SaharaTea:
This is laughable.
Get ready for 5-10 more pages of it.
adaher:
They did the same thing to Clinton. He handled it quite well, actually. He beat them politically then forced them to the compromise table.
If Bill Clinton can find a partner in Newt Gingrich, Barack OBama can negotiate with the much more decent John Boehner.
Bullshit. The Republicans met ON INAUGURATION DAY 2009 and vowed to oppose Obama on every single thing he did or wanted to do. Got a cite that they did the same to Clinton?
Boehner may be more decent that Gingrich, but that is a rather low bar to hurdle. Boehner is held captive by the whack-a-doodle wing of the party and can’t deliver on any agreement he might make with Obama.
They’re just so goshdarn *cute *at that age, aren’t they?
adaher:
It’s not Presidential. Typically the President has people who do this for him. Sure Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s rhetoric is far more heated, but Obama has taken the unprecedented step of attacking Republicans after agreeing to compromises with them, which is just awful diplomacy.
Could you name a few of these compromises where the Republicans agreed to meet Obama in the middle rather than flatly rejecting his proposals and trying to obstruct his every action? Just a few of the main ones, off the top of your head. I think I missed them.
I’m a conservative and if it weren’t for the enormous increase in the national debt I’d actually say Obama was/is doing a reasonably good job.
So Obama would be doing great if the economy hadn’t crashed before he took office? That seems sensible.
OldGuy
July 3, 2014, 6:29pm
67
No, no be fair, Obama would be doing great if the economy hadn’t crashed before he took office and if he’d let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy expire, and funded much needed infrastructure spending. – Oh wait that was Congress’ failure.
OldGuy:
No, no be fair, Obama would be doing great if the economy hadn’t crashed before he took office and if he’d let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy expire, and funded much needed infrastructure spending. – Oh wait that was Congress’ failure.
And don’t forget those wars he started!
Velocity:
Not what I said.
You complained about the enormous increase in the national debt. We’re talking about the causes of that increase.
I’m more interested in cures than causes.
You blamed Obama, which suggests otherwise.
Kobal2
July 3, 2014, 6:56pm
73
I’m not sure that a specifically American trait, TBH.
As for the poll : the sitting president is always the worst President EVER. Until the next guy. It means exactly bollocks.
Exactly. People need a decade or two for fair balance and hindsight and perspective to settle in.
And it ought to be obvious you can’t cure a problem without knowing the cause. I guess it’s not.
XT
July 3, 2014, 9:11pm
76
This has probably been linked too already, but I’m just doing a drive by so haven’t really checked the thread:
CNN) – Mark Twain famously said, “There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Lord only knows what he would have said about polls.
In modern politics, polls often serve as the canary in the mine – an early warning signal of danger or trends. But polls can also be used to wag the dog – diverting attention from something significant.
Quinnipac University’s latest poll wags the dog for far-right partisans. It says that “a plurality of voters (33%) think Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II.” Republicans are crowing, although perhaps they should be careful about doing so since George W. Bush was second with 28% and Richard Nixon third with 13%.
Those numbers tell us something about the value of popularity polls, media frenzy and our sense of history.
When it comes to the “best” president, Democrats split their votes between Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Obama, each reaching double digits. Two-thirds of Republicans said Ronald Reagan was the best, largely ignoring everyone else.
The same happened, in reverse, with the “worst”: Democrats split their votes between Bush and Nixon; Republicans “really hate Obama.”
So, no surprise: The country is deeply divided on partisan grounds, Democrats share the wealth, and Republicans concentrate their love or disdain.
Digging a little deeper, as David Weigel did at Slate, the poll becomes less triumphal, or panicky, depending on your side of the aisle. “If you look at the crosstabs, the percentage of people calling Obama ‘honest and trustworthy’ has actually stabilized and risen since 2013; the percentage calling him a strong leader, also stable.”
So if the Quinnipac survey doesn’t really tell us anything new, why all the hoop and hoopla?
In part because the media have become like sports announcers: Even if nothing’s happening, they have to make it sound as if something important is – so don’t change channels or you’ll miss something vital.
Attention trumps analysis.
America is inundated with polls. We need a term for being swamped with polls. I would say “poll-arized,” but that’s already in use to describe our political divisions.
America is being monitored like a test subject in one of those sleep studies. What does it mean for Obama’s chances when we have prolonged periods of REM sleep?
Actually, if this country were being monitored like in one of those brain studies, the disturbing thing would be that there would be so many regions that show little or no brain activity at all.
And if you want to talk about polls, check out any recent data on congressional Republicans. Wow, it’s bad. At least 85% disapproved of the job Congress is doing, and 70% disapproved strongly. Those people not only want to throw the bums out, they want to change the locks on the Capitol.
Finally, what about our sense of history? Perhaps we can take a lesson from what Obama said to George Stephanopoulos of ABC’s “This Week”: “What I’ve learned is I can’t operate on a daily news cycle or a weekly news cycle. One of the things you also realize during the course of five years is, if the problems were easy, somebody else would have solved them.”
I think that five, 10, 50 years down the road, we’ll be honoring President Barack Obama for ending two wars, stopping the economic hemorrhage and, yes, reducing the number of uninsured.
And the polls won’t matter.
Another point worth mentioning: there’s a holiday coming up, so it’s kind of a slow news week and a poll with no import or value gets more attention than it would otherwise.
Nixon saved Bush from the title.
I believe Obama’s economic record will only be fairly judged after an entire economic cycle - and that means after the next recession. If the US gets out of the next recession in decent shape Obama will be generally seen in a positive light. His economic policies deemed a success. If the next recession turns out to be a complete disaster then Obamas legacy will suffer. He will be seen as papering over the cracks.
adaher
July 3, 2014, 11:31pm
80
That depends on whether Obama gets credit for it. A guy who constantly whines that he can’t do anything and points the finger elsewhere for everything bad that happens isn’t likely to get credit from the public for things that do go right.