MB4 on March 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM
It’s called a poll. If 80 per cent of people thought Robert Mugabe was a good leader, that wouldn’t make it true.
But the notion that this recession has been (up ’till now) Obama’s fault has not gained any traction whatsoever.
YYZ on March 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Whoa. Ancient ideologies? Like the tax and spend, spend, spend policies of President Obama? As for feudalism, that’s the One’s aim with government as the ruling oligarchs and taxpayers as serfs held down by oppressive taxation and dependence on government.
sdun1 on March 3, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Yeah, it reminds me of what Lincoln Steffens said in 1921 about the USSR: “I have seen the future, and it works”. Leftists never let go of the delusion.
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 11:17 PM
MSN is calling this 60% an “all-time high”. How can they say that? I thought his numbers were higher right out of the gate.
capitalist piglet on March 3, 2009 at 11:22 PM
By the way, approaches like Keynesianism and socialism aren’t exactly new and cutting edge, guy.
And what “constructive criticism”? The Democrats didn’t really solicit Republican input on the stimulus bill. “Constructive criticism” is just another word for “assent”. As Pelosi said, they “won the election”.
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 11:24 PM
the stock market tanking, losing 30 % (!!!) of its value is obama’s direct contribution
runner on March 3, 2009 at 11:25 PM
30 % since he entered the oval that is
runner on March 3, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Because I care what the target thinks.
/sarc
aikidoka on March 3, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I blame Joaquin Phoenix.
YYZ on March 3, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Joaquin Phoenix has done about as much as Obama to stop the bleeding.
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 11:32 PM
This country needs a lobotomy.
It’s time to consider pulling an Alec Baldwin and getting the hell out of here before all hell breaks loose.
Dorvillian on March 3, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Patience grasshopper, patience.
MB4 on March 3, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Calm down, people. He’s been in office exactly 6 weeks. It won’t be til May or June before his numbers are significantly affected by the economy, and even then he could still be in the low 50′s.
Right now unemployment is high, but it’s still only 7.6% nationally. Gas prices are slowly creeping up again, but around here it’s still under 2 bucks. And taxes may be scheduled to go up, but it hasn’t happened yet.
These things take time. We all know Obama’s policies will lead to economic disaster, but we’re nowhere near that point yet. Once gas is approaching 4 bucks again and unemployment is flirting with double digits, people will become concerned. Inflation due to out-of-control spending will make them upset. And responsible citizens footing the bill for irresponsible homeowners will end up pissing everyone off.
Doughboy on March 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Where is it? Why don’t I get to see it? Have you seen it? He can see mine if he wants.
I don’t call it a “conspiracy theory”, but yes it is contemptuous of him not to show it.
MB4 on March 3, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Well, I would prefer a healthy economy to seeing Obama’s poll numbers go down in a hellish one. But I’m afraid you’re right. Things are going to get worse, and Bush will be well out of the rear-view mirror by then. The burning question is how much lasting damage the Obama administration is going to inflict.
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Tax and spend, tax and spend.
That argument is what allowed you guys to control politics for thirty years. Many of you are still floating around ideas like this is still a “center-right” country and stuff.
Here is the problem. Since you pratically had control for pretty much most of that time the size of government INCREASED, the disparity of income has risen, the quality of education has decreased, etc. etc.
So yes, when the recovery happens, conservatism as it stands (which is just pure capitalism in disguise) will be ancient.
We need balance in our society. We don’t need pure capitalism or socialism/communism.
To say that Barack Obama is for any extreme is just sillyness and that is reflected in the polling numbers.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Ooooh, the inconsistencies here. You say that conservatives are out of power because they didn’t live up to conservative ideas. That’s an admission that conservative ideas ARE resonant in this country (witness the fact that Democratic presidential candidates ALWAYS veer to the right in order to have a chance at winning).
Secondly, when was it that we had a “purely capitalist” system in this country? Certainly not since the New Deal.
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Getting invited to the White House, having the President COME TO YOU, and then having ANOTHER SIT DOWN with the president, having the bill consist of 40% of your beloved tax cuts that you didn’t even need to ask for, some of the items removed that you didn’t want, and still not voting for it is a prime example.
You act like the people didn’t speak on November 4th that they wanted Obama in office.
No one said you have to agree with everything Obama said. But the constituents of the Republicans elected there representatives to WORK with the President and fellow colleagues, not to go on television everyday yelling about tax cuts that we tried already.
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Your sudden flurry of half-thought out posts over a number of threads has certainly entertained me this evening. Now, let’s try and dismantle your arguments.
First, stop confusing GOP and Conservative. They are not interchangeable. You can have conservative Democrats, but you cannot have Republican Democrats. It is a pet peeve, but one you must understand if you wish to grasp the rest of my rebuttal.
You have a mighty big “if” in the first paragraph. In order for the market to turn around it requires one major thing. That one thing is confidence. If people have confidence that if they invest their money they will get a return then the market will turn around. Until that happens no amount of government intervention will change that. This economy must have private capital to function. Will the economy turn around eventually? I can give you a 100% guarantee that it will. I can also say with relative certainty that unless Obama changes his policies than it will continue to fall. Proving that the government is willing to take away your wealth is never going to encourage people to invest.
You are right in that Conservatives are concerned that we will become a minority party. We are very concerned, and even angered, that the GOP and moderates have started to say we should change everything we believe in in order to get elected again. I do not agree with Rush on everything, but his speech to CPAC I almost entirely supported. We conservatives believe that fiscal responsibility, individualism, capitalism, and Judeo-Christian values are things that should never be compromised with so we can get elected. If we did I believe the correct adjective for us would be “sell outs”. I am quite certain that the majority of Americans feel the same way. Here is how I know this. That source isn’t even from America, but from an observer looking into our political arena. I hate to say it (who am I kidding) but America still is a center-right nation, and a power grab by a party will push it further right not left.
If you would have listened to the news you would have seen the GOP would wanted to work with Obama on the stimulus. They were offering ideas, alternatives, and willing to horse-trade where necessary. How did Obama and the Democrats respond? Obama went to the Republican caucus and paid lipservice to the ideal of bi-partisanship. How many Republicans were asked for input on the final bill? Zero. How many of the Republican ideas were incorporated into the final bill? Zero. Is it any surprise that they chose to vote against it? Should they betray the people who elected them just to pass a bill? It angers me to no end when the liberals or Democrats talk about how terrible it is to challenge Obama when for the last eight years they have openly ridiculed, mocked, and denigrated Bush.
txaggie on March 3, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Wasn’t that one of the occasions when Obama used his “I won the election” shtick?
He had no intentions of accepting Republican input on the thing. He didn’t even know what was in it himself. It was all just going through the motions.
ddrintn on March 3, 2009 at 11:57 PM
No, that’s an admission by the elected official that conservative policies don’t work in practice.
If they did work why wouldn’t the politician who touted them actually enact them?
Wow, let’s see then. For all of this talk that the New Deal failed there has been a lot of positive developments since then? According to the agruments provided now for all of the spending Barack Obama is doing the country should be in a disastrous state in a few years.
Yet, after the New Deal(s) passed AND the war the economy has BOOMED from that time.
All of that deficet spending should have KILLED us. Yet we came out stronger!
ckoeber on March 3, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Oh, and Democrats elected to Congress from 2000-2006 were elected to work with the President, not shout about betraying the country or killing innocent women and children and stuff.
Besides, I thought Hillary Clinton said dissent is patriotic. She screamed something like, “I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!!!”
I wonder if you disagreed with her when she made that comment. I’m thinking, nahhhhh.
ddrintn on March 4, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Your inability to grasp our objections is truly perplexing.
The “tax cuts” were not ours at all. Most of them were not even tax cuts. They were giving money away to people who do not pay taxes. They should have been exposed for what they were.
You claim that Obama won the election with a mandate. That his win completely justified that all Americans should agree and work with him. You are correct that he won an electoral college landslide, but what about the popular vote? Isn’t that what truly matters? I certainly thought so since the Democrats had been so fixated on it over the previous two elections. Are saying that 46% of the country should simply shut up and get with the program? That their opinion no longer matters? I do not accept that, and if the situation was reversed neither would you.
The people who elected Republicans did not elect them to work with Obama. They elected them to represent them. The people thought that Joe Republican would be better for their state/district than Joe Democrat. Would they not be angry if said Republican started to compromise their region just to be seen as a bi-partisan guy?
Your inability to see why Obama so troubles us is either blinded by your partisan dislike for Conservatives, your blind belief in Obama being a truly historic figure, or a mixture of the two.
txaggie on March 4, 2009 at 12:07 AM
And liberal policies have been shown to work like charms. Our NEA-captive educational system is a shambles, our inner cities are hellholes, families are fragmented or non-existent, liberal states are going broke but still can’t put the brakes on spending, and on and on and on. We had a War on Poverty; we’ve transferred probably 9 or 10 trillion dollars in that effort, and poverty won. All of that social spending and so little in the way of results…except in terms of building Democratic party constituencies, which was the real goal of the spending anyway.
ddrintn on March 4, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Care to make any predictions as to how far the Obama slide will continue before the Obama recovery happens? And for extra credit, how much of the Obama slide we will recover from while he is still prez.
We need very little socialism and we don’t need any communism!
He is spending like a flotilla of drunken sailors on shore leave and putting it on the next who-knows-how-many next generations bar tab. That strikes me as rather extreme to say the laest.
MB4 on March 4, 2009 at 12:15 AM
OK, seperating conservatives from the GOP, I’ll follow the thought process.
Confidence comes from fixing the banks. Once that is done the economy will bounce back slowly but surely. When you had credit derivative swaps on ten thousand mortages damage like what we see happens.
Obama’s Reinvestment act has nothing to to with that.
As for your core beliefs of what you feel America is, I dispute the fact that we are individualistic. Most people are willing to pay an appropriate portion of taxes, it’s the wasteful spending that get’s out of control by both sides of the aisles that anger them.
In times like this Obama’s plan makes sense to most people. Hence the polls that prove it.
I also dispute your assertion that Obama was simply paying lip service. A good portion of the final Reinvestment act had conservative principles intertwined in it.
No one points out that 40% of the final bill was tax cuts and credits.
ckoeber on March 4, 2009 at 12:16 AM
You are making less and less sense. The deficit spending then was mere chicken feed to what Overlord Obama is taking off on.
MB4 on March 4, 2009 at 12:20 AM
The polls don’t prove anything to me beyond the fact that a lot of people are looking for goodies. Which most of them won’t be getting.
ddrintn on March 4, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Here is gthe core difference between the timeframe you brought up and now.
During 2000-2006 we had 9/11 happen. The ENTIRE COUNTRY was behind Bush. I am guessing that he had around 70% approval rating in October of 2001.
From that time, here is what Bush decided to do:
- Give tax cuts
- Start a war in Afghanistan
- More tax cuts
- Completely blow off the UN and various countries when the objected to going to war in Iraq
- Tell everyone that Iraq had WMDs, had ties to bin Laden, Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, etc. etc.
- Go to war in Iraq
- DECLARE VICTORY IN IRAQ
- Hurricane Katrina
Do I need to go on?
Now, president Obama has been in office for SIX WEEKS and tries to pass a bill that actually benefits most Americans (you will surely argue that you wanted more tax cuts but the healthcare and unemployment benefits were for people like you and me) and Republicans want to act like the entire 8 years didn’t happen?
ckoeber on March 4, 2009 at 12:26 AM
For in a Republic, who is “the country?” Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
- Mark Twain
Wanting Obama to fail is not the same as wanting the nation to fail. Obama is not the nation. This is not 1930′s and 40′s Germany, nor is it North Korea. Actually it is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile the concept of Obama succeeding with the concept of the country succeeding, increasingly difficult.
MB4 on March 4, 2009 at 12:26 AM
HAH! During WWII the government was spending 25% of GDP. On top of that, we lost a significant portion of our workforce due to the bloodshed.
Yet we bounce back.
ckoeber on March 4, 2009 at 12:30 AM
As to Katrina, I seem to recall that the clueless mayor of New Orleans and the clueless Governor of Louisiana were both democrats.
As for Iraq, “Google is your friend”.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Do I need to go on?
MB4 on March 4, 2009 at 12:32 AM
That doesn’t even make sense.
ckoeber on March 4, 2009 at 12:33 AM
That was during a world war you fracken loon!
Oh, sorry, I get what you mean now – Obama is going to be as big a catastrophe as WWII. Well, OK, I don’t think it’s going to be that bad, but who knows, you could be right I suppose.
MB4 on March 4, 2009 at 12:36 AM
You are correct in saying that confidence will spring from fixing the banks. What we disagree on is how that is done. Earlier this week Obama nationalized Citi Bank. You can call it anything you want, but 40% of a company gives you just about free reign to do what you will. Investors are worried that if Citi doesn’t start to improve then Obama will authorize more and more money until Citi is no more. In its place you would have the Bank of US. When that happens investors are essentially left out in the cold and unable to get their money back out. Why would you invest in that climate? I believe it is much smarter to let the banks fail. Will it hurt? You bet your butt it will. Will most people lose their saving like the Great Depression? No, unless they have over $250,000 in an account. People who have that much money don’t put them in accounts to sit. What happens when a bank fails? Pure capitalism does. Investors come over and pick the bones clean buying up the pieces and reestablishing order. It is very similar to natural selection. The businesses that are most suited for this environment will survive and thrive while the antiquated ones will fade away or be purchased.
I will not try and defend the indefensible. What the brokers did was categorically dishonest and hurt the country. That was a result from greed, bad policy, and poor oversight. It started at the bottom of someone getting a house they could not afford and kept going until the said broker sold it on the market. The best we can hope for is that now they will pay better attention. Something similar happened during the roaring 20′s and that watchdog instinct kept it in check for around 70 years. I would venture a guess that history will repeat itself.
You are getting individualistic and charitable confused. We view the world through a prism of personal responsibility. I loathe the people who say it wasn’t my fault. Do you know how many times I have heard that crap as a professor? We think that our responsibility starts with us and branches outwards. Liberals believe that responsibility begins with the whole and goes inward. I do not make much money, but what I do have is time. I volunteer to help kids from across the world learn English. I do this because I want to, not because I am forced to. When the government steps in it says I must, and that I cannot stand.
txaggie on March 4, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Yeah, at least the Republicans have the guts to register their disapproval early on with the stimulus bill, instead of agreeing to it and then using it as a club to beat Obama over the head.
For you, not surprising. Anyway, I hope Santa is good to you this year.
ddrintn on March 4, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I can’t believe you would actually want to argue this.
Faulty intelligence, have Colin Powell say Iraq had WMDs in front of the UN with KNOWN faulty intelligence, invading the country without a plan, declaring victory extremely premature.
That hardly supplants members of the Democratic party merrily supporting some military action in dealing with Iraq.
ckoeber on March 4, 2009 at 12:41 AM
LOL. Do realize this. If Obama succeeds you benifit, you know.
ckoeber on March 4, 2009 at 12:43 AM
That’s right. If the democrats had not been pushing and egging Bush on so much and then mostly voting for the authorization we might never have invaded Iraq.
MB4 on March 4, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Now that all depends on what he succeeds at, doesn’t it? Well, for most of us here it does anyway. You seem to keep forgetting that unlike thirties and forties Germany and today’s North Korea, Obama is not the nation.
MB4 on March 4, 2009 at 12:47 AM
It is certainly true Obama doesn’t deserve all the blame – he’s basically a failed state senator who ran for president as soon as he connived his way into a federal Senate seat. The market has dropped for his successes in the polls and his statements since the election though, so he certainly is not blameless.
However, the people that he has surrounded himself with and allied himself to in congress are certainly to blame – the Clintons, Biden, Dodd, Frank, etc.
18-1 on March 4, 2009 at 12:49 AM
How does Obama succeeding at destroying the America I know and love benefit me? I see how I will be poorer and less free, and those things are not positives in my book.
18-1 on March 4, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Thoughtful comments.
Letting the banks fail will have a similar affect to what happened to Lehman Brothers (which we are still suffering from).
That will just cause instant shock that will completely freeze all credit markets. Millions of people would instantly lose their jobs (as businesses cannot get any money to run operations).
The recovery will be FAR SLOWER as the amount of shock and damage will be enormous.
The biggest takeaway; mostly the poor and middle class would suffer from such a move. Please realize that for every month that it takes a well-financed person to recovery from a recession it takes six months to a year for a poor or lower middle class person to recover. Jobs take longer to “trickle down”.
In essense, most people (including myself) agree with your sentiments regarding personal responsibility but it manifests itself in more ways than one. Hence President Obama’s call to service which is by no means forced.
ckoeber on March 4, 2009 at 12:52 AM
That’s not fair. Obama is already in Hoover territory true – but to put him in Chamberlain territory we need to find him his own angry corporal to kowtow to.
18-1 on March 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM
I can hardly believe that you have such a poor rebuttal and after I went to all the trouble of posting that lengthy democrat war mongering, including their claims of weapons of mass destruction, and including from President Bill Clinton and First #itch Hillary Clinton for you.
MB4 on March 4, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Yep. They are out there. Like the freek I encountered on the shuttle from the Cincinnati airport to my car in long-term parking.
The guy’s car was a new Mustang, but it had the words “Socialists for Obama” on the back.
What kind of a country do we live in where a Mustang, a product of capitalism, is desecrated by the word ‘socialist’ on it? I wanted to get out of the shuttle, follow him to his car, and icepick him in the head a la Trotsky.
What a maggot to put something like that on that car. It was like a rape or something.
Sapwolf on March 4, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Well capitalist swine, or I guess I should say former capitalist swine, that skinny wimp is already sure starting to kowtow to me although I am a higher rank than corporal.
PootyPoot on March 4, 2009 at 12:59 AM
This is one of the things that always amuses me about liberals.
There was a debate about imminence before the Iraq war. Congressional Democrats called Iraq an imminent threat. Bush argued waiting for a threat to become imminent was a bad idea. Some Democrat leaders did agree with Bush though of course – like Biden. If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
So somehow this morphs into Bush making the case that Iraq was imminent as the centerpiece of his argument, when in fact it was the centerpiece of the pro-war Democrats like Biden and Clinton.
But apparently remembering back that far is just too hard.
18-1 on March 4, 2009 at 1:03 AM
Every day on the drive into work I see a number of Obama bumper stickers. And they are mostly on luxury vehicles – with expensive SUVs being the most common.
Do they realize Obama’s stated view on SUVs and gas guzzlers in general? Or, like the man himself, do they really believe that is for the little people?
18-1 on March 4, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Good God. They are gonna give him TWO YEARS or more! to mess things up.
I guess we just all have to go with the flow – right down the drain.
Alana on March 4, 2009 at 1:46 AM
It’s the Jim Jones – Jonestown factor. There always will be suckers lining up to drink the poisoned Kool-Aid thinking they’re getting ahead by a free drink on the house.
viking01 on March 4, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Being as how I’m not a Republican but an Independent, I don’t think you can speak for what I really fear. (Or what any Republican really fears, for that matter.)
I don’t have to look very far to see what I fear.
First, there is the stock market, and our losses therein, of our retirement funds. Ditto for our work-based retirement funds.
Secondly, there are changes to come in the medical realm which don’t augur well at all for older people, and everyone is going to get old, us sooner than others.
Thirdly, we are in the middle class and thus don’t get any handouts or bailouts or helps for ANYTHING. Nobody cares if we have struggled to pay our bills; all that counts is we give taxes to make it easier on other people, which is supposed to be “fair.”
Fourthly, there is the Cap and Trade, which will make everything much more expensive, and we won’t be getting any “help” with that, either.
And finally (though there are other things, like increasing capital gains), I hate to see my children and their children saddled with the cost of all these things, most of them unnecessary in the first place.
All those fears are based upon watching what Congress has passed, and what Congress plans to pass next, all in a total orgy that apparently amounts to spending as much as possible.
Which, as far as I can tell, consists of taking all our money (borrowing it in our name, actually), and giving it to their cronies and pet projects while the gettin is good, so that when it all crashes down, at least they got theirs.
Now, if none of this comes to pass – if white actually is black, and up actually is down, and magically somehow this spending orgy and debt accumulation for ridiculous purposes, along with the power grabs (census, for instance), and monumental growth of government turns out to be miraculously GOOD for us – well then, do you think I’m going to cry about it?
But so far, nothing has done anything good for me at all, and plenty bad – and nothing on the docket upcoming is going to do anything good for me, either.
Unless you count getting dragged out of the middle class and down to poverty a good thing.
If there were even ONE HOPEFUL THING, I would perk up. But nothing is.
So you tell me: Do you think I care about the Republican party? NO. I care about the fact that my family is middle class and we are being ruined.
You can talk party all you want, but party is immaterial to me, and talking party doesn’t sugarcoat what is going on.
It’s all about the money honey, and this middle class family is getting raped.
Alana on March 4, 2009 at 2:21 AM
Wait – don’t they weight the results for that?
Alana on March 4, 2009 at 2:25 AM
Yes, it sure looked like bipartisanship. But the conservatives that Obama made a show of meeting with were allowed absolutely zero input on the legislation. They were basically told to take it or leave it.
Maybe the phony “bipartisanship” fooled you, but there’s a reason why the entire Republican caucus — plus 10 Democrats — refused to vote for it.
Most Obama voters didn’t even know who they were voting for. But they’re finding out fast, and it won’t be pretty.
No, the Republicans were not elected to “work with the President.” They were elected to represent their voters, who were extremely clear that they did not like the bailout plan. If they had ignored their constituents and “worked with the president,” then they would have betrayed the trust they were given.
So get off the moral high horse. It is not the duty of Congress to “work with the president.” Their duty is to represent their constituents’ wants and needs.
It’s very interesting how you seem to think “working with the president” and doing whatever the president wants is the highest good.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 4, 2009 at 3:01 AM
Why? It’s just a list of all the secrets Obama is keeping. What you make of it is up to you. I’m sure some will derive a conspiracy theory or two from it, but that’s the price Obama pays for being so secretive.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 4, 2009 at 3:06 AM
You keep saying this, but it’s just not true. These “tax cuts” are cuts in payroll taxes, which are not supposed to be taxes paid to the governments but money paid to Social Security and Medicare, that you get back when you retire. Plus, taxes on business are rising. When taxes are raised on business, do you think businesses just cut down their profits and keep the same prices? Of course not! The prices are set to give the amount of profit they need to stay in business. Raise taxes on a business, and it’s just like raising their expenses: they will then raise their prices to pay the tax. Which means every penny these poor people get in “tax relief” will get taken away in the form of higher prices.
These “tax cuts” will not stimulate the economy. Which you might expect in something called a “stimulus package.”
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 4, 2009 at 3:15 AM
1. Take your pick as to when.
Will it be:
A few weeks from now when the Dow hits 3000?
A few bank failures from now?
When a couple million 401Ks are wiped out?
When gas hits 5 bucks a gallon?
When the rolling blackouts start? (Those’ll be fun for the whole family during summer heat waves!)
When people start filing their 2010 taxes?
2. Noticed you said if there, not when. Doesn’t sound like you have much confidence in the Dems to actually fix it. More likely, perhaps you’re starting to realize they’re driving it straight into the ground at hyper-luminal speed.
3. Mark my words: Obama’s a four and out President, which is two years more than the Donk majority will have in congress. Few things sway voters to the opposition quite like utter failure.
THIS isn’t utter failure though. THIS is what is called an epic catastrophe, engineered by a President not qualified to run a PhotoMat, much less a country, coupled with the most corrupt and authoritarian Congress in history literally destroying the ecconomy.
Best to pray we don’t end up in a “Weimar” State before long. Rapid ecconomic collapse has a way of generating such a climate…and that’s “climate change” the left REALLY doesn’t want to see.
SuperCool on March 4, 2009 at 3:30 AM
All these polls show is that Republicans are MUCH nicer to Democrat Presidents than Democrats are to Republican Presidents.
Speedwagon82 on March 4, 2009 at 6:20 AM
Where the hell do they find these people? It must be an urban thing as I have yet to meet anyone who doesn’t recognize the flaws in Da Bama’s economic recovery [10% real stimulous!] plan, his several trillion in waste filled spending, and how Da Bama is killing business inside of America.
Unbelievable!
DannoJyd on March 4, 2009 at 6:34 AM
Like that could happen.
I’ve got news for you dork – we would LOVE to be proven wrong. We’re Americans first – period. If Obama’s policies could fix our problems, we would be out cheerleading.
But anyone who knows even a modicum about our economy knows it’s being crushed out of existence. And picking up the pieces isn’t an option when all that’s left is rubble.
Squiggy on March 4, 2009 at 6:50 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »