The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor.
Can you hear the “oh, shit!” coming from the White House?
Let’s see, the fitting close line for those previous shouting “Yes we can!” should be:
There are questions in the world that when first heard, you would assume have a specific answer. However, when you contemplate them a bit, you realize that there is probably no one specific answer but a range of answers that are dependent upon the variables of the specific situation. Examples of this type of question would be:
– If a man talks in the woods, with no women around, will he still be wrong?
or
– How many licks does it take to get to the middle of a Tootsie Pop?
Here is another question to add to the list:
How many leaks can a dam tolerate before it bursts?
Quinnipiac has released its latest polling. They’ve polled on a variety of issues including opinions on health care (majority still don’t want it especially if they have to pay for it) and opinions on the President’s handling of different issues. The poll also gives its update on overall favorable/unfavorable perspectives on President Obama.
Overall, Quinnipiac has President Obama with a slightly favorable rating 46% to 44% unfavorable. That’s the good news. The bad news for him is in every other demographic break down within the poll.
Men disapprove 50%/42%
Whites disapprove 51%/38%
Independents disapprove 51%/37%
All age groups over 35 years disapprove by at least 5%
All income of $50K or greater disapprove
If you don’t have a college degree, you disapprove
The only religious affiliation that supports Obama is Jewish
Based on this, the only people who are reliable supporters of President Obama would be:
females
Who are “of color”
have family income of less than $50K
area Jewish
are college graduates
are under 35 yrs old
and of course, are liberal
Let’s see….there are about 227 million voting age people in the US. 34 million are women between the ages of 18 and 34. Approximately 30% of the US population is non white so that would suggest 10 million women between 18 and 34 might be non white. Finally, only 2.2% of the US population is Jewish. That would suggest only 220,000 people are firmly in the camp for Obama?
OK, there are a few holes in my number logic but you get the point. The fact is that there are few if any, categories of voters who are solidly behind Barack Obama. In fact, every poll that comes out show yet another leak in the stalwart dam that voted Obama into office.
Dams are interesting things. They have great strength and are able to hold back great forces. Many of them actually have leaks that are not fatal. However, every dam, even the largest, have a point at which some number of small leaks will finally cause its demise, no matter how well built. Barack Obama’s dam has a bunch of leaks. The outstanding question is; how many leaks before it’s fatal?
Comments Off on How Many Leaks Before The Dam Thing Breaks?
It’s been years since I’ve watched SNL on a regular basis. Part of it is it’s on late at night. But, most of it is due to the fact that their politics and mind haven’t aligned for years. As a result, I don’t find much of their stuff as funny as they think it is…..Until now!
I’m reconsidering staying up late on Saturday nights!
There were several articles this week about recent polls that show Independents are abandoning Obama as they are sensing the impending sinking of the USS Democrat. One such article is this one from the Politico.
Amongst the stats that have the Democrats concerned are insights like this:
A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.
Yikes!
In another article, Obama is called “radioactive!”
Many watchers of House politics are tempted to downplay the potential for real races in these districts after taking one look at immediate past election history. How could Republicans possibly threaten the likes of Skelton or Spratt, both of whom won more than 62 percent of the vote in 2008? Or Gordon, Tanner, or Boucher, all of whom were unopposed last year? But that was before they were saddled with a sitting Democratic president who is beyond radioactive in their districts. History is history.
Independents leaving so fast that it is causing normally safe Democrat districts to be in play? Why? What has caused the Independents, the folks how a year ago overwhelmingly voted for “hope and change” to do an about face?
Rasmussen released an interesting poll today. The poll shows that unemployment amongst Democrats and Independents are unemployed at a rate much higher than that of Republicans:
Data from Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys shows that 15.0% of Democrats in the workforce are currently unemployed and looking for a job. Among adults not affiliated with either major party, that number is 15.6% while just 9.9% of Republicans are in the same situation.
If that wasn’t bad enough, the rate of decline for Independents, has been much higher this year than for Democrats or Republicans:
Among those not affiliated with either major party, unemployment has grown by more than two percentage points from 13.3% in February to 15.6% now.
Hmmmm, I guess if I were an independent who voted for Obama’s “change” and the only change I see is an increase in unemployment for people like myself, that is higher than that of the folks around me, I might be a bit hacked off as well.
Keep up the good work Mr. President. We’ll see whose Party is “The big tent party” in 2010!
It didn’t start with the Obama administration but it has accelerated to warp speed under their watch. What am I referring to? Well, the government trying to tell you how to live your life, of course.
Smoking Bans
CFL light bulb
Banning or taxes on sugar items
Forced health insurance purchases
Carbon restrictions
Salary caps
Car manufacturing
These are all examples of where the government has stuck their nose into places they shouldn’t be or have proposed doing the same.
If health reform and cap and trade were to pass, it’s hard to imagine an area of our lives that government wouldn’t have influence, if not the potential for dictatorial control over.
It turns out that we mere citizens are not the only ones feeling the weight of government oversight on our shoulders. James Pethokoukis reports that China is asking detailed questions about the impact of health care reform on the US economy and deficits. Wow, that’s got to be uncomfortable to have another nation question you on issues that should be only the business of your nation? What ever happened to national sovereignty? Probably the same thing that is happening to our personal liberties.
There used to be a time where wars were fairly predictable. I don’t mean the length or who would win the war. I mean that ultimately, a war would end when one of the two sides determined that the “price” of continuing the war became higher than the one side could tolerate. Look back over the history of the US and you’ll see this is true.
The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and even the Cold War ended when when one of the combatants decided that the continuation of the war was not the best investment of its economic or human assets.
The notion of war and winning it, has changed with the advent of terrorists or jihadists such as Al qaeda. The loss of economic or human assets are no longer relevant except in the absolute sense. Al qaeda and its ilk are willing to fight until their last dime or human life. To compound the problem, much of Al qaeda believes that dying for their cause is no concern; they relish it.
While it sounds loony, the participation of groups like Al qaeda has made war much more complicated. How do you prevent a war if the group who has declared war on you has no fear of complete annihilation and believes that anything short of a complete acquiescence to their ideology makes you an enemy to be fought to the death? It doesn’t provide much of an opportunity for discussion, compromise or a “meeting of the minds.”
So why am I giving you these observations on the history of war?
I keep wondering how, with the significant public push back Pelosi, Obama and to a lesser extent, Reed can continue to push issues like Placebocare and cap and trade? Are they that politically deaf that they don’t understand the ramifications of “full student body left”, on the elections just past or those coming next year? Even Bill Clinton after being rebuffed from his early leftward moves, ultimately found his “happy place” and became the preeminent political pragmatist. With regards to Obama, Pelosi and Reed, the only thing that makes any sense is the notion of a Political Jihadist.
I’ve come to conclude that Obama and Pelosi believe that there is no bill too far left that will cause their political death. Obama believes that his persona and personality will carry him through any storm. Pelosi believes that representing the country’s most far left district will protect her. They believe they are protected by the political allah if you will. Beyond that, I think these two believe that if they succeed in accomplishing their far left agenda but die politically, their political death would bestow on them some political version of 72 virgins. By continuing to press left, even their political death would be worth it as they would be “martyred” and enshrined.
If my take is right, all the talk from Pelosi and Obama about “hearing Republican ideas” and bipartisanship is just as valuable as sitting down with Al qaeda to discuss the coexistence of Islam and Christianity. While that should be firmly fixed in every Republican’s mind, the group at higher risk are the Democrats themselves.
Like other jihadists, Obama and Pelosi don’t mind death, in their case, political death. Unfortunately, like other jihadist groups, the leaders easily talk about welcoming death for their cause but, when talk moves to actions it’s rare that the leaders of the movements are found with the proverbial bombs strapped on.
Don’t expect to see the jihadist leaders, Obama and Pelosi, give up on their leftward push. Do expect to see a whole lot of political bodies. When it comes to jihadist ideology every body is dispensable. Well, every body except for those of the leadership.
The latest White House attempt to marginalize Fox News was on display this weekend. In separate interviews, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod attempted to say that Fox really wasn’t news. They both went on to say that Fox does things to make money.
Quick, someone contact ABC, NBC and CBS! I think we have a news flash!
There was a time where the “Big 3” nearly financed the rest of their viewing offerings with the money they made off of the commercial revenue of their nightly news broadcasts. As recently as 1980, nearly 55 million people nightly, watched the Big 3 network news each evening. Last year that number was down to 25 million. In the latest week, less than 21 million people watched the Big 3, a drop of nearly 20% from just last year. The chart below shows the steady downward trend of network news viewership of the past 3 decades:
If that all wasn’t bad enough, in a recent survey, the total percentage of people who identified one of the Big 3 as the news organization they turned to most was a combined 27.3%. That number for the Big 3 was down almost 3% from 2007. In the same survey, Fox news was identified as the news organization people turned to the most by 28.4%, up nearly 2% since 2007.
I’ll bet the White House thought the Big 3 folks generated “news” when they made lots of money. Are they now saying that NPR is the only arbiter of what is and isn’t news? I suppose with all of the newspapers that are going out of business due to lack of subscribers and profit, they could also be purveyors of “news?”
Does the White House really believe that their words will convince those who trust or rely on Fox news not to? Well, if they believe we buy the line about our insurance not changing with Placebocare, I suppose they could believe this as well. The problem is, too many folks have now learned the line and repeat each time they hear a whine from the White House about how someone has maligned them, “Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
And lest you think it’s just the conservatives getting all lathered:
69% of GOP voters say the level of anger is higher now, a view shared by 53% of Democrats and 56% of voters not affiliated with either party.
Nope, it’s a majority of each political persuasion.
Let’s look back at Barack Obama’s Denver acceptance speech. After calling out differences on gun rights, gay rights and illegal immigration, Barack Obama said:
But this, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that’s to be expected, because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.
If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.
And you know what? It’s worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn’t work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it’s best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know.
We’ve been told time and again how Barack Obama is the smartest President ever. While I doubt he has any idea what a can of Spam costs, or even how to cook it, his speech did show him prescient. Washington doesn’t and doesn’t want to work and people’s hopes are dashed. This is what has people angry and it is this that has the nation divided.
I doubt Obama sees division within the country as a statement of any kind on his leadership or to be more precise, his complete lack of leadership. Rather, like the deficits that he has increased exponentially, Obama, having been told that the nation is more divided now than ever would utter his answer that provides absolution from all accountability of his own actions: “I inherited it from the previous administration.”
Saturday, I informed you about the new definition of racism. No longer does racism have to do with someone’s race. No, according to the Left, racism now is based on any disagreement with liberals, Democrats or elites. This new definition would make all of us that don’t fall into the group of liberals, Democrats or elites, racist at all times regardless of what our views on race really are. In contrast, this new definition would make it definitionally impossible to be racist if you were within the group of liberals, Democrats or elites can be racist. Or does it?
New York Governor David Paterson has had an “unusual” term. After assuming office as a result of the resignation of Eliot Spitzer’s prostitution revelations,on his second day in office, both Paterson and his wife acknowledged having extramarital affairs, one with a state employee. In his inaugural speech, Paterson called the New York legislature
the least deliberative and most dysfunctional in the nation.
After Hillary Clinton resigned her Senate position to become Secretary of State, Paterson was a character in Caroline Kennedy’s vaudeville like attempts to be appointed as her replacement. In the final scene, after abruptly declaring she was not interested in the role, Paterson claimed he had “never intended” to pick her.
New York’s financial situation is perhaps the most vexing issue Paterson is facing. Like many states, New York is facing a budget shortfall. Being a large state, New York’s short fall has been, well, large. Paterson’s budget called for tax increases on nearly everything one could imagine taxing. By one account, the tax increases proposed by Paterson would increase the taxes on the average New York family by nearly $4,000 each year.
As a result of his policy and personal handling of issues, Paterson is polling a 60% disapproval rating. Polls have also showed Paterson trailing possible Republican contender, Rudy Giuliani by 15 points.
Facing a possible rout by Republicans in an important, reliably liberal state, Democrats are now pressuring Paterson to back off of his bid for reelection (or election if you’re a purist) to Governor. Some Democrats are even suggesting that Paterson ought to resign to allow someone else a chance to get a running start at the role. In this article covered by NewsMax, even President Obama is now encouraging Paterson to drop out of the Governor’s race. To date, Paterson has not obliged any of the requests.
While I’m sure there are many Republicans who are unhappy with Paterson as Governor, it’s not they who are making news asking him not to run; it’s Democrats. That must mean that there are Democrats who are unhappy with a Democrat. Further, that must mean that there are Democrats who are unhappy with another Democrat who happens to be black. Finally, there is a Democrat President, who happens to be black, who is unhappy with Paterson, a Democrat who happens to be black.
If a Democrat, who happens to be black, is unhappy with the abilities of another Democrat, who happens to be black, and asks the second Democrat, who happens to be black, not to run for office, we now know the reason for the dissatisfaction is due to racism. I’m left with just one question, who’s the racist; the Democrat who happens to be black or the Democrat who happens to be black?
A Republican, a Democrat and a person of color were walking down the street. The Democrat looked at the Republican and said “You’re a racist!”
Ha, ha, ha, ha!
OK, I haven’t really heard that joke yet. It does however, describe the Left’s view of Republicans and people of color. It now seems that regardless of the situation, the Left believes that all interactions that Republicans have with people of color are tinged with racism.
The race situation has become so contorted that no matter what Republicans do, they lose on the issue. When Republicans fight for school vouchers, a program that has been shown to benefit students of color often more than caucasion students, Republicans are claimed to be racist for fear of tearing apart highly segregated inner city schools. When Republicans appoint or hire people of color into leadership positions i.e. Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, the candidates are charged with some form of Uncle Tomism and Republican’s are charged with tokenism.
As the debate on Obama’s agenda has escalated, there has been an equal escalation in the claims of racism against those who oppose Obama. The racism claims were initially isolated. In the last week however, hardly any discussion of Obama’s policies or those opposing them is had without overt or subtle claims of racism against President Obama. Most notably this past week was Maxine Water’s demand to know what the tea party participants are thinking and Nancy Pelosi’stearful concern of returning to the 70’s where, incidentally, the culprit was a whacko leftist not a Republican.
Those who know the Left and their unimaginative, repetitive tactics, are not surprised that they have invoked racism nor that it slips off their tongues as easily as raising taxes does as a solution to all budget problems. However, even I am left with my jaw hanging after reading the latest view of the Right’s supposed racism.
After stating that his gut and Maureen Dowd’s are the same (What happens if one of them doesn’t like Thai food?) New Republic writer, John McWorter identifies a new source of our disgust with Obama’s agenda:
And yet, even if Dowd and I are correct that Wilson’s outburst was motivated by dislike for blacks, I’m not entirely sure that I, or anyone else, should care. Consider a hypothetical: Wilson, we can presume, would have been pleased as punch if the new black president were a Republican and were up at the podium singing the praises of small government and sending immigrants back to where they came from. This thought experiment does not exonerate Wilson of the charge of racism; what it does mean is that we are talking about a racism more complicated than the bigotries of old, a racism intertwined with other brands of animus (against liberals, against Democrats, against elites) to an extent we can only speculate about.
According to Mr. McWorter, racism is no longer an issue of intolerance of another race. Rather, racism, in Mr. McWorter’s view, is now the disagreement or intolerance of philosophies held by liberal, Democrats or even self proclaimed elites!
Beyond surprising Noah Webster, McWorter’s new definition of racism is going to come as a surprise to a whole bunch of other folks. Certainly, Abraham Lincoln would be surprised to learn that his opposition to the Left’s support of slavery, was racist. I suspect Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King would be surprised that they were also racists as they opposed policies that had been implemented and institutionalized by Democrats for generations.
According to Mr. McWorter You, I and anyone else who opposes any solitary policy or legislative sentence proffered by a Democrat, are racist. No longer is there any concern for how ill thought or destructive to America a policy is, from now on, all policies from the Left are right. Unless of course you are a racist.
“Jump the shark” is a colloquialism used to denote the point where traditional or commonly understood approaches veer off into absurdity or out-of-the-ordinary characterizations. I suggest that “Jump the shark” no longer adequately defines the extreme to which this phenomena can mutate. From now on “Jump the shark” shall be referred to as “disagreement is racism.” Compared to “disagreement is racism,” “Jump the shark” seems almost normal.
A week ago President Obama grabbed his final quiver of arrows and started firing the final efforts to save health care reform. His first effort was a speech to a joint session of Congress.
After a month of highly attended and vocal town halls where it became apparent that many Americans knew more about Congress’ plans than the members of Congress did, it was anticipated that President Obama’s speech would reset the health care discussion. It was hoped that President Obama might have the wisdom to publicly discard parts that had drawn clear public enmity, such as the public option and offer policies that could be supported on both sides of the aisle like opening insurance sales across state lines. The President did neither. Rather, the President dug his heels in for support of a public option, called those who opposed the legislation liars and proceeded to refrain several assertions that had been proven not to be true.
Expectations were high that President Obama’s speech would stop the slide of public support and regain support for his health care reform initiative. At first, it appeared that he accomplished his goal.
Hovering around its lowest level of public support just prior to Obama’s speech, in the week following the speech, Rasmussen recorded steady rebounds of support for Obama’s health care reform. Along with it, Obama’s personal approval level which had been hovering around all time lows, also rebounded. Ah, once again there was hope for change for Obama worshippers. Unfortunately, the hope was short lived.
Yesterday showed the first crack in the Obama magic. Rasmussen reported that the rebound in public support for health care reform had stopped and had slid back a bit. Today, support for the health plan dropped below the levels that were seen immediately before Obama’s speech. Coincidentally, Obama’s approval level is also dropping.
Compounding Obama’s attempt to save health reform is a tangent but highly relevant story; the investigative reporting showing ACORN in need of a visit from the RICO agents.
As the townhalls were filling with anti big government folks in the first half of August, Obama called on ACORN to help balance the attendance. While their tactics were suspect, there is no doubt that they balanced at least the volume if not the substance, of the meetings. With the revelations of the past week, government contacts are showing ACORN more undersides of buses than a repairman in a Greyhound garage. After having bragged about his strong connections with ACORN, President Obama will need to keep a wide berth of this group until the heat dies down, which I don’t expect to happen anytime soon. Thus, for the time being, there will be far less public displays of affection for Obamacare.
With the House bill apparently unable to find a combination of Democrats that can get it passed, some Senate Democrats are trying to cobble a plan that could pass out of the Senate and give the House some cover. One of those attempts was unveiled today by Max Baucus. I’ll let others give you the detail of the plan. Suffice it to say that it is missing the mark on all counts. In fact, where it took several weeks for opposition to gather on the House bill, the Baucus bill hadn’t even had it’s first news conference before opposition formed:
AFSCME President McEntee: “Finance Committee Health Care Bill is Deeply Flawed” (Press Release, September 16, 2009)
Teamsters Oppose Baucus Plan to Tax Health Insurance Companies (Press Release, September 16, 2009)
AFL-CIO: Baucus bill ‘absolutely fails’ (The Hill, September 16, 2009)
Unfortunately, for President Obama, the opposition this time was coming from within his own ranks. Add to this reports that there are enough people unhappy for a variety of reasons, that there may not be enough votes to even pass Baucus’ bill out of his own committee and it leaves just one question; whatever happened to hope and change?
ObamaCare: Dem Senator Warns of ‘Big, Big Tax’ on Middle Class…
White House collects Web users’ data ‘without notice’…
Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year…
CLINTON CONCERN ABOUT NEW WEAPONS TO VENEZUELA; ARMS RACE…
Amongst other items, Obama ran promising that the bottom 95% of income earners would not see $.01 of tax increases. He also claimed that other countries would once again listen to and respect us. Funny none of that seems to be happening. Finally, Obama claimed that he would heal the country’s “racial divide” and be the first “post racial” president. Jimmy Carter doesn’t think so (video at the link)
I live in the south
Is Carter’s statement of credibility for being able to discern when people are opposed to someone’s race as opposed to someone’s destructive national policies.
According to Rasmussen, President Obama was elected gaining nearly 53% of the popular vote. On the day he was inaugurated, President Obama enjoyed a favorability rating of 65% and a net positive rating of 28%. This morning, President Obama’s favorabilty rating is just 49% and he has a net unfavorable rating of 6%. Obviously a change of this magnitude begs the question: What has changed? Does Jimmy Carter and the other Democrats who echo the “racism” charge believe that nobody noticed the color of President Obama’s skin on January 21st? Does Carter and others, believe that Obama’s skin color has changed in the past eight months?
In this case, resorting to a charge of “racism” shows that the Democrats are short on ammo. They are firing their final, desperate rounds in an attempt to prevent or forestall an over run of their positions by a populace backlash.
In the specific case of Jimmy Carter, it’s interesting that he relies on his southern heritage for his credentials. It seems to me that rather than his heritage, Carter need no more reason than “it takes one to know one” for his charge of racism.
I think the words of the famous philosopher Mr. T sums up Carter’s take perfectly,
Joe Wilson, Representative from South Carolina was the voice you heard shouting “liar” during the President’s speech tonight. The look on Pelosi and Plugs faces are priceless.
If President Obama thought this issue was just going to go away with a few lofty words, he was mistaken. I commented in the live blog tonight that if this had been a real “house of the people” meeting, the tepid response for Pelosi and others would likely have been replaced with the throwing of rotten tomatoes.
President Obama stood before the joint Congress this evening and said everyone who has read the actual words of HR 3200 were succumbing to “bogus claims”. From his speech:
Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.
My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.
I won’t dissect each of these issues as it’s been done numerous times across the net.
The only thing I learned during tonight’s speech is that it’s not a good idea to play a drinking game where you drink each time Nancy Pelosi blinks. It’s a good think I was already home! Obama could have saved us all a bunch of time and just told us to reread HR 3200.
For the past several weeks, each time President Obama attempted to refute provisions of the plan, favorability ratings for both himself and support of the plan dropped. I’m left with just one question after tonight’s speech: After calling more than half of America liars, is it possible to have a favorability rating less than zero?
Quick, put together a list of famous duos. Here’s the one I just came up with:
Sonny and Cher
The Carpenters
Lewis and Martin
Abbott and Costello
Fred and Ginger
Bergen and McCarthy
Siskel and Ebert Murphy and Duel
Odd thing about my list is that while they were all incredible talents when together, the individual performers never seemed to rise to the same level of fame and accomplishment once the duos broke up. This is especially true in situations where one of the partners died like Siskel and Ebert or Murphy and Duel, andlet’s face it, Charlie McCarthy was never quite the same after Edgar Bergen’s death.
I’d like to add one more duo to the list of “great when together but awful separately;” POTUS and TOTUS.
POTUS and TOTUS were one of the most amazing political duos ever. Focused, eloquent and convincing are just some of the adjectives used to describe the performances of these two.
Who can forget their performance in Germany where POTUS apologized for America saying:
I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.
Or the night POTUS won the Democrat nomination and in Minneapolis, TOTUS came up with this unforgettable line:
this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…
Sadly, like several of my notable duos, the incredible talents of this duo ended with the death of one of the partners; TOTUS. We now know that like Peter Duel, TOTUS led a troubled life and on July 13, 2009, chose to end it.
What caused TOTUS to end his life?
Through June, POTUS’ strongly disapprove ratings had not moved above the low 30’s. On July 2nd, the strongly disapprove rating hit 35% and has been moving up since then.
On June 28th, Rasmussen reported that Republicans had taken a lead, outside of the margin of error, in the generic poll for the first time in a few years.
These events made it clear to TOTUS that despite his best efforts, POTUS was a complete loser. TOTUS understood that it was one thing to be performing together in the carefully crafted and controlled environments of campaigns. However, it was now a completely different challenge to try to perform together in the rough and tumble world of actually governing. No matter how good TOTUS was, no matter how well he did his job, he understood that POTUS wasn’t up to it and was going to hold him back. Worse, while TOTUS was handling his end of the act flawlessly, POTUS was the one who got all the adulation.
The final straw for TOTUS came on July 12th. This was the day that Rasmussen reported that the most important issue that POTUS and TOTUS campaigned for, health care reform, now had more Americans against it than supporting it. Seeing that this was the beginning of the end and knowing that he wouldn’t be able to convince POTUS to resign, TOTUS did the honorable thing and threw himself from the stage.
Since the death of TOTUS, POTUS hasn’t been the same. Several times last week, POTUS attempted to convince Americans that the government could run successful commercial operations by pointing to the continuing loses of the USPS! Over the weekend, POTUS said he wasn’t for single payer before he said he was for single payer before he said he never said he was for single payer health care.
Clearly, POTUS has loss his luster. As his polls and those of his pet projects continue to sink, POTUS attempts to maintain his swagger as if he was still in the halcyon days working with TOTUS; but he’s not.
It was sad to watch Sonny attempt to perform without Cher. It’s incredibly sad to watch Ebert become gloomier and reserve praise only for the most obscure of foreign films, without Siskel. Likewise, it’s sad to watch POTUS attempt to carry on.
When Peter Duel died the producers of Alias Smith and Jones attempted to bring in Roger Davis to fill the role. The show only lasted another 17 shows and most of its fans felt it was a painful 17 shows. Perhaps POTUS could learn something from Roger Davis.
Rasmussen Reports has the latest results of the generic Congressional Ballot. The latest results show the Republicans with a 5 point spread: Democrats 38%, Republicans 43%.
While the latest Rasmussen results are bad for the Democrats, it gets even worse:
Women who have consistently favored Democrats now prefer the GOP by a 40% to 39% margin. Men continue to favor Republicans over Democrats 47% to 36%.
And:
Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Republicans two-to-one – 43% to 22%.
Weren’t women and independents the reason that Obama and the Democrats won in November?
Obama better hope that African Americans “stay solid.” If not, Jimmy Carter will no longer be the worst President of modern times!
Comments Off on Ouch! That’s Going to Leave a Mark
One of the advantages of working with a blogging powerhouse like No Runny Eggs is the vast number of relationships that NRE has throughout all levels of the Federal and various State’s governments. One of the benefit of these relationships is that on occasion, we receive advance copies of press releases, speeches and prepared statements. Typically when we receive one of these advance copies they will be embargoed. Embargoed simply means that we can’t share the information with the public until after a date and time that is specified on the document.
President Obama, Henry Gates and Officer Crowley will be meeting this evening. They’ll be having a beer and discussing race relations. The White House staff has already sent out a press release as a follow up to the meeting. This piece has been embargoed until 7:30 PM Eastern but with the increased concern that President Obama has with race relations I think it’s important for you to get this information sooner rather than later:
Press Release
Office of the President of the United States
Embargoed until July 30, 2009 7:30 PM Eastern
Following his meeting with the distinguished professor Henry Gates and Sargent James Crowley, President Obama had the following comments:
“Today I met with the distinguished professor Henry Gates and Sargent James Crowley. We each had a beer.
Professor Gates had a Red Stripe, Sargent Crowley had a Blue Moon and I had a Bud Lite.
We talked about the incident that Professor Gates and Sargent Crowley were involved in. We talked about my comments on the incident. Each of us agreed that the other two could have done a better job.
We all feel good about our discussions and I am particularly pleased with how my Presidency has been able to move the discussion of race relations to this point of closure. In fact, I’m so pleased with our progress, that as it regards my goals of solving race relation problems during my Presidency, I am happy to declare:”
Today’s the day that President Obama, Henry Gates and Officer Crowley will sit at a picnic table on the White House lawn and sip beers.
This may be the biggest risk of Obama’s young administration.
As I posted yesterday, Rasumussen Reports shows that a plurality of Americans believe that President Obama sees our society as something other than the fair, open society that most Americans believe it is. President Obama reinforced that perception in his original response to the Gates situation. As a result of this perception, President Obama will walk a very very fine line during his meeting.
If President Obama is perceived to have gone “over the thin blue line” as he addresses Officer Crowley he will further reinforce people’s perception that he ascribes to the vitriolic rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright and as we’ve now learned, statements made by Henry Gates himself. If Obama is perceived to have not supported a “brotha in the struggle” he risks putting a chink in the solid support the African American community has provided him thus far.
As an aside, the last group Obama can’t afford losing support from is the African American community. As Rasmussen reports Obama now has his lowest favorability and highest negative ratings to date. The only group who hasn’t started to defect from him are African Americans. If they start to slide, hello 40% favorability rating, goodbye Obama agenda!
If Obama comes out of his beer bash with nothing but “we laughed, we cried, we drank beer,” he will be seen as having responded to his own stupid gaff with nothing more than another self focused media moment.
Regardless of what does or doesn’t happen at this meeting, this was a dumb idea. In the world of politics you need to look at the value of each engagement asking “What is the upside” and “What is the downside”. In the case of this meeting, there is very little, if any upside and more than a modest opportunity to further harm his polling numbers.
Obama has proven time and again that he believes his personality and persona can save him from any real challenge or difficulty. Responding, “Beer? Brilliant!” when this meeting was suggested may be a response he’ll look back on and wish he hadn’t said.
A part of the Barack Obama campaign schtick was that by electing him, a black individual, the country would heal and move beyond racial divides. It appears there are a couple of problems with that notion.
First, for the country to move beyond a racial divide by electing Obama, one would have to believe that there is a racial divide to be moved beyond. Second, one would have to believe that Obama himself had moved beyond it and would be able to show others the way. Based on recent polling by Rasmussen Reports, at least the second proposition appears to not be believed by the American public.
While Rasumussen Reports says that 69% of people polled believe that the American society is fair and consistent across races, a plurality of 49% believe that President Obama views America as unfair and discriminatory. Of note is that this is the first time since Rasmussen has polled the question that more respondents noted Obama with this view. Also of note, the most recent poll was taken on the heels of Obama’s comment saying the Cambridge police acted stupidly with regards to Henry Gates.
We’ll find out this week whether President Obama has a pragmatic side or whether he is the true ideologue that all actions to date, suggest he is.
Today’s Rasmussen Reports poll shows Obama with his most negative rating yet, -11. Because Rasmussen uses a 3 day rolling average, today is the first day that the poll is made up entirely of polls made post Obama’s attempt to explain that he wasn’t planning to do what he is planning to do. This would also suggest that tomorrow’s poll, based on a 3 day average, will be even lower than today’s unless today’s polling results are dramatically improved.
The question now is whether the sudden drop in the poll is a recognition that Obama is either lying or clueless as to what is in the health care bill or whether Obama’s remarkable prime time embracing of Reverend Wright’s “The Man is keeping us down” philosophy is the cause for the sudden and dramatic decline. I suspect it’s a bit of both. However, with Obama’s polls sliding even before the presser, it’s likely the health care issue that is leading the charge.
If Obama is the pragmatist that those who bought into his campaign schtick believe, we should see a recognition this week that the health care reform bill needs not tweaking, but a reform of its own. If however, Obama is the egotist and idealogue that most of us believe he is we should see a week where Nancy Pelosi and Denny Hoyer may even go so far as to bypass House committees to force a floor vote. Either way, this should be a fun week to watch Washington!
The clay-mation President has some problems. Drudge is reporting that today’s Rasmussen approval rating will show President Obama under 50% approval. Notably, this is the first poll taken since Obama had his prime time presser trying to sell his health plan.
I think we have a problem Houston!
Revisions/extensions (8:39 am 7/24/2009 – steveegg) – And the news is all negative for The Won. 51% of those in the three-day rolling-average Presidential Tracking Poll disapprove of Obama’s job performance, with 49% approving. The Presidential Approval Index (those strongly approving less those strongly disapproving) is at -8. Independents only give Obama a 37% approval.
Rasmussen further notes that 2/3rds of the results are from before the Epic FAIL of a press conference on Wednesday. I can’t wait until Sunday, when we get a fully-post-presser view.
“Let’s just lay everything on the table,” (Sen. Chuck) Grassley (R-IA) said. “A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn’t going to pass if there weren’t some changes made … and the president says, ‘You’re going to destroy my presidency.’ “
There’s several different ways to take this one. JWF wonders if waaaahmbulances are covered under ObamaCare. Given they’re the prefered mode of transportation for the perpetually-aggrieved, I’m sure there’s a full subsidy.
Regarding the inevitable “Two Minutes Hate” that is about to be ordered, I have to wonder who is going to be in bigger trouble for proving that it is all about Emperor Obama I – Grassley for letting that slip into the press, or the unnamed Dem Congressman who leaked it to Grassley.
As for the destruction of Obama’s Presidency, I wouldn’t be particularily bothered if health care was, as Sen. Jim DeMint said, his “Waterloo”, though the stall at the gates of Moscow is a more-accurate historical description. After all, while Waterloo was the end of Napoleon, his failure to take Moscow before General Winter and General Mud took hold was what made Waterloo possible.
Finally, we just learned which of the government-takeover plans Obama wants to happen – the Heavy plan in the House.
“ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.”
Ah, yup!
ABC Employees Contributed Overwhelmingly to Obama
By CPR Staff on June 18, 2009 10:41 AM
Interesting to Note…
An analysis of contributions to the Obama and McCain campaign shows that ABC employees contributed more than $160,000 to the Obama campaign versus less than $5,000 to the McCain campaign.
Audio of another Obama supporter incapable of living without the aid and assistance of the government. Sorry I can’t embed but you HAVE to listen to this!
The clay-mation President has some problems. 