I think there’s a certain amount of wishful thinking in that assertion. Sure, Obama’s approval ratings have dropped dramatically since his inauguration, from a little under 70% to 51%, and his disapproval ratings have increased to about 41% from a very low initial level of 12% or so.
However, I’m not convinced that this is evidence of a continuing “freefall”, rather than mostly a correction to the unsustainable euphoria surrounding Obama’s election. Sure, he ran a great campaign and became the first black president and was clearly smart and savvy and very different from his predecessor, but there was no reason to expect that honeymoon to last. Now he’s just an ordinary fallible president with a hell of a mess to clean up and a lot of very bitter and spiteful opposition, and it’s only natural that a lot of people are viewing him with a more jaundiced eye.
But I don’t think the trend so far necessarily justifies your extrapolating it into the “freefall” you are hoping for. For example, at exactly this point in the George W. Bush presidency, his approval level was about 55% and his disapproval level about 41%—numbers quite similar to Obama’s at present. Were you worried then that Bush’s popularity was in freefall? If not, then I’m not sure you should be getting your hopes up for Obama’s freefall now.
Wow, that’s adorable. It’s really an elegant catch-22 you Obama-haters have set up, isn’t it? First you claim he hasn’t achieved anything significant in his life, and when somebody points out his significant achievements, you switch to claiming that he owes it all to racial favoritism and not to his own talents.
No, but it’d certainly demonstrate contrition. Verbiage is obviously very cheap for Republicans nowadays, just look at the lies they’ve been spouting on healthcare reform all summer long. That being the case, the only way the congressman can prove that he actually means what he says, this time, is via his actions. Obviously, supporting a public option with his vote is one such action. Perhaps you can think of others?
Yes, but in a darkened White House, after the kids have gone to bed early, and they’ve had perhaps one too many glasses of wine after dinner, and they’re feeling just a little extra frisky: Barack makes Michelle wear a Seven of Nine costume.
Wow. Reading the article makes me think that Joe Wilson’s misdeeds weren’t the words but the timing. It sounds like the heckling was an organized Republican event and if Wilson had been just a few seconds earlier on this slur (or others had joined in like they’d previously done) his voice would be lost in the crowd. It wasn’t. I now expect a “sorry I got caught” apology, while he sweats out whether the Republican Party offers him up as a sacrificial lamb.
True, but you’re NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT FROM THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE WHILE SOMEONE ELSE SPEAKS HIS TURN, be it either a fellow Congressman, a guest, or an official of the United States. It’s against Congressional etiquette and rules.
(So friend Shodan, you may kindly go regard that small detail. It’s not who, it’s what. At least for me.)
Now, if we were to formally propose switching to a UK-Parliament style format where backbenchers ARE expected to heckle and the whips may ask loaded questions… THAT could make things interesting… I could get behind that. But like conservatives like to say: legislate it, don’t just make it up.
Thanks for posting that I was wondering what it was all those Republicans kept hoisting over their heads – copies of the GOP plan.
I’m also surprised – I missed all those other shouts. I heard and understood Wilson’s, loud and clear, but I missed the others – “Shame!” and “read the plan!” I have to echo what someone wrote earlier – has there been anything else like this in the past hundred years or so? I can’t recall any sort of individual outbursts during a presidential address of Congress. Laughter, applause, even booing, yes, but I don’t recall anyone yelling out individual heckles before. This seems to hark back to the days of Congressional stickfights in the 18th sand 19th century.