Obama Poll Watch -- April, 2010
More Of The Same
In the movie L.A. Story, there's a television weatherman (played by Steve Martin) who winds up one of his reports with: "Our next weather report will be in four days." The joke, for those unfamiliar with L.A. weather, is that Southern California doesn't have "weather," but rather a "climate." Things don't change much, in other words, therefore one weather report will do just fine for the next four days.
I'm starting to feel a little like Martin's character, I have to admit. Because President Barack Obama seems to have hit a plateau in his approval ratings, which have remained largely unchanged for the past three months now, and not significantly changed since last November. Could it be that we've all just made up our minds about the job the president is doing? Should I just end this with "next Obama Poll Watch column in three months...?"
Well, no, because these columns give me something to do the first Monday or Wednesday after the end of each month. So bear with me as we take a look at April's approval numbers for the president, and then quickly resume our comparison of Obama with past presidents, by looking at how he stacks up against Dwight D. Eisenhower. As always, you can compare Obama to any past president from Eisenhower through George W. Bush at the ObamaPollWatch.com site.
But let's get on with it, by taking a look at April's graph of Obama's approval ratings:
[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]
April, 2010
As you can see, movement was minimal, and on the margins. For the past five months (and more markedly in the past three), Steve Martin might sum it up as: "A little more than 45 percent of the public approves of the job Obama's doing, while a little more than 45 percent disapprove of the president. Approval numbers remain slightly above disapproval numbers." And the coastal fog will burn off by midday, while temperatures will be slightly higher inland. Sigh.
April saw Wall Street reform grow in momentum in Congress (specifically, in the Senate -- the House, as usual, has already passed the bill), with President Obama's full support. This reached a highpoint late in the month, when Harry Reid finally got Chris Dodd's bill to the floor. This helped Obama's numbers head up a tiny bit at the end of the month, but not dramatically (at least, not yet). The Census was in the news at the beginning of the month, as was Tax Day and the Tea Partiers (whose demonstrations appeared, at least to this political observer, to be much smaller than in the past, for whatever that's worth). President Obama signed a landmark nuclear arms reduction deal with Russia, but the mainstream media (and hence, the public) largely yawned and ignored it, resulting in no poll bounce for Obama, even though at this point the issue's pretty non-controversial (not like, say, a Reagan summit in the 1980s). Also largely kept secret was the fact that Obama lowered taxes on 95 to 97 percent (estimates differ) of American taxpayers, resulting in the lowest tax burdens in 60 years. But the later parts of the month were largely devoted to the Democrats' efforts to rein in Wall Street excess, which will continue to play out in May, as the legislation makes its way through Congress towards Obama's desk. This issue is a good one for Democrats, and they've already succeeded in fracturing the Republicans' unity in the Senate once on the bill, which bodes well for its eventual passage. Whether this will result in the (so-far) elusive poll bump for Obama in May remains to be seen, though. And Arizona just shoved immigration reform back onto the Washington schedule, and it's really anybody's guess how this will play out politically, at least in the short term.
In April, President Obama's approval ratings fell three-tenths of a point, giving back the two-tenths gain he had posted last month. This translated into an all-time low of 47.8 percent for the month. Obama's disapproval rating remained essentially unchanged, rising one-tenth of a percent to end the month at 46.5 percent, an all-time high.
Overall Trends
But while Obama did hit an all-time high in disapproval, and an all-time low in approval, his approval rating is only 0.1 percent lower than in February, while his disapproval is only 0.4 percent higher than February. Meaning the overall trend is pretty flat for both of them.
Obama started the month on a high note, then his poll numbers took a short, sharp dive around mid-month. He charted the worst daily approval number yet, 46.1 percent, due to an outlier poll or two in the mix, but then quickly recovered ground. Obama's approval and disapproval lines on the daily chart (from RealClearPolitics, who provides the data for this column) even crossed for two days, only the second time that's happened. But Obama's daily disapproval numbers didn't hit a new high this month, and also peaked mid-month. By the end of the month, Obama had regained ground (likely due to the Wall Street reform push), and he finished the month pretty close to where he had started it.
Part of this was due to another outlier poll, from ABC News and the Washington Post, which pegged Obama's approval rating at 54 percent -- the highest poll number he's managed since mid-January. This poll in particular is worth checking out if you'd like to see a little possible good news for Democrats, since we are exactly six months from the midterm elections. It shows Obama regaining some lost ground among Independents, which is what will ultimately make or break his presidency.
It's likely that President Obama's approval ratings and the Democrats' chances to avoid a blowout in the midterms are both tied to something that neither one of them can do much about in such a short time -- the economy. The real numbers to watch, to gauge both of these, are the "right direction / wrong track" polling numbers. These have improved slightly in the past month or so, but are still pretty dismal. If there's a significant improvement in this perception in the country in the next few months, then Democrats will have a much better chance in the elections, and Obama's approval rate will likely slowly rise as well. Until that happens, however, we may be in for a few more very (or fairly) flat months on our graph.
Obama v. Dwight D. Eisenhower
We continue to look backwards at previous presidents, this time to the dawn of the Cold War and the last military general we sent to the White House -- Dwight David Eisenhower. Eisenhower was enormously popular, in an avuncular sort of way, to the country and this feeling persisted throughout almost his entire presidency. Here is Eisenhower's first term (with apologies for the two-month gap in data around election-time):
[Click on graphs to see larger-scale versions.]
Pretty spectacular, I'd have to say. Here is Eisenhower's second term:
In only two polls (both of which are averaged with other polls within the same month on the graph, and therefore don't show up as their own data points) did Eisenhower fall below 50 percent approval. The existential threat of our country's annihilation by thousands of thermonuclear weapons by what we saw as an insane opponent does indeed tend to create a "rally 'round the president" effect. Added to Eisenhower's popularity when he arrived in office, which translated to steady high approval throughout both his terms. Even when his approval rate fell to the 50s, his disapproval rate never topped 35 percent -- numbers for any politician to be proud of. Eisenhower also began his presidency by winding down a very unpopular war in Korea, which also helped. We'll see just how unpopular, next month, when we take a look at Harry Truman's dismal numbers at the end of his presidency.
[Click on graphs to see larger-scale versions.]
Not a whole lot of parallels can be drawn between Obama in the twenty-first century, and Eisenhower's Cold War presidency, but we present the graph comparing the two for completeness' sake.
We're almost done with creating these comparison graphs, since modern poll numbers aren't available before Franklin D. Roosevelt's time. Next month, we will take a look at Harry Truman's numbers, and then in two months we'll look at F.D.R. But even after we finish marching through past presidents in such a fashion, these comparison charts will be updated on a monthly basis at the ObamaPollWatch.com site, for all past presidents, so you can check to see how Obama's doing against anyone back through F.D.R.
[Obama Poll Watch Data:]
Column Archives
[Mar 10], [Feb 10], [Jan 10], [Dec 09], [Nov 09], [Oct 09], [Sep 09], [Aug 09], [Jul 09], [Jun 09], [May 09], [Apr 09], [Mar 09]
Obama's All-Time Statistics
Monthly
Highest Monthly Approval -- 2/09 -- 63.4%
Lowest Monthly Approval -- 4/10 -- 47.8%
Highest Monthly Disapproval -- 4/10 -- 46.5%
Lowest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/09 -- 19.6%
Daily
Highest Daily Approval -- 2/15/09 -- 65.5%
Lowest Daily Approval -- 4/11/10 -- 46.1%
Highest Daily Disapproval -- 3/18/10 -- 47.8%
Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 1/29/09 -- 19.3%
Obama's Raw Monthly Data
[All-time high in bold, all-time low underlined.]
Month -- (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided)
04/10 -- 47.8 / 46.5 / 5.5
03/10 -- 48.1 / 46.4 / 5.5
02/10 -- 47.9 / 46.1 / 6.0
01/10 -- 49.2 / 45.3 / 5.5
12/09 -- 49.4 / 44.9 / 5.7
11/09 -- 51.1 / 43.5 / 5.4
10/09 -- 52.2 / 41.9 / 5.9
09/09 -- 52.7 / 42.0 / 5.3
08/09 -- 52.8 / 40.8 / 6.4
07/09 -- 56.4 / 38.1 / 5.5
06/09 -- 59.8 / 33.6 / 6.6
05/09 -- 61.4 / 31.6 / 7.0
04/09 -- 61.0 / 30.8 / 8.2
03/09 -- 60.9 / 29.9 / 9.2
02/09 -- 63.4 / 24.4 / 12.2
01/09 -- 63.1 / 19.6 / 17.3
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
Can anyone... ANYONE explain to me how giving control of the Internet to the FTC is a "GOOD" thing???
"WHAT??" ya'all say??
What is this about giving control of the Internet to the Federal Trade Commission???
Ahhhh, so ya'all did not notice that, stuck deep and secret inside the wondrous Wall St bill that ya'all are so in love with, is a little known law that gives control of the Internet over to the Federal Trade Commission...
The Federal Trade Commission could become a more powerful watchdog for Internet users under a little-known provision in financial overhaul legislation that would expand the agency’s ability to create rules.
An emboldened FTC would stand in stark contrast to a besieged Federal Communications Commission, whose ability to oversee broadband providers has been cast into doubt after a federal court ruled last month that the agency lacked the ability to punish Comcast for violating open-Internet guidelines.
The version of regulatory overhaul legislation passed by the House would allow the FTC to issue rules on a fast track and permit the agency to impose civil penalties on companies that hurt consumers. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz has argued in favor of bolstering his agency’s enforcement ability. …
Major media, telecom and cable companies stand to win or lose greatly from changes at the FTC and FCC. For example, a proposed rule at the FCC would force carriers to treat all Web traffic equally on their networks. That has drawn sharp opposition from broadband service providers, who would prefer that Congress mandate such a change. Comcast has complained that some traffic is so heavy that it slows the entire system.
The proposal to expand the FTC’s authority has sparked a flurry of lobbying by advertisers, industry groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which are seeking to block it citing concerns about possible overreach by the agency.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/01/why-does-the-wall-street-regulation-overhaul-give-ftc-authority-over-the-internet/
So........
Does anyone wanna try and convince me how "good" the Wall St legislation is again??
Because this is a REAL mood-killer for me...
You see how the Obama Administration acts???
Obama et al are thwarted by Congress on their Scheme & Ream plans, so they use the EPA to do an end run around Congress and fulfill their leftist environment/anarchist agenda..
The courts say that Obama's FCC can't do A, B and C with regards to the Internet, so Obama puts a secret poison pill in the "popular" Wall St legislation so his FTC can take up the slack...
I tell ya, whoever came up with the slogan, "BY HOOK OR BY CROOK" must have had the Obama Administration in mind....
**THIS** is the change we all voted for???
This is the most crooked Administration since Nixon!!!
Michale.....
Michale.....
In the movie L.A. Story, there's a television weatherman (played by Steve Martin) who winds up one of his reports with: "Our next weather report will be in four days."
Sgt Bilko:{holding up a pair of woman's panties} Are these yours???"
Male Soldier: "Sir, it's my understanding that you are no longer allowed to ask me such questions."
Sorry...
Ya mentioned Steve Martin and I couldn't resist... :D
Michale.....
And, as a Public Service Announcement..
In these days of heightened terrorism threats, everyone should heed this terrorist warning...
http://mfccfl.us/temp/SuspectedTerrorists.wmv
:D
Michale.....
Can anyone... ANYONE explain to me how giving control of the Internet to the FTC is a "GOOD" thing???
Slathering it on a bit think, don't you think? I don't see where in the article (Washington post, not the partisan tripe you linked to) the FTC becomes the sole or even primary regulatory agency of the internet. Beyond that, the internet is global. US laws generally don't extend that far. No matter what congress passes it will never regulate the Internet in it's entirety.
Specifically, giving the FTC some regulatory control could add some teeth the FCC doesn't have. It could help net neutrality, make rules limiting what data can be held and smack down comcast for it's various sleazy business practices. Or it could go the opposite way. As with all regulation it comes down to the actual text in the bill, but I will have to see what comes out of committee to form a real opinion...
Slathering it on a bit think
Slathering it on a bit thick...
(Washington post, not the partisan tripe you linked to)
Hmmmmmmmm
You link to the Post, I link to "partisan tripe" yet they both say the same??
So, why is yours legitimate and mine is "partisan tripe"???
But, as usual, you miss my point.
WHY is it snuck in the Wall St legislation?? If it is no big deal as you claim, then why not do it out in the open??
I'll tell you why. Because then the American people would see it for what it really is. A backdoor end run around the courts and the will of the people.
The Courts say that the Obama Administration can't regulate the Internet like they want to. So, they sneak something into a popular bill to do an end run..
And, as usual (and has not been refuted to date), I'll point out that had the Bush Administration tried such tricks, the Left would be howling like banshees...
Michale.....
But, getting back to Poll numbers..
It IS amazing that his poll numbers are so steady..
There HAS been somethings that the administration can make hay out of... Granted, *I* think that they are not good things and will ultimately harm this country.. But Obama et al COULD spin the new Nuke Treaty and CrapCare to try and score some points...
On the flip side, there are some things that the GOP could spin to make Obama et al look bad.. The Times Square terrorist attempt and "Obama's Katrina"... Perhaps these events are simply too new to figure in the current polling...
But it is still pretty fascinating that the numbers are so steady...
Michale.....
Obama et al are thwarted by Congress on their Scheme & Ream plans, so they use the EPA to do an end run around Congress and fulfill their leftist environment/anarchist agenda.
Hey Michale,
You forgot "socialist communist pinko anti-American fascist terrorist-loving" in front of agenda! :)
-Davud
Whups ... David. Davud is my Russian name. Still "fat fingering" it this morning.
So, why is yours legitimate and mine is "partisan tripe"???
Because the Washington Post was the original article to which your link linked to and quoted. Plus that link just dripped partisan tripe.
WHY is it snuck in the Wall St legislation?? If it is no big deal as you claim, then why not do it out in the open??
Standard politics. Both sides do it so often that it's hard to get ruffled much any more. It would be nice to have a perfect system where everything is debated out in the open and any separate issue has it's own bill, but it's not going to happen so I'm not too worried about it.
The Courts say that the Obama Administration can't regulate the Internet like they want to. So, they sneak something into a popular bill to do an end run..
Really? Got proof this was specifically added by the Obama administration?
And, as usual (and has not been refuted to date), I'll point out that had the Bush Administration tried such tricks, the Left would be howling like banshees...
Bla, bla, bla...The Republicans did it often. Some of the left howled (not you interestingly enough) Some of the right are howling over the left doing the same thing.
Welcome to politics.
Davud.. :D
You forgot "socialist communist pinko anti-American fascist terrorist-loving" in front of agenda! :)
It was implied.. :D
Bashi,
Because the Washington Post was the original article to which your link linked to and quoted. Plus that link just dripped partisan tripe.
So, we agree that the article itself is the same article...
OK, glad we got that cleared up.. :D
Standard politics.
So, in other words, Obama lied when he said he was going to change the way things are done..
Gotcha.. :D
Really? Got proof this was specifically added by the Obama administration?
The entire bill was done in consult with the White House. If the White House didn't want it in there, it wouldn't be in there.
The buck stops with Obama...
The Republicans did it often.
For example?? I don't doubt they did.. But I am curious as to specific examples of howling-worthy transgressions. :D
Welcome to politics.
Reference OBAMA and CHANGE for my response..
Michale.....
Actually, Michale
What the court really said was that congress hadn't given the FCC authority to regulate the internet so Congress made it explicitly, and rather immediately, clear that someone does have explicit authority to regulate.
Hardly and end run, or any kind of run, around the court.
The court claimed that congress hadn't intended regulation not that there was anything wrong with regulation and congress clearly and immediately indicates that yes they do intend regulation.
What's your problem?
-Lew
Michale,
In all honesty I must admit that at the time of the court's ruling I, and many others, thought that the esteemed Rethugs simulating Justices on SCOTUS must have been the only ones in the world who thought the Communications Commission wasn't intended to regulate communications networks.
But I would never accuse our honored court dopplegangers of dubious duplicitous deceit even were I presented with scientific medical proof that they possessed enough brain function to be capable of such an intellectual feat.
Rather it must be assumed that their confusion lay in their having been secretly briefed under FISA on the true nature of the tubes that are internet, while the rest of us thought that it all worked on wires and radio waves like every other electronic communications network ever invented, each of whom were regulated by the FCC.
Thankfully, however, congress has clarified their intent and alleviated our confusion, even going so far as to transfer authority to the agency responsible for international trade rather than just national communications (as a wholly owned subsidiary of the telecom industry.)
If, however, it is lack of open debate on the momentous congressional decision that, yes, the middle 'C' in "FCC" stands for "communications," allow me to explain...
You see, I know conservatives are still humming loudly with their fingers in their ears--But you LOST the 2008 elections.
Trust me.
Speaking of the "leftist environment/anarchist" agenda, clearly the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico is evidence that leftists are at it again.
The FACTS show that:
a) Oil was spilled
b) This may hinder future efforts at drilling
Therefore, it's UNDOUBTEDLY the work of enviro-leftists who sabotaged the platform so that they could wreak untold havoc on the environment in order to save the environment.
Why does the LIBERAL media keep trying to blame this on BP and the oil companies?
If the wildlife on the Louisiana coast can't adapt to a little oil then it obviously shouldn't be there. And the people who CHOOSE to live on the coast and fish for a living should have made better choices.
To see Obama flip-flop on the issue just because of one small example of the devastation a failed rig can actually cause is disgusting. He should be out on the oil slick wind-surfing with John Kerry. Back and forth, Barry. Back and forth. Make up your mind!
Either you are "Pro energy" or you are "Pro enviro-terrorist"!
-David
p.s. Wow. This is hard. I don't know how folks come up with this stuff every day. But they do a much better job than me:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/03/2010-05-03_rush_limbaugh_conservative_pundits_call_gulf_oil_spill_obamas_katrina.html
(And yes, it's definitely odd to hear conservatives claiming they want more government response.)
Not odd at all David.
We can never expend too much of our nation's resources when it comes to bailing out our corporate persons after they've irresponsibly wrecked havoc on us yet again. (Or their profits might actually suffer!)
LewDan,
My problem is, if it is the right thing to do and the American people wouldn't have a problem with it, why do it in such a sneaky back-door fashion?
This IS supposed to be the "new" and "changed" Washington DC, no??
But you LOST the 2008 elections.
I know you don't mean "me" personally. Because, much to my shame, I actually BELIEVED in the Dems' message and voted Democrat in the last couple elections.
Regardless of that, the last few elections should be a wake-up call for ya'all...
Seems to be falling on deaf ears, though...
Why does the LIBERAL media keep trying to blame this on BP and the oil companies?
Do you mean the same Liberal media that blamed everything Katrina on Bush, even though it was the City and State officials that mostly failed??
THAT Liberal Media??
As much as ya'all would like to, ya'all really can't have it both ways...
Michale.....
Michale,
I know you initially supported Obama but since in my view you object to changes which I fully support and which are exactly the changes promised, (like regulatory agencies actually regulating the industries under their charge instead of running interference for them) I still insist you lost the election because Obama isn't, and never was, the Republican-Lite candidate you seem to have supported.
We wanted someone who would reject failed Republican "solutions" as well as methods. You seem to have wanted someone competent to replace Bush to make those failed solutions work.
There is nothing back door about our representatives making decisions and informing us afterward. Its why we have a representative government. If we wanted and needed to be informed of everything in advance we might as well eliminate the middleman and simply have direct votes on everything ourselves.
But we don't need to know anything in advance of votes because we have representatives not proxies. Its not their job to cast our votes for us, its their job to make decisions for us as our representatives.
Direct voting may be better. But partisan hype is no substitute for constitutional amendments. Until, and unless, the constitution is amended public notification before votes are taken is neither required nor desired.
There is nothing back door about our representatives making decisions and informing us afterward.
And yet, the hysterical Left **HATED** that when it was done by the Bush Administration..
Never mind that those very aspects (that are still in use to this day by the Obama Administration) were and are designed to save lives, the hysterical Left wanted none of that..
THEY wanted full, complete and utter disclosure with regards to the actions of the government..
Now, in the realm of Counter-Terrorism, such full and complete disclosure is impossible. We all know that..
But the irony here is that the Obama Administration has taken the most hated and reviled aspects of the Bush years (at least hated and reviled by the hysterical Left who simply doesn't know any better) and applied those aspects to DOMESTIC actions, simply designed to serve the Leftist agenda...
In other words, while it is vital to keep things close to the vest in the areas of warfare and counter-terrorism, it's not necessary to maintain such secrecy when promoting a domestic agenda that serves only the political Party and not the country...
In short, Obama et al has taken secrecy to heart, but SOLELY to protect his Party's ass and leave everyday Americans just hangin' in the wind...
THIS is what your (and mind, sadly) Democratic President is all about...
If CrapCare proved nothing else, it proved that...
Michale.....
THIS is what your (and mind, sadly) Democratic President is all about...
Grrrrrr
I really need to proofread better...
That should read...
"THIS is what your (and mine, sadly) Democratic President is all about..."
Michale.....
Michale,
You may be right about the objections to Bush from the left but as I said partisan hype doesn't trump the constitution.
You'll get no argument from me that many of the charges against Bush were unjustified and over the top. Same for Obama. Same for any public figure. So what?
There were still numerous, and tremendously significant, egregious and obvious abuses of office and power that were orders of magnitude worse under Bush than anything thus far in the Obama administration. And that is a change. A significant change. A change for the better. And all he promised.
And trying to denigrate and trivialize everything Obama or the Dems do with vague disproportionate and irrelevant comparisons to what Bush did and how Bush was treated is not persuasive.
I objected to the Bush admin drafting legislation that only a few ever saw until just before a vote, reps having no opportunity to read the proposed bill, no opportunity to offer amendments, stopping and holding votes in progress indefinitely until sufficient ayes were strong-armed, and even refusing to disclose details after passage in the name of national security.
Whole world of difference.
I've no problem with my representatives representing me. I get my say every two years, I don't expect them to call me before a vote.
But if they're denied the opportunity to represent anyone or simply ignore their responsibility and just do as they're told by some party boss--then, yes, I've a problem. (One reason I'm not obsessed about Obama's legislative agenda, successes and failures like the media is. Legislating isn't the president's job and neither is running congress.)
And the reason I was so upset about Bush's unconstitutional power grabs is that no presidency willingly surrenders power.
I never expected Obama would just disavow the power Bush grabbed for the presidency and it wouldn't matter if he had. I expected more restraint, honesty, and integrity but once Pandora opens the box you can't just undo the past. It would have been extraordinary, and frankly irresponsible, for a president not to use all of the tools at his disposal to meet his obligations.
Only congress and the courts can take back the power they've surrendered. That's their role, checking the presidency. Obama can't do it for them and I never expected him to try.
Even if he declined to use executive privilege and national security to avoid court review, the patriot act to end-run the constitution, signing-statements to amend congressional statutes, or security classifications to attack critics and block DOJ review, they're still precedents. The next president will use them, or the one after.
Obama is a politician. He never claimed otherwise. Its foolish to have expected him to act like a saint and not a politician. To be president and not act like a president. And I never did.
Oh, and there isn't one set of acceptable behaviors, or laws, for national security and another for everything else. There's just one constitution, one criminal code, for all sizes and occasions.
And excepting self-defense in the face of specific imminent threat, the ends do not justify the means.
...But then we've had that argument before. Never thought we didn't still disagree.
You'll get no argument from me that many of the charges against Bush were unjustified and over the top. Same for Obama. Same for any public figure. So what?
Common ground. :D A wonderful thing...
There were still numerous, and tremendously significant, egregious and obvious abuses of office and power that were orders of magnitude worse under Bush than anything thus far in the Obama administration.
That's a matter of opinion to which I disagree.
Regardless, one must look at the REASON why..
Even if what you opinion is true, the reasons why Bush did what he did was to save lives for the sake of the country.
The reasons Obama does what he does is to further the DP agenda in spite of the harm it does the country.
THAT is the difference.
It's the difference between a cop ignoring an infraction committed by someone trying to get someone else to the hospital in an emergency and the same cop writing another person up for the same infraction, just because the other person felt like running a red light.
I objected to the Bush admin drafting legislation that only a few ever saw until just before a vote, reps having no opportunity to read the proposed bill, no opportunity to offer amendments, stopping and holding votes in progress indefinitely until sufficient ayes were strong-armed, and even refusing to disclose details after passage in the name of national security.
So you must be livid with the Democrats and Crap -We'll-Know-What's-In-It-When-It-Passes- Care, right??
Once again, I am constrained to point out that many of Bush actions were justifiable because they had their basis in National Security.
One cannot give the same credence to Obama because HIS actions are simply to put forth a leftist and DP-centered agenda.
It's the difference between doing the wrong thing for the good of the country and doing the wrong thing for the good of your Party.
Bush was all about the former. Obama was and is all about the latter.
Obama is a politician. He never claimed otherwise. Its foolish to have expected him to act like a saint and not a politician. To be president and not act like a president. And I never did.
So all that HOPE and CHANGE BS was just nothing but crap???
Wish ya'all woulda said something BEFORE the election!! :D
Oh, and there isn't one set of acceptable behaviors, or laws, for national security and another for everything else. There's just one constitution, one criminal code, for all sizes and occasions.
And parts of the Constitution and criminal codes allow for the suspension of said in times of emergency.
It's why police are allowed to exceed the speed limit if they determine it is necessary to do so.
It's why the President is authorised to suspend portions of the Constitution if he determines it is necessary to do so..
And excepting self-defense in the face of specific imminent threat, the ends do not justify the means.
I 1000% agree....
So, the means that Obama used to pass CrapCare and other harmful legislation was NOT justified...
Michale.....
We also have President Bush to thank for the swift capture of the Faisal Shahzad after his attempted Times Square bombing...
I know ya'all are ALL about 'credit where credit is due' and will join me in giving a solemn THANK YOU to President Bush...
Right?? :D
Michale.....
Sorry Michale, not feeling too grateful to shrub.
While I am thankful that something he had a hand in actually worked and I'm thankful the rest of the country didn't drown or get blown-up while he was either on vacation or preparing to go on vacation.—I'm just not feeling thankful to him.
We'll have to agree to disagree once again on the rest of it too. I can see your points but am still not persuaded. I think its a matter of differing priorities and expectations, purely subjective.
We pretty much agree on the facts though we've a little more trouble agreeing on what the facts are!
Still, that's what keeps this interesting—and informative.
I can see your points
That's high praise coming from you. I mean that completely honestly and seriously..
but am still not persuaded.
That's kewl...
Ya'all have some really good points regarding the Democratic Party and their agenda for this country.
I, too, am just not persuaded that it's the good for this country that ya'all think it is..
But, as you say, it's what makes things interesting and informative..
Michale.....