Obama's ratings

[lorene]

The news today said even though obie's team)dem's) seem ot be bailling out of politics quickly, the presidents approval ratings are still around fifty percent even with his agenda ratings falling fast sooooo...

Why has not this president been attack personally like the ones in the past would be by now had they failled to do....well...anything, in their first year of office as he has done?

Could it be because of race? Perhaps people will only say they do not like his agenda and not him because they are afraid of being called racist? Or is he as a persn really that likable that no matter how much he messes up or little he accomplishes, we still love him?

[JoeyKnothead]

You must not get out much. There's been plenty of "attacks" on Obama - from the whole birther deal to "he wants to kill grandma".

If he's succeeded at anything, it's bringing out the wingnuts.

[lorene]

You must not get out much.

Personal assault on a poster,,,please keep your little remarks within the bounds of the rules sir...

plenty of "attacks" on Obama - from the whole birther deal to "he wants to kill grandma".[

Please those are not attacks and it is insulting to even try to get people to believe they were...sheesh...Obama is not above questioning,..

If he's succeeded at anything, it's bringing out the wingnuts.

Yes, they do appear to ccome out if one even questions him don't they?

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

You must not get out much. There's been plenty of "attacks" on Obama - from the whole birther deal to "he wants to kill grandma".

If he's succeeded at anything, it's bringing out the wingnuts.

Please keep it civil. Do not make negative comments about other debaters.


When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 3:

Personal assault on a poster,,,please keep your little remarks within the bounds of the rules sir...

I apologize for that'n and the "wingnut" comment later. It was meant as a lighthearted response with no nefarious intent.

plenty of "attacks" on Obama - from the whole birther deal to "he wants to kill grandma".

Please those are not attacks and it is insulting to even try to get people to believe they were...sheesh...Obama is not above questioning,..

You asked why there were no attacks. To state his healthcare proposals would create "death panels" is indeed an attack. I'll give ya the birther deal, as silly as I think it is.

Yes, they do appear to ccome out if one even questions him don't they?

I apologize again for the "wingnuts" comment.

The issue of "questioning" is certainly a valid, even honorable one, but the "questions" so often border on, or share property with >insert non-insulting term that represents my disdain for some of the silly and often fraudulent arguments so many of these "questioners" come up with<.

I find these "questioners", such as Glen Beck, use the questions in order to attempt slander, and not as meaningful questions at all...

"Is Obama a Muslim?"

I'm just "questioning".

"Does Obama hate America?"

I'm just "questioning".

"Is Obama a rascist?"

I'm just "questioning".

I'm all for hating the President. That's fine, even honorable. Just be honest about it and quit throwing around slander disguised as "questioning". NOT that lorene has done so, but that she has indicated in the OP that there's been no attacks on Obama. The media is chock full of the most inane, gratuitiously goofy arguments damning Obama I've seen in my entire life.

The man says he wants to televise the health care debate. He balks. The Republicans have a conniption. He finally relents after shellacking the Repubs at their retreat. They then "question" whether it's a trap or not.

[micatala]

The news today said even though obie's team)dem's) seem ot be bailling out of politics quickly, the presidents approval ratings are still around fifty percent even with his agenda ratings falling fast sooooo...

Why has not this president been attack personally like the ones in the past would be by now had they failled to do....well...anything, in their first year of office as he has done?

Could it be because of race? Perhaps people will only say they do not like his agenda and not him because they are afraid of being called racist? Or is he as a persn really that likable that no matter how much he messes up or little he accomplishes, we still love him?

I think the "fear of racism" issue might play and small, small part in his ratings, just as they play a small part in the criticisms he receives.

Also, I think it is a bit unfair to say he has not accomplished anything. Now, one might feel that some of what I will list as accomplishments are not good things, or came at too high a cost, or are not due solely or even primarily to actions and decisions by Obama, but I think it is fair to consider these for discussion.

1) He (helped) keep the economy from total collapse. This started under Bush with TARP, but Obama (reluctantly) supported TARP and has been administering it and we have gotten some of the money back already.
2) Related to 1, he helped keep GM and Chrysler from going belly up.
3) Arguably helped improve the jobs situation. I allow it is always speculative to say "what would have happened if we had not acted" but I think a reasonable case can be made that unemployment would be even higher today without the recovery act.
4) No, we don't have final passage of a health care bill yet, but we have had the most thorough debate on health care in decades and are closer to addressing the real problems presented by our health care system than ever before. At a minimum, the general public is much more aware of the problem and its details than in the past. Most actually want some form of reform to pass, even if they are concerned about the cost and many are squeamish about government involvement in the system.
5) Our standing abroad is hugely improved over a year ago. This is admittedly a subjective perception, but it does affect international politics and the cooperation that we are likely to get on a number of issues.

And of course, it is worth keeping in mind that a large part of the reason more has not gotten done is the Republicans have gone to unprecedented lengths to obstruct Obama at nearly every turn. If the dems had filibustered as much the reps during Bush's presidency he wouldn't have gotten much done either. He certainly would not have gotten his prescription drug program through.

Just out of curiosity, what DID Bush get done during his Presidency, besides fighting wars in Iraq an Afghanistan and prosecuting the war on terror? NOte that Obama is arguably successfully taking care of two of three of these items, and is attempting to wind down the war in Iraq.

[micatala]

plenty of "attacks" on Obama - from the whole birther deal to "he wants to kill grandma".

Please those are not attacks and it is insulting to even try to get people to believe they were...sheesh...Obama is not above questioning,..

You asked why there were no attacks. To state his healthcare proposals would create "death panels" is indeed an attack. I'll give ya the birther deal, as silly as I think it is.

HOld on a moment joey!!

I would say the birther movement most certainly DOES constitute a rather prolonged attack on Obama. A huge number of people in this movement accused Obama outright of falsifying his birth certificate. They accused him of conspiring to cover up the falsification with Hawaiin officials. They accused him of being in league with radical politicians from Kenya (where he was really born).

In my view, false and spurious allegations constitute attacks. Continued insistence on accusing someone even after reasonable attempts were made to address questions is an attack.

The "questioning" canard was merely thin rhetoric used by the birthers to spin ridiculous conspiracy theories into political attacks on Obama. I certainly have no qualms about labeling such tactics as attacks. If these aren't attacks than I would have to ask what IS an attack.

[lorene]

"Is Obama a rascist?"

I'm just "questioning".

In light of his twenty year church membership, why wasn't that, at one time, a valid question, along with does he love America?

[lorene]

[quote="micatala12

) Related to 1, he helped keep GM and Chrysler from going belly up.

I do not believe that was a good thing at all...

So we have a health care bill we do not have, a saved econmy that is in tatters(which would be much better off right now had he waited on hislast stimulus like he was told to do by all who actually know what they are saying..and we know now they did because we have the stall just like they said would happen), bailed out car companies that are going to go under anyway, maybe he stopped more jobs from being lost when it is already close to a two or three decade high...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

HOld on a moment joey!!

I would say the birther movement most certainly DOES constitute a rather prolonged attack on Obama. A huge number of people in this movement accused Obama outright of falsifying his birth certificate. They accused him of conspiring to cover up the falsification with Hawaiin officials. They accused him of being in league with radical politicians from Kenya (where he was really born).

As it was referenced as "questioning", I was willing to concede. As it is referenced in your factually correct fashion I agree it is a direct "attack".
---------------------------------------------

From Post 8:

"Is Obama a rascist?"

I'm just "questioning".

In light of his twenty year church membership, why wasn't that, at one time, a valid question, along with does he love America?

I'll give ya that'n and note that seems to be the only objection you have with the referenced post. I'll take that as your agreeing Obama has faced "attacks", and that the OP's contention is wrong in this regard.