Bad American?

70% is still an extremely high approval rating. Yes, its true that Bush had a high approval rating... right after 9/11. His approval rating rapidly sank thereafter and stayed fairly low for the rest of his presidency.

All this talk about "ideologically dangerous" is kind of interesting. I say interesting because many who make such comments tend to reside in a very specific group: typically middle aged white, protestant males. Take a look at any picture taken during any sort of Republican convention, gathering, or event. The overwhelming majority of those attending are exactly the same, and again- middle aged, white protestant males, and typically angry at the same time. Its a phenomena of late referred to as " Angry white male syndrome" and refers to this exact demographic of the population, whom even though historically has had the lion's share of power, influence, and money in US history also tend to also be highly sensitive to perceived threats- aka- other races and changes in politics and society that doesn't favor their group 100%. Its only human nature to combat change that doesn't benefit them.

What I'm getting at is that personally, I'm all in favor of political diversity. I am not super happy about the fact that Democrats have basically taken control of both Congress and the Senate. In doing so they will have more power to force their agendas, which despite what you might think with reading my response I would be totally for. I am totally supportive of intelligent fiscal conservation applied in order to make government more efficient. But the Republican party has a major problem these days, and that is that they only have one chunk of the population who vehemently supports them- middle ages white males. If you look at the Democratic party, they have the support of most other ethnic groups, most other religious groups, most college educated young professionals, and most major successful corporate CEOs.

So its clear to me that the current methods the Republican part works- with their constituents hissing the words: "Communists, Socialists" etc etc is not working nor is appealing to anyone other than the aforementioned group. As such, they will die on the vine unless they find ways to become more relevant. They must change, must adapt to the changing times, and have more diverse agendas rather than sticking strictly with Christian moralist preservation and doggedly chanting the phrase: " Smaller government".

I say these things because the US works best with two healthy political parties, and as I see it now, the Republican party is fairly sick.

Yes Our President telling a sovereign Nation that it has to recognize the PLO, isn't right, and in the end the euro-states will be doing the same to us. Scary

His approval rating is currently 63%. That is lower than either Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Clinton at the 100 day mark. The interesting thing about the poll numbers are that when the question is asked if He is heading the country in the right direction, the overwhelming majority says NO. When asked of his policies, the "strongly disapprove" or "strongly approve", is now at only two points (a statistical dead heat) in his favor. These numbers aren't good and have steadily droped by a point or two each and every week.
My main problem with his that he is, bar non, the most dividing figure to ever occupy the White House. And as far as the "angry white male syndrome" of course, anyone that disagrees with the Obama admin must be because they are racists, or white, or God forbid, both! I disagree...I'm not white, angry or a republican. To categorize or label any one group this way IS, indeed the very definition of bigotry.
President Barack Obama won election on his promise of change, and his first 100 days have accomplished that in more ways than one. Not only is he planning to boost federal spending 25 percent while nearly tripling the national debt, he has transformed the job of president itself. The president is often referred to as the chief executive officer, meaning he devises and implements policies. But having never actually run anything beyond his own campaign, Obama apparently sees himself as someone who articulates goals but is not necessarily required to follow through on implementing them.
That became clear to me after watching George Stephanopoulos interview White House Chief of Staff Rohm Emanuel on ABC. Like his boss, Emanuel kept referring to the goals of getting healthcare costs under control and creating an energy policy that frees the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil. But when pressed for details on how these goals would be implemented, Emanuel repeated, “We just set the goals,” as if that were an end unto itself.
No better example of Obama’s cart-before-the-horse approach was his announcement that he would close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp within a year. Oh, and by the way, we will now look into what we should do with the prisoners there.
In pushing for a stimulus bill, Obama announced roughly how much he wanted to spend and how many new jobs he wanted to create. Then he left it to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to decide how the money should be spent. The fact that most of the money will be expended after the recession has ended and will not go to worthwhile infrastructure projects seemed of no concern.
Obama asked for a $634 billion reserve fund to help create a national healthcare system, but he apparently has no idea how it would interact with private health insurance. He claimed he would trim government costs and then came up with savings of $100 million. That is the equivalent of a family that spends $60,000 a year cutting $5.82 from its annual budget.
While engaging in a spending spree of trillions of dollars, he has claimed his budget moves America “from an era of borrow and spend” to “save and invest.” Yet he has no plan, whatsoever for paying off the staggering debts he is incurring.
Obama proclaimed his desire to end divisiveness and to govern in a bipartisan manner. After listening to Republican approaches to stimulating the economy, he ignored all of them. In fact, he has revived the divisiveness of the past by constantly bashing the Bush administration and releasing memos about enhanced interrogation, redacting the details of the plots that were extremely successfully rolled up as a result of those techniques.
Obama’s approach to foreign affairs shows the same pattern. Obama called for “a world without nuclear weapons” without demonstrating that he has any inkling of how that might be achieved. He eschews the term “war on terror,” apparently thinking that if he refers to it as “overseas contingency operations,” the threat will disappear. We must now say “man-caused disasters” instead of terror attack, maybe it'll candy-coat things a bit, hey, in the land of Oz all things sound so pretty.
Obama set a goal of overcoming differences with adversaries like Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chávez. By articulating the goal and chatting amiably with oppressors like Chávez, he seems to believe he is achieving world peace. The real world is more complicated than that and requires a carrot and stick approach.
As if he were a guest on Oprah, Obama has issued serial confessions of America’s alleged past sins, including dropping the atom bomb on Japan to end World War II. So far, the only positive result is that France has agreed to take one prisoner from Guantanamo Bay.
At the same time, by releasing memos on coercive interrogation tactics and demonizing those who tried to protect us, he has demoralized the intelligence community and imposed on the CIA a risk-averse atmosphere that will impair our safety for years to come. This recklessness also endangers our troops. He did so despite warnings about the consequences on the war on terror from his own CIA director, Leon Panetta; four previous directors; and his own counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan. Despite his damaging actions, he claimed to CIA employees that he fully supports them.
Obama’s lack of follow through is why only one of the measures he sponsored as a U.S. senator was enacted: a bill to “promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
“Obama is a pitchman, not a president, He can deliver a message, but he can’t implement the message that he’s sending.”
Obama’s speaking abilities are so extraordinary that he has been able to coast through life on their strength alone, never needing to match talk with effective action. Yet Obama himself has said, “The test for all of us is not simply words, but deeds.”
In light of his record so far, the question is whether any of his words will lead to worthwhile results.

Fifty years ago both parties were mostly white males, angry or not. Since then both parties have moved leftward. The Birchers and their ilk have long been marginalized. Many of the values of the classic liberal are now the province of the Republicans - primary is supporting the rights of the individual (the ultimate minority) over the rights of the group. Freedom of speech, once a Democratic mainstay, is now subordinated to politically correct speech, i.e. that which does not offend a designated group. Not surprisingly virtually every one of these groups are factions supporting the Left. Of course they are going to support the party that promises them special treatment not available to all citizens.They are the angry voices I hear, labeling their political opponents with every vile name in the book- racist, sexist, homophobe, corrupt, angry, hateful, greedy etc. They are the ones who routinely shout down conservative speakers on campus. The Black List these days is used to purge conservatives from the mainstream media, academia, and Hollywood. McCarthyism is alive and well, but is not wielded against the original target.

We conservatives think the Utopians are wrong. That more government will never make life better. We don't think they have evil intent. Wanting to make our country better is never un-American. But yes, we get mighty angry when our opponents act as though the Constitution doesn't mean what is says. And at the disingenousness of pretending that the meaning of the articles is not 99% obvious. And at elected leaders (my guys too sometimes) deciding that a majority vote in congress supercedes the limits of power in the founding document.

Other than that, life is pretty good.


-Phil

Republican Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves

The Republicans of the day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery,
the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws,

and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.

Presidents during most of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century were Republicans. The White House was in Republican hands under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. Under the last two, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the United States became the world's only superpower, winning the Cold War from the old Soviet Union and releasing millions from Communist oppression.

Hi, Just want to make a brief comment about the popularity of Bush and Obama. George W. couldn't do anything right in the eyes of the news media. He was not their boy. He didn't defend himself, as I wish he would have. The dignity of the office was important to him.

Obama can do nothing wrong in the eyes of the media. Seems he can do nothing effective. He proposes things and expects they will happen. Frankly, I find it hard to believe what he, or his administration says about anything. Sure, It sounds good. Is he an articulate idiot, or a liar. Is he his own man, or is he being run by others?

Just opinion here.

I still can't help but notice that there is a sort of misconception based strictly down party lines about the new President. Most conservatives think Obama is a great evil, and surely EVERYONE must think likewise. Its like they live on another planet because if you listen to those in the "other" camp, things couldn't be better.

I think you have to step back and look at the environment Mr. Obama has to work in. Regardless of who the President is, the current time period is the perfect storm of catastrophe generated over several decades of wasteful spending, corrupt politicians, the aging of the baby boomers who will ultimately suck this country dry of money through healthcare needs and social security, several wars with no end in site, the collapse of the US manufacturing industry and the rise of China and India who will one day soon eclipse us, a housing bubble that bankrupted the average middle class American family, the fall of the middle class and the social instability that brings, a fall in the standard of education, the rise in fuel and commodity prices, and so on.

Looking at the banking and financial industry alone, it was allowed to run totally unregulated for decades. If you look at who the biggest contributors to political campaigns on both sides, they were as follows: The National Association of Realtors, The national association of investment banks, Freddie Mac, and various oil producers. All with the intent of having politicians look the other way as real estate related interests in particular sought ways to loosen lending and credit so much that the US became completely reliant on debt, which was further enhanced as China in particular quietly bought more and more US dollars, hedging themselves for a future of economic dominance while we wallowed in debt up to our ears.

You add all of those things up- things that took decades to create under several presidencies of both stripes and you have a downward spiral that is possibly irreversible, placing the US in a semi-permanent state of stagnation and weakening power. Just at the very same time that Obama became President. Yes- he is having to make some difficult decisions. I can almost assure you that Mccain would be having to make the exact same decisions and if he were President, I'm sure people would have the same concerns.

I'm concerned too. I worry about me and my Wife whom are young and unsure about what our future will be like. Jobs these days are unstable. I've had 6 jobs so far. The cost of housing in most major metros is still sky-high. I seriously doubt social security will be around. I worry about my parents too. I'm also angry, but not angry at the President, but at the elements that created the messes we are in who at this very moment are likely desperately seeking other ways to suck more money out of my pockets, and will probably get away with it once more.

So you see, you could not pay me to be President right now. To be President during a period of Crisis- especially of problems not of your making- is not my idea of fun.

Rusted on Socialists ( there's that evil word ) believe that Obama is a messiah, a Mr Fixit who will right all wrongs, ostensibly created by Bush & Co in the last 8 years.

His simplistic solution to this appears to be; "We will spend and borrow our way out of this mess and by God, if we bankrupt the country in the process, we're gonna do it".

We have a socialist government ensconced here and that it their solution. Our Budget was handed down on Tuesday and we have gone from a 22 billion surplus under a conservative government to a 57 billion deficit in less than 12 months under a socialist regime and we're bracing ourselves for a 300 - 500 billion deficit in the coming 3 - 6 years. Thank you on behalf of our kids, who will be paying this debt back for decades.

What does this clown who is running the show here do?
He borrows heavily from international banks and then hands out buckets of money we don't have to spurious socialist feelgood projects such as putting free insulation batts in houses!!!

Sound familiar?

I could go on but I think you get the picture....we are now almost the 51st State of the USA, given that our economy is being run by somebody who will never be called to account for his gross folly, and who blindly follows Obama's ideologies, no matter where they will eventually lead us.

Sigh......

This post is re-openned for discussion. Please, let's keep it polite.
Thanks, guys.
Bill Cahill

You know, I find it pretty ironic that the "socialist" camp out there doesn't realize that social programs sponsored by the government are what actually created the most stable economy during the era of the 1950's-1970's. Connect the dots: WW2 ends. The government gives away practically free college to returning vets. They were also given cheap home loans with zero interest payments. The houses they bought were cheaply built tract homes- developed to perfection during the war to house military personnel.These slab and stick homes were cheaper to build than other houses, and with the addition of these government programs, a typical working or middle class family could actually afford a reasonable home in a safe neighborhood.

You look at programs like these and I can almost bet that if anything remotely close to it was suggested, there would be an awful lot of people screaming "socialist!"

Now I'm not totally in favor or permanent government welfare of any kind. But the way I see it, you have to have both types of government control at different intervals. Republicans tend to favor a hands-off approach and lax controls over the economy. The proverbial saying amongst them is that capitalism and the free market will work itself out. Unfortunately capitalism in its purest form is also highly destructive because the way it works- money continually rises to the top until the foundation underneath crumbles and it falters. This latest housing bubble and credit crisis are perfect proof of what happens when companies abuse the system.

Then there's the Democratic approach. There idea is more in regards to social improvements such as schools, infrastructure, public programs and the like. They are also more in favor of some degree of industrial regulation. These have their own negative effects because often times these programs eventually become defunct and incapable of solving problems that grow and change with time. It also tends to result in higher taxes.

But if you look at history, Republicans almost always tend to get elected when the economy is doing well and the general populace feels positive. Democrats tend to get elected when things are the opposite. This correlates to the cycle I am suggesting, which is that the two go hand in hand and neither can solve problems strictly using party ideology. But inadvertently you also cause cycles of people who are devoted wholeheartedly to their party and once the opposing side wins, will dislike the current administration until their side "wins" again, at which point its the turn of those on the losing side to vent and fume for 4-8 years.

Its an endless cycle really, but an appropriate and required one.

Bob, I have to take issue with your correlation of Republican capitalism and the current housing bubble/credit mess. But I am sick of the topic in general, so I'll boil down my
counter. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and all the race mongers were the primary pressure behind the mortgages to plainly risky buyers. Political arm twisting by the left and threats of the racist label are what stamped "Approved" on all that bad paper. The free market does not give no-money down loans to people with bad credit and iffy employment histories.

But a more interesting challenge is your first paragraph. To equate rewarding veterans for exceptional service, with socialism, and then crediting their housing and education benefits with being the driving force for the following stable economy is tough to buy. Educated veterans were certainly a factor, but only one part of the post-war economic triumph of the US. Our competition was pretty much non-existent. We had just completed a cram course in fast, efficient, innovative, mass production and could turn war facilities to civilian applications in a hurry. We were optimistic and rewarded innovation. Britain on the other hand chose the socialist route and regulated, taxed, and re-distributed themselves from a pre-war world power into a technologically stagnant, second class welfare state.

So many examples abound of centralized government power diminishing the freedom of the individual and the affluence of the society that I cannot figure out why so many keep pushing the pendulum in that direction. But I understand that it is a fact of life that some will always trust in a wise, benevolent, right-thinking elite disbursing justice.

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and all the race mongers were the primary pressure behind the mortgages to plainly risky buyers. Political arm twisting by the left and threats of the racist label are what stamped "Approved" on all that bad paper

Let's not forget brother Barry and his ACORN group, how ironic that the very people responsible for starting this countries economic woes get elected to create more havoc.

You say "This is America, we like it as it is" Then you say that you "want your country back" What do you mean by those 2 statements?

Doug K. wrote:

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and all the race mongers were the primary pressure behind the mortgages to plainly risky buyers. Political arm twisting by the left and threats of the racist label are what stamped "Approved" on all that bad paper

Let's not forget brother Barry and his ACORN group, how ironic that the very people responsible for starting this countries economic woes get elected to create more havoc.

Actually, that's a bunch of right wing extremist crap! Just like that idiot on the radio, they have such closed minds. The problem stems from all the selfish investors who pumped prices up more than the market could sustain, Price of gas, homes. Remember the Dot.com bubble? Investors, are the root cause. Ok, this subject sucks and is soooo boring. Let's talk about ingredient labels or the importance of zippers or something.

This topic is beginning to heat up too much. I'm noticing some name calling going on. If this continues on either side, I don't care who, it threatens to lock this post. Let's keep it nice here, boyz.
Thank you.
Bill Cahill