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?

[lorene]

I'll take that as your agreeing Obama has faced "attacks", and that the OP's contention is wrong in this regard.

Yes, I understand many people wish to rush to judgement and make assumptions based on nothing but lack of info...

Other than that, i have seen him have nothing but a free ride from the press.

[JoeyKnothead]

Other than that, i have seen him have nothing but a free ride from the press.

Your contention does not comport to reality.

Whether you like the man or not is your decision, and I support your rights in that regard. As you claim this man has had a "free ride" in the media, I point you to the talking heads at the Fox network.

I find your argument typical of a mindset that refuses to consider any angle but one's own. Where you've been shown factually that Obama has faced some of the very criticisms others have, and even new forms of criticism you still contend he's had a "free ride".

The President of the United States is one of the, if not the most, critiqued people on the planet. That such criticisms don't rise to a level you feel sufficient indicates to me that level would be quite high indeed, and likely unobtainable.

The "death panel" argument alone is one of the most vile, reprehensible LIES I've ever seen presented against a president or a president's position.

[lorene]

Other than that, i have seen him have nothing but a free ride from the press.

Your contention does not comport to reality.

Perhaps, if one lives in cartoon land..calling it reality...

Whether you like the man or not is your decision

,

I've not said anything about liking him or not joey...please try reading what is written..

and I support your rights in that regard. As you claim this man has had a "free ride" in the media, I point you to the talking heads at the Fox network.

Yeah i noticed how easy he gets it even in the mad gop circles...

I find your argument typical of a mindset that refuses to consider any angle but one's own.

Well while we are throwing out personal opinions let me play...

I find your post drab, full of hot air, little facts, little indication you can even read half the words other people write, totally absurd in any everyway, void of any reasoning that rises above that of an illiterate eight year old....

now that we have aired our personal feelings...

back to the topic...

Where you've been shown factually that Obama has faced some of the very criticisms others have, and even new forms of criticism you still contend he's had a "free ride".

Where?...Please, you have shown nothign of the sort just baseless claims and whines about his hard times (which do not exist)....

The President of the United States is one of the, if not the most, critiqued people on the planet. That such criticisms don't rise to a level you feel sufficient indicates to me that level would be quite high indeed, and likely unobtainable.

Please, this is not a site for you to preach your drivel...stay on topic and debate. Kepp off the soap box and a little less grandstanding..sheesh.

The "death panel" argument alone is one of the most vile, reprehensible LIES I've ever seen presented against a president or a president's position.

Then you should go back and read where old people would fall over dead in their homes because bush stopped cheap dope from coming in from canada...

[Cathar1950]

All you need do is watch FOX News and you can hear them mindlessly attack the President with almost the same depth they use to praise Bush.
I sometime feel that it is business as usual after Bush bankrupt the country and bailed out banks at the last minute claiming there was no time when they had know the problem was there because they had been working on a proposal for 6 weeks.
Bankrupt the country and make sure there is no money for the mandates the president was given by the American people.

I think the President is finding out just how socialist we are towards the rich and corporations.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 13:

>quote mining for brevity<

Where you've been shown factually that Obama has faced some of the very criticisms others have, and even new forms of criticism you still contend he's had a "free ride".

Where?...Please, you have shown nothign of the sort just baseless claims and whines about his hard times (which do not exist)....

I've presented several examples of the media "attacking" Obama. I'll leave it to the observer to consider whether my examples rise to the level of "attack".

The President of the United States is one of the, if not the most, critiqued people on the planet. That such criticisms don't rise to a level you feel sufficient indicates to me that level would be quite high indeed, and likely unobtainable.

Please, this is not a site for you to preach your drivel...stay on topic and debate. Kepp off the soap box and a little less grandstanding..sheesh.

It's not grandstanding. I've presented several instances where Obama has been "attacked" in the media, only to have you minimize these instances and continue with your "free ride" "drivel", calling such examples "whines" and etc.

The "death panel" argument alone is one of the most vile, reprehensible LIES I've ever seen presented against a president or a president's position.

Then you should go back and read where old people would fall over dead in their homes because bush stopped cheap dope from coming in from canada...

By no means am I saying other presidents didn't face the same or similar. I've simply shown where Obama has faced "attacks" from the media.

[Cathar1950]

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?

Frankly I am a little put off by the OP. Clearly there is an agenda, probably obvious to everyone but the poster, which is biased, and anti-Obama or maybe even just anti-liberal and/or anti-Democrat.
This sounds like a question you might hear on the biased and unfair FOX News, I bet Lorene is a fan or watches Glen Beck, where we know it is just another slam and of no substance. Obama, called obie in the OP, is being accused of failing to do what in fact the Republicans and our poster dont want him to do in a very narrow and selective fashion with absolutely no context of particular example. What has he done? We are not as bad off as the last President left us, except now we got a bunch of whinny &#%$! Like our poster?
Obama is being accused of having a 50% approval rating, how lame is that?
Then we are told the dems assuming Democrats, seem to be bailing out. So a few Democrats leave and some how they are all bailing out? Are we to assume some trend when two or three Republicans do something?
So then after that dull and biased presentation of a pile of straw men the anti-race card is played.

How much should we endure?

Could it be because of race? Could what be because of race, the lack of attacks? I guess we are supposed to expect attacks, and sure enough here is another taking up space and trying to drain everyone of thought. Dont tell me the poster doesnt watch FOX News. Attacks have just growing is frequency, arrogance and bitterness from the Republicans and Fox News. Where has Lorene been as FOX has not been alone in the same kinds of attack we see in the OP? That sure takes teabags.
I think Joey wrote correctly when he wrote: "You must not get out much.
Of course our indignant poster gets all offended.

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"

Of course our indignant poster gets all offended.

You must not get out much.

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

Anyone that even thinks Obama is not being attacked is deluded. Anyone that thinks the OP is not an attack of some sort is either gullible or biased. The OP is complaining he is not being attacked. Maybe they mean not attacked enough?

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?

What a piece of work.
Are you afraid of being called a racist?
Who said anything about loving him and who is we?
I suppose there are a number of racist out there that dont like his agenda, what ever that is suppose to be, but some people dont seem to care about his agenda and like to create the feeling that it is all about race.

[East of Eden]

All you need do is watch FOX News and you can hear them mindlessly attack the President with almost the same depth they use to praise Bush.
I sometime feel that it is business as usual after Bush bankrupt the country and bailed out banks at the last minute claiming there was no time when they had know the problem was there because they had been working on a proposal for 6 weeks.
Bankrupt the country and make sure there is no money for the mandates the president was given by the American people.

So because Bush spent too much, the answer was to elect someone that quadrupled the debt?

Obama didn't get any mandate, by being at the right place at the right time he stupided his way into the White House. Many people were upset with Iraq, and the economy collapsed just at the right time. McCain/Palin were leading in the polls right up to this collapse. I suppose you could similarly say Reagan was at the right place at the right time after Carter.

He may be personally popular, but only 42% say they would vote for him again.

Our center/right country will spit out this left-wing extremist POTUS.

As far as 'death panels', how about the term rationing? It happens where ever there is government socialized medicine. There's a reason Canada has a much higher cancer death rate than we do.

As far as the cheap shots against FOX news, a recent poll found that Americans trust FOX more than any other news network. In our polarized nation, having opposing viewpoints face each other relatively civily is a good thing. FOX does this more than anybody else.

O'Reilly did an informal poll right before the 2008 election and found the FOX staff was split about 50/50 between Obama and McCain, while the other network staffs were about 90% for Obama. And FOX is the biased network?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 17:

So because Bush spent too much, the answer was to elect someone that quadrupled the debt?

It's called deficit spending. It was used to lessen the effects of the recession.

Obama didn't get any mandate, by being at the right place at the right time he stupided his way into the White House.

LOL Surely you were laughing when you wrote that.

Many people were upset with Iraq, and the economy collapsed just at the right time.

I contend there is never a "right time" for the economy to collapse.

McCain/Palin were leading in the polls right up to this collapse.

I would contend they were leading right up till Palin spoke.

I suppose you could similarly say Reagan was at the right place at the right time after Carter.

I've never thought a Republican was ever a "right place and time" candidate, what with the kowtowing to the religious right.

He may be personally popular, but only 42% say they would vote for him again.

Similar numbers to Reagan at the same time, and various other previous presidents. Just too early to make that call, IMO.

Our center/right country will spit out this left-wing extremist POTUS.

That remains to be seen.

As far as 'death panels', how about the term rationing?

Is it not rationing when the poor aren't allowed access?

It happens where ever there is government socialized medicine. There's a reason Canada has a much higher cancer death rate than we do.

What good does it matter comparing cancer rates, when the poor will be denied service for their cancer?

As far as the cheap shots against FOX news, a recent poll found that Americans trust FOX more than any other news network.

Argumentum ad populum. If the majority thought the Moon wasn't there, would it disappear?

In our polarized nation, having opposing viewpoints face each other relatively civily is a good thing.

Agreed.

FOX does this more than anybody else.

Your opinion is noted, and rejected on the basis of Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

O'Reilly did an informal poll...

Hold up on that car wash gentlemen...

Are you aware of the difference between an informal poll, and a scientific poll?

O'Reilly did an informal poll right before the 2008 election and found the FOX staff was split about 50/50 between Obama and McCain, while the other network staffs were about 90% for Obama. And FOX is the biased network?

I challenge these numbers. Given they were gathered, counted, and distributed by Fox employees leaves the issue of bias open. Where is the independent verification for these numbers?

[Cathar1950]

O'Reilly did an informal poll right before the 2008 election and found the FOX staff was split about 50/50 between Obama and McCain, while the other network staffs were about 90% for Obama. And FOX is the biased network?

I challenge these numbers. Given they were gathered, counted, and distributed by Fox employees leaves the issue of bias open. Where is the independent verification for these numbers?

What do the employees have to do with the content of FOX News?
Are they running the show?

[East of Eden]

It's called deficit spending. It was used to lessen the effects of the recession.

So it was bad when Bush did it, but good when Obama did? When have we ever spent our way out of a deficit? Reagan used exactly the opposite approach and ignited the 80s boom.

LOL Surely you were laughing when you wrote that.

Only a little.

I contend there is never a "right time" for the economy to collapse.

Agreed, but it was the right time for the Obama campaign.

I would contend they were leading right up till Palin spoke.

On September 14, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed McCain up by three points. Then Lehman Brothers collapsed and the Wall Street debacle began to dominate the news. McCains lead disappeared almost immediately.

I've never thought a Republican was ever a "right place and time" candidate, what with the kowtowing to the religious right.

So that's what bothers you about Republicans. Now it all makes sense. Does the religious left irk you also?

Similar numbers to Reagan at the same time, and various other previous presidents. Just too early to make that call, IMO.

Obama has the highest desapproval rating ever recorded for an elected president beginning his second year. No other president has seen his Gallup job-approval rating drop as far as Obama's has (21 points) in his first year. And the public strongly opposes his favorite hobby-horse of socialized medicine.

Is it not rationing when the poor aren't allowed access?

When I've been to the ER, there were so many poor people there I almost wasn't allowed access.

What good does it matter comparing cancer rates,

Huh?

when the poor will be denied service for their cancer?

The poor are getting treatment, at taxpayer expense. We should adobt the GOP common-sense proposals for health care, and treat the few that are left who don't have coverage like regular welfare cases.

Argumentum ad populum. If the majority thought the Moon wasn't there, would it disappear?

Why do the majority of Americans disagree with you about FOX news?

Your opinion is noted, and rejected on the basis of Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

What, you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed? What about Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, and other liberals regularly on FOX?

Are you aware of the difference between an informal poll, and a scientific poll?

That's why I said informal poll.

I challenge these numbers.

OK, if you have different ones let me know. Here are some facts about media presidential voting: http://www.mrc.org/static/biasbasics/Ex ... Elite.aspx In 1992 91% of journalists voted for Clinton vs. 43% of the public.

Given they were gathered, counted, and distributed by Fox employees leaves the issue of bias open.

I feel the same way whenever I hear the 'mainstream' media opine on anything.