I hope Obama thinks it is a stupid idea too. I predict he will wait and see if people can be tricked into thinking it is a good idea. If so, he would likely support it.

Obama is not the shortest serving president anymore. He's been in office longer now than William Henry Harrison.

Being politics and all, it's quite possible this was a trial balloon being floated by a sacrificial lamb. Even more likely now that Obama quickly shot it down when it didn't show signs of getting early traction.

And lest anybody think that's partisan, that's a common tactic for pols from one end of the spectrum to the other.

That's why I put it here. LaHood is Obama's appointed Transportation Secretary (not to say that Obama will or has to agree with him).

I do see a few states are strongly considering this idea.

Holy flipping Christ Glen Beck is nuts. This is the kind of "what if" scenario he's running with on Fox.

good to see he found a home.

{scratches head}

Other than the unlikely nature of American's getting off their ass in great numbers to do much of anything or maybe the difficulties in actually organizing an effective revoltuion, I'm having a tough time figuring out what part of that clip you find outside the realm of possibility.

At any rate I'm glad you posted it since I really liked the phrase "tyranny of incompetence" which I hadn't really picked up on before seeing that.

Well hell, Jon, I know you're nuts! I just get a little surprised when that brand of crazy is on national television.

Just to keep score, in the first month of the Obama presidency we've already gotten:

Revolutionary fantasies from conservative TV/radio host

Hopes for failure of Obama presidency from conservative radio host

House GOP member comparing the GOP tactics to the Taliban

Another House GOP member saying th GOP will be like Kalishnikov wielding rebels

GOP Senator questioning whether Obama is a natural born American

Tennessee GOP leaders suing over Obama's birth status


The next four years are sure going to be fun.

Just like the last 8, 16, 28 years. Blue attacking Red and Red attacking Blue.

The same crap went down when Clinton got in power. All the conservatives talked about how there needed to be a revolution, how they should get together on weekends and play war hero in their backyards. Just like liberals would talk about how they'll move to new countries when a conservative gets in. It's an endless cycle of retardedness.

But I am surprised it's on a major cable news outlook. Beck has always been a little out there but it seems he's going the Alex Jones route.

Let me also add that I still don't think the attacking is as horrible as the media lets on. Most people in this country don't give a crap about the bickering. They're worried about their family, their job, and their sports team. The red vs blue stuff is saved for the simpletons who need to find something to hate to justify their existence. It's an extremely small percent of the country, but one that has a huge megaphone.

:+1: to you all! :D

As JiMGA said, though, it was probably a "trial balloon" to see how bad reaction would be.

I agree with you.

With the caveat that the Republicans then impeached the President.

Maureen Dowd isn't too happy with the Attorney General over his 'coward' remarks.......

Op-Ed Columnist - Dark Dark Dark - NYTimes.com

How long do you think the honeymoon period will last for Obama and congress? Do you feel that Obama is risking his first term (and the Dems going into 2010) on this stimulus/bailout plan?

Given that he's increased support with independents and Dems over the past two weeks I don't think so. Really, though, the math is pretty simple. If the economy has gotten better he'll be tough to beat, if it hasn't he'll be easy to beat.

I don't really want Obama to get beat, I just want Congress to radically change - or at least one part of it.

Well...at least Obama hasn't been accused of overseeing efforts to set explosives in the World Trade Center to make sure those babies came down in case the jetliners didn't get the job done, so we could go to war and Haliburton would get all that oil and we'd only be paying 50 cents per gallon now.

This is actually a bad time for the Dems...with the GOP neutralized, libs tend to start eating themselves.

Don't forget holding onto the presidency past 2008 as an "emergency" measure and declaring war on Iran.

These aren't fringe ideas, these were all over my law school in 2004.

I still think Bush wouldn't have won (either term) if not for the weird, creepy hate against him. Not the hate for being a bad president, but hate for being the antichrist. It made liberals look like wackos.

Tsk! Tsk! Remember now.....Bush didn't actually win either election.

Obama has only been president for about a month. We've got almost four (maybe eight) full years for conservatives to say more utterly ridiculous shit.

fwiw I don't think any House Democrats accused Bush of planting bombs in the WTC.

wow bobby jindel sounds like a used-car salesman. no thanks!

Jindel did not have the voice that I expected from him.

bad format

Hard to follow act. Some of the comments on fivethirtyeight are pretty funny, tho

SI

Yes, because bloggers at DU and sitting Representatives and Senators are exactly the same thing.

He just gets accused of being a secret Muslim who forged his birth certificate, loves terrorists and wants to resurrect Karl Marx.

Me neither. During his speech I told my wife he looked and sounded very much like Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock. Seems a lot of other people had the same association. That is not good for Jindal!

it wasn't the format that turned me way off. it was his inflection, his mannerisms, etc.

Healthcare, yeah! But talk is cheap, lets see your plan.

I would agree that it wasn't really a good coming out party for Jindal to Joe Public.....however was Joe Public watching that portion last night or had they turned over to watch Soccer on Tivo?

Nobody messes with Joe Biden! That was great!

As far as his support among the opposition, the unity honeymoon appears to be vanishing very quickly. His support numbers have now dropped 10% in the first month to 59%, mostly due to quickly eroding bipartisan support.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116077/Ob...irst-Time.aspx


Agreed. No one outside of the political geeks was watching that speech last night. I caught up on a couple episodes of Lost on the DVR.

BTW.....love the non-partisan coverage by MSNBC. Just when you think they can't make their leanings any more obvious.........

RealClearPolitics - Video - MSNBCer Says "Oh God" Before Jindal Response

Speaking of which ... Media Life Magazine - Power players: MSNBC and Fox News
During February, Fox News Channel’s primetime viewership jumped 29 percent year to year, from 1.88 million to 2.41 million total viewers. MSNBC was up 23 percent, from 773,000 to 951,000. CNN, meanwhile, declined 31 percent, from 1.67 million to 1.16 million.

Among adults 25-54, Fox News’ key demographic, the network surged 21 percent, from 455,000 to 551,000. MSNBC, meanwhile, was up just 3 percent in that demo but saw huge gains among adults 18-34, where Barack Obama performed quite strongly last November.

MSNBC’s 18-34 average rose 21 percent year to year, from 111,000 to 138,000. CNN was down in both demographics.

This shouldn't surprise most people given the partisan nature of the campaign and the political polarization created by this administration which runs in stark contrast to the unity theme. Those who follow the game want to hear a slant towards their beliefs. CNN used to fill that need for the left, but the emergence of Obama has increased the need for a more left leaning network and MSNBC has done a good job of filling that need. We all know where FOX stands as they certainly don't pretend to hide it.

One, the daily fluctuations of a poll like this really don't tell us much. There's no reason to believe that today's numbers are any more accurate than yesterdays, so maybe he's still at 60 or 61. Really it doesn't matter.

But, if you want to play the daily tracking poll game, you picked the worst day possible. Are you going to be back on Friday when most of the poll is post speech? I'd imagine his approval rating will go up five to ten points based on snap polls. But still, it really won't matter.

See you Friday!

I doubt it will raise 5-10 points. That's a pretty unreasonable expectation. 2-3 points is generally what we'd see, though I'm not sure that even that is attainable given the current economic climate. Also, as the article shows, it's certainly not a one day trend. His rating has fallen steadily over the course of a month. That's not a minute sample as you'd like to portray it. A one month sample is much more reliable than measuring any change between now and Friday.

What evidence do you have to support a best case scenario of 2-3 points? Here's what the snap polls are saying:


As for the overall numbers, sure he's declined off his high, but he still enjoys strong support. It likely won't stay as high as it is, but anything over 50% is good. Conservatives shouldn't find much policy to support with Obama.

Those 'snap' polls are laughable at best. They're asking a group whether they support a 'pie in the sky' version of an economic plan. It's PR, not a plan. The percentage of promises realized in these types of speeches is often relatively low.


Sure, and that's the real shame of it all. Many people bought into the unity and change platform, only to find it was politics as usual. Only a few were fooled on this board because people here are generally smarter than the average bear, but the general public is far more gullible.

Why are some approval polls laughable at best while others are true indicators of the populace's thoughts?

It's a shame the Obama administration has polarized the country. I remember the days under Bush when people of all political leanings would go to the park and hold hands and sing together and tell each other how much we respected each others' opinions.

God, I hope this is the guy the Republicans decide to trot out in 2012 he would get absoltuely destroyed. That was one of most uncomfortable speeches to watch and the used car salesman analogy is a good one. I can hardly wait for SNL this week no doubt they will crucify that response speech:)

Replace "Bush" with "Clinton" and "liberals" with "conservatives" and you've just summarized 1992 to 2000.

The difference, being, of course, that the "weird, creepy hate" against Clinton culminated in a $60 million investigation that concluded that yes, he did have sex with that intern.

Once again, a strawman argument with little relevance. Nowhere did anyone claim that the Bush administration was non-partisan or got along well with others. But the Obama camp ran on a platform of unity and change. If you're going to run on that, perhaps it's too much to ask to actually follow through. Using the previous administration's failures as an excuse why the current administration isn't following through on a campaign promise rings VERY hollow.

Snap polls are very emotion driven as you're basically doing the political equivalent of giving your opinion right after hearing a car salesman give his speech. Only after your start negotiating the details and finding out where the car salesman blew smoke up your ass do you get a true and relevant reaction to the situation at hand.

So you're basically saying that approval numbs are only accurate when Obama has a lower approval rating.

I'll stick with my prediction that the Gallup numbers will climb 5-10 points over the next week.

You must be tremendously disappointed since you both voted for him based on his promises of unity and change AND you gave him slightly over one month of leeway in office before determining that he was a fraud.

MBBF using polls to prove his point is so laughable that I dont know where to begin. You discount polls that go against you, you prognosticate using polls that you hope will be right, and then use polls that grab stats to prove your point even when pulled from hackneyed blogs. Are you serious?

Swaggs hit the nail on the head. The GOP hasn't been locked out of conference yet that Ive heard of.

He fed the public what they wanted to hear. They bought it due to their dislike of the previous administration. He's not a fraud. He's just a person that doesn't follow through with his promises that people were gullible enough to believe. He led people to believe he was something different, when he was little more than the same old thing. It's certainly a disappointing revelation for a nation who wanted to believe he was something bigger than that.

How disappointing for his upcoming 2-month anniversary of being in charge.

right he hasn't been able to push through a bill to help stave off IMO a massive depression. He hasn't moved to shut down Gitmo. He hasn't engaged foreign countries in a new light. He hasn't done anything in the few years he's been in office.

Whether you agree with his moves or not, to say he's done nothing he's promised INCLUDING the cutting of taxes on people, is just partisan BS in the hopes that you can spin some crap together that people will bite a hold of.

Now, should the stimulus bill (and future spending I am sure) fall flat, not help, or cause some of that scary inflation people are afraid is on the back end of that...or he be unable to trim the budget in the years that he just stated, or he leave our troops in Iraq until 2015....then you can bitch. However, your bitching now means that future bitching that wouldve had legs to stand on, will look like a partisan hack who never was willing to come together with those he is pointing the finger at as saying, "See, he couldnt get us to come together."

At least youre consistent in all of the POL threads you visit. Entertaining? perhaps. Silly? absolutely. although I am absolutely certain people categorize me in the same way.

On the otherhand Im certain youre against the populism cries regarding the homeowner bailout/bailout and its vast unfairness? Santelli was a liar right?

:rolleyes:

You often leave me speechless with your posts and wondering if you are serious. The fact that you have come to this conclusion, one month into a four year term, should tell everyone (particularly you) that you are completely and utterly unwilling to give the man a chance to do his job.

He doesn't follow through on his promises? Disappointing a nation who wanted to believe he was something bigger? Seriously? After one month, you feel like you gave him a fair shake and came up with that conclusion?

Now, I don't have a problem with the fact that you never liked him or gave him a chance, but do you really find it necessary to feign surprise and/or disappointment? You would have a little bit of credibility if you just took the position that you do not like him or his policies, but the sweeping conclusions, on behalf of the nation, are ridiculous.

Are you ready to fire the Chiefs new coach yet? He's been on the job for a couple of weeks now and you guys haven't won a game yet and none of his draft picks seem to be producing.

If you believe your Chiefs comparison is even remotely similar, we have little to discuss.

As Katy Couric so correctly phrased in her question to Rep. Bohner last night......

(paraphrased) "Rep. Bonner, 62% of Americans believe that the Republicans are using partisan politics in their resistance against the stimulus bill. Will the Republicans work with the Democrats and the administration and anger their party base or continue to provide political resistance to the Democrats and anger an entire nation?"

Fabulous, Katy. Just fabulous.

"LIsten to me, I have the facts. PS3 will one day kick X-box's fanny. "

I get it Mizzou, Obama is a liar and a disappointment, and he's incapable of running the country. He hasn't changed what has been years of beauracracy in less than two months. He hasn't solved the economic crisis in a matter of minutes. He doesn't walk on water and Superman could probably kick his ass. We get it.

I just want to thank you though, being a moderate that I am, that you brighten my day everytime you post stuff like this. I'm sure you are a good guy, I could sit and have a beer with you, but I will never understand your logic or your sources. So I'll just read your posts and chuckle.

so that 62% is right or not right?

You shouldn't put quotes around something you've paraphrased. It implies an accuracy that isn't there.

The Chiefs comparison is only slightly more ridiculous than your sweeping conclusions. But, realistically, I think it is time to declare the post-Chase Daniel era of Missouri football a failure since the Tigers have not won a single game since he left.

And, really? We get it. Katie Couric. Liberal media. Agenda. Blah. Blah.

yet he posted a link to a hotair blog and something from the Cato institute...it's laughable or he must want to live in a box where only conservative doctrine, talking points, blogs, etc. are allowed in and all the rest of 'em (y'know those that disagree with his opinions) should be eradicated from the world :)

Probably? Sounds like another Obama lover to me ;)

SI

It's kind of like an Obama campaign promise in that regard.

Hey-O!

You rang?

I haven't even seen whatever you're talking about since it's not on my current page view, but I suddenly felt very talked about and I was drawn to the quote above.

Interesting that you mention you are a moderate. I am too, which usually means I disagree with both sides most of the time. The false assumption is often made that because I'm so unhappy with Obama's hypocrisy and failed promises that I'm somehow happy with the current Republican leadership. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I still completely and totally fail at understanding why anyone would want to live in such a world.

You made me laugh out loud with this little post. Ty Jon.

Yes, you are clearly a moderate.

You are definitely not someone who would pretend to be impartial and then throw a lot of very slanted and biased views out there.

Not at all.

SI

Yes, it's unthinkable to believe that a person who believes that the liberal politicians have it all wrong also thinks that their Republican counterparts are just as f'd in the head.

The Republicans deserve every bit of the criticism they receive around their hypocrisy. They'd love to play the sympathy and valiant resistance card, but it falls on deaf ear relatively speaking.

I would have loved to have seen whether McCain would have followed through with his 'no earmarks' promise or if he would have also failed to keep his campaign promises like Obama once in office. The optimist in me wants to believe he would have hacked bills to pieces, but the realist in me paints a more somber picture.

Maybe you would have ended up giving him more than a month or two?

Same problem I have figuring out why anyone actually wants liberals around except maybe as a irrelevant curiosity, kind of like a garden gnome or something.

I mean, as long as you don't allow them near anything that actually matters then there's not much harm done but I don't really want garden gnomes being used as a vital cog in some piece of machinery they clearly aren't suited for either.

Disliking both the democrats and republicans doesn't make you a moderate. Nearly everything I've seen you post is on the right side of the political spectrum.

Just putting a couple of posts together to see how they look. Nothing more.

SI

Absolutely. Fiscally, I'm a conservative. In regards to morals, I'm very liberal.


There's not a lot to talk about on the Republican end. They're not of much consequence right now. Also, most of the political talk on the board is financial, where I lie on the conservative side. Jon and I would battle all day if we switched to moral/social discussion.

If I had a dime for every time a beaker said something and also nothing at all.........

Well, there have been plenty of social politics threads that I've seen, and I can't remember seeing you post in them. *shurg*

-There was a heavy duty gay marriage discussion. I was in favor of gay marriage.

-I'm in favor of legalized marijuana, though I never would use it myself.

-I'm pro-abortion.

-I'm against the religious establishment. They annoy the hell out of me.

FWIW.....I was raised in a conservative household that held none of the above beliefs. Somehow, I emerged just the opposite from a social perspective.

who the F is Pro-abortion....seriously...pro-choice, its picky but important and somewhat silly.

Aren't you happy about the Obama tax relief and him not cutting off the bush tax cuts?

I let my soapbox get a little lonely:

The DC Voting Rights Bill passed the house and passed a point of order today. Tomorrow is likely to be the vote in the Senate.

Two Senators made wild claims today. One that she would introduce a Constitutional Amendment for DC Voting Rights today, and the other that he would introduce a bill abolishing federal income taxes to residents of the district.

I can totally get behind a Constitutional ammendment -- however, as I have said on this board before, I don't think it's likely to pass and that doesn't mean it shouldn't -- there is just absolutely no incentive for States to even take time considering it. They should care, but when it affects your constituency in no appreciable way, why bother? Even if it's the right thing to do.

As for removing federal taxes, of course, that would be fantastic on a personal level. :) However, it's really rather insulting coming from a Republican like that. I see it as intending to make fun of the entire situation. And, if by some bizarre circumstance such a bill passed, the District would quickly surpass it's once peak citizenship number (near 1mil residents).

Pro-choice is a PC way of getting around saying 'abortion'. Let's not sugar-coat things.

The 'tax relief' was mostly fluff and not direct tax relief as has been cited by numerous sources referencing the asterisk on Obama's website. I'm happy that the Bush tax cuts are still in place at this point, but don't expect them to last long. I'll count my blessings for now.

Well I am pro-choice and not for abortion.

No it's not.

The key word is "choice". I want a woman to have the option to keep the child, abort the fetus, put the child up for adoption, or whatever. That's what it means to be "pro-choice". Both in reality and in semantics.

I was seeing all the talk about the DC bill and thought about you the other day, ls. Are you going to have to change your license plates if it passes ;)

SI

I don't expect the test to come quite yet. However, how long do you think he and the Dems have?

I'll echo this. I would hope abortion isn't the choice that is made, but I support the choice. Being pro-choice does not necessarily make you pro-abortion. Equating the two prolongs the argument since it causes people to argue against positions not taken.

I would love to be able to change it! :) FWIW, my preference is to go the route of an amendment, but I'll take a law of questionable constitutionality if that's all I can get. :cool:

I would love to have these plates:



But I need a car to put them on, first. ;)

Although I've often made that same clarification over the years for the same reason, personally these days ... Well if I didn't think our current adoption system was so busted then I'd personally swing back toward that pro-choice-not-pro-abortion scenario you describe. As is though, I think you could fairly call me pro-abortion in certain situations.

Interesting...Let me try...I support the right of someone to choose to kill another person, but I certainly hope they don't make that choice.

different definition of what constitutes a "person" and one that you or I will never compromise on so, again, policy-making based on religion is a no go in the USA, or shouldnt be. Thank God for science.

You're okay with Sharia law in other countries?

How about mandatory abortion? :)

Not a bad idea. Make people prove a reliable source of income and make sure they have an IQ of 90 or above before issuing a breeding permit.

Yeah that Eugenics thing is always a great idea...

Call it passive eugenics.

I have long advocated mandatory sterilization instead, heads the issue off at the pass so to speak.

I think was the thread with the Bobby Jindal sidebar. I happened across a quote that, at least as a soundbite, I bet the "Republicans have lost their way on holding down spending" folks would love. So I share it here:

"To come up in this moment in history with a stale, 'Government is the problem, you can't trust the federal government' is just a disaster for the Republican Party," Brooks said on PBS'"The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.""It's not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is."

Lol. I suppose the inference is a person with religious convictions and science are mutually exclusive.

If I were a Muslim, I suppose I'd probably be fine with Sharia law...guess I wouldn't have much of a choice, would I?

LOL

nope but thankfully we live in a sectarian country where you do have choice so becuase it isn't a Christian country Christianity shouldnt be pushed on everyone in a government setting (ie. prayer in school to any faith or deity). Faith and Science on some topics ARE mutually exclusive when they come to different conclusions, for example, evolution.

Oooo, can I play?

I support the right of the government and the church to tell someone exactly what they can and can't do to their own body, and I certainly hope that person is OK with that.

The GOP: Believing that the government shouldn't tell you what to do with your money, but can tell you everything about what you can and can't do with your body, since at least 1973.