People eventually wise up:
It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.
Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date. {..}
Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.
Now that's change you can believe in. And yes, based on what's gone down so far, I hope Obama's policies fail miserably. It's been thirty years since Jimmy Carter, and perhaps we need to relearn the lesson of wnat it feels like to have a really incompetent Democrat in charge of things....
You can't say I didn't give him a chance.
But like Bobby Womack said, it's all over now.
4 comments:
Bush was far worse than Carter. In any event, so far Obama seems to be far worse than either of them were.
In 2001 Bush had the media decidely against him. At least he did before the attacks of 911. After this the media turned against the moment he actually tried to do something about it. Obama has the media squarely behind him. In spite of this he hasn;t achieved approval numbers greater than Bush's were. Amazing!!
Obama's biggest problem seems to be that he misread his mandate. He only got about 54% of the vote. As badly as the Bush Administration performed, Obama should have gotten about 85% of the vote and won all 50 states. This would suggest that the voters were not entirely comfortable with him. As such, it is not surprising if in fact his approval ratings are treding down.
Hi Poster,
Can't agree with you about Bush being worse than Carter. Just a look at the economy alone should tell you that.
Also, Obama only got 52% of the vote, not 54%...and had it not been for th eeconomic crisis right before th eelection and anger over th ebailout, he might very well not have won. Going into October, he and McCain were pretty even, which leads me to believe that a certain part of this was deliberate.
Read up on George Soros ( Obama is essentially his creature) sometime.
Regards,
Rob
Freedom Fighter,
Thanks for the reply to my post. Maybe you are right about Carter being worse than Bush. I think the economy for most of the Bush Presidency was quite good. It went down after the Democrats gained control of the House and the Senate. The main reason I listed Bush as worse than Carter is when Bush entered office the United States was probably the most powerful country on earth. It is not now. It lags behind Russia and China in most key areas, especially militarily.
I think you may be right about this being deliberate. It seems George Soros may have had a hand in this. It seems he can be found with his hands in many things that are contrary to American interests. He should be treated the same as any foreign enemy.
If McCain would have opposed the bailout, I really think he would have won the election and he could have pointed out that most Republican Congressmen were actually against the bail out. Had he have opposed the bail out and pointed out that more Republican Congressmen, especially in the House, were against the bail out than in favor of it the Republicans probably would have lost fewer seats.
Thanks for correcting me on the 52%instead of 54%. I think the point I was trying to make was valid. Given the atrocious performance of George W. Bush, the Democratic candidate should have gotten 80% of the popular vote.
I might add that had McCain opposed the bail out not only would he have won the election and Republicans lost fewer seats but the Republicans would be in a much better position to filibuster Democrat policies. They probably would have passed the latest "stimulus" package but it would have been unable to survive a filibuster.
Had the bailouts not been approved from the start sure some of the banks that made bad investments would have cratered and the auto companies, such as GM and perhaps Chrysler would have gone under. In the cases of GM and Chrysler, this would have meant other companies could have bought up their assets and the new companies would be free of the insane labor contracts that GM and Chrysler must currently operate under. In the case of the financial institutions, other more solvent entities would have bought up whatever good assets these companies had and the bad assets would be off the books now. While the unemployment rate would not be materially different right now, the economy would be growing again.
In other words, these bail outs have only served to make things worse. Had the government resisted the urge to meddle the current economic down turn would have been over by June 2009. Unfortunately as it is it seems they have made things worse. Of course this could have been part of the plan. After all Obama's agenda could not be passed in good economic times.
Post a Comment