Obama General Discussion

[MrsSpringsteen]

A new poll released by Public Policy Polling Wednesday introduced some surprising numbers.

Thirty-five percent of Republicans said that they would support impeaching Obama for his actions so far, though there is no indication of what specific "actions" they think could potentially merit impeachment. Twenty percent of all respondents were in favor of impeachment.

"I'm not clear exactly what 'high crimes and misdemeanors' they are using to justify that position but there may be a certain segment of voters on both the right and the left these days that simply think the President doing things they don't agree with is grounds for removal from office," said pollster Tom Jensen. Dave Weigel notes that a lot of the opposition to Obama has included rhetoric about supposed violations of the Constitution.

In addition, 44% of voters said they'd rather have George W. Bush back in the White House. That percentage is strangely higher than Bush's approval rating over the majority of his second term. Guess you don't know what you got 'til it's gone.

The highly contentious issues in the air -- health care reform, war, climate change -- are bound to prompt disagreement and discontentment that could trigger some odd responses. According to a survey taken in late September, 42% of Republicans did not believe that Obama was born in the United States:

"42 percent of Republicans believe that President Obama was not born in the United States, while 22 percent still remain uncertain of his birthplace origin. On the flip side, the poll also finds that 25 percent of Democrats believe that George W. Bush intentionally allowed the September 11th attacks to occur to serve as a catalyst for a war in the Middle East."

 

[BVS]

So only 35% of Republicans are complete imbeciles?

42 percent of Republicans believe that President Obama was not born in the United States

sorry, make that 42% of Republicans...

 

[Strongbow]

Interesting that a thread about Obama does not mention his speech today in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. A good speech, but again one that the liberal base of the Democratic party was not really happy about.

 

[INDY500]

They're dithering.

 

[BoMac]

Interesting that a thread about Obama does not mention his speech today in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. A good speech, but again one that the liberal base of the Democratic party was not really happy about.

Interesting that the speech was today, and some of us may have been at work/busy so we may not have seen it and thus could not comment on it.

I have not seen the speech, but read some excerpts. And some of the reaction on the left that I've read has been mixed, admittedly, although this was interesting from Time columnist Joe Klein: "an intellectually rigorous and morally lucid speech that balanced the rationale for going to war against the need to build a more peaceful and equitable world.”

As a liberal, I agree with that. I will also say this: it's nice to have a President, unlike the previous one, who does not pander to his respective party's base.

 

[AliEnvy]

 

[Strongbow]

Interesting that the speech was today, and some of us may have been at work/busy so we may not have seen it and thus could not comment on it.

I have not seen the speech, but read some excerpts. And some of the reaction on the left that I've read has been mixed, admittedly, although this was interesting from Time columnist Joe Klein: "an intellectually rigorous and morally lucid speech that balanced the rationale for going to war against the need to build a more peaceful and equitable world.”

As a liberal, I agree with that. I will also say this: it's nice to have a President, unlike the previous one, who does not pander to his respective party's base.

I've not seen the speech either, just some brief excerpts as well. I agree its great that Obama is definitely not pandering to his party's base especially when it comes to issues of national security.

But I wonder if the fact that he is not would explain the relative absence of commentary by members of the forum on both this and his speech on Afghanistan last week?

 

[Strongbow]

So is this a statement about Obama's speech today?

 

[AliEnvy]

So is this a statement about Obama's speech today?

I could listen to him all day long on pretty much any topic and get all warm and fuzzy.

At the end of the day though, talk is cheap.

 

[Strongbow]

I could listen to him all day long on pretty much any topic and get all warm and fuzzy.

At the end of the day though, talk is cheap.

So what you posted was directed toward the speech?

 

[AliEnvy]

^ Not in particular, no. But it fits.

 

[maycocksean]

Interesting that a thread about Obama does not mention his speech today in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. A good speech, but again one that the liberal base of the Democratic party was not really happy about.

They're dithering.

I'm not dithering. I don't disagree with Obama's position on Afghanistan. I never have.

So what would there be for me to complain about? Sorry, but your stereotyping of the liberals on this forum doesn't apply here.

 

[Irvine511]

Sorry, but your stereotyping of the liberals on this forum doesn't apply here.

but it's the only way they can make a point. some people have to create imaginary positions taken by imaginary people in order for their analysis-free recitation of "facts" to have any semblance of coherence.

i've been in a vortex for the past few days, but from what i read, Obama's speech was entirely appropriate for who he is, what he is doing, and where he was going.

it could be that the Left doesn't fall all over themselves trying to defend and rationalize everything that Obama might do that they disagree with in the same way that the Right had a pathological need to explain away every time GWB got drunk and drove the SUV on the neighbor's lawn.

and thus, i've made my meta-point.

 

[BVS]

I've not seen the speech either,

Wow...

If you build the strawman they will come.

 

[VintagePunk]

Interesting that a thread about Obama does not mention his speech today in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. A good speech, but again one that the liberal base of the Democratic party was not really happy about.

Didn't have time to pay attention to the news yesterday. Sometimes the simplest explanation really is the best.

 

[Strongbow]

I'm not dithering. I don't disagree with Obama's position on Afghanistan. I never have.

So what would there be for me to complain about? Sorry, but your stereotyping of the liberals on this forum doesn't apply here.

Who said anything about complaining? The fact that no one commented was the main point.

 

[Strongbow]

Wow...

If you build the strawman they will come.

I did mention that I saw some excerts and commentary on the speech.

I was surprised by the lack of any commentary on the speech. I guess I should not be surprised by comments like the one above.

 

[Strongbow]

but it's the only way they can make a point. some people have to create imaginary positions taken by imaginary people in order for their analysis-free recitation of "facts" to have any semblance of coherence.

An interesting analysis of many of your own post here.

i've been in a vortex for the past few days, but from what i read, Obama's speech was entirely appropriate for who he is, what he is doing, and where he was going.

it could be that the Left doesn't fall all over themselves trying to defend and rationalize everything that Obama might do that they disagree with in the same way that the Right had a pathological need to explain away every time GWB got drunk and drove the SUV on the neighbor's lawn.

Well, its not so much disagreement or agreement, but the near total silence in FYM with Obama giving two huge speeches on Foreign Policy issues over the past few days.

 

[Irvine511]

and the "meta-point" goes whistling overhead yet again.

as ever, analysis-free posting.

 

[anitram]

Well, its not so much disagreement or agreement, but the near total silence in FYM with Obama giving two huge speeches on Foreign Policy issues over the past few days.

Couldn't possibly be that it's end-of-year for many people at work (many deals close by the 31st) and it's also exam time for students and it's also holiday time so posts in FYM are slower anyway.

But maybe you're happier being just a touch paranoid?

 

[BoMac]

Couldn't possibly be that it's end-of-year for many people at work (many deals close by the 31st) and it's also exam time for students and it's also holiday time so posts in FYM are slower anyway.

But maybe you're happier being just a touch paranoid?

I've definitely noticed that the whole website is slower these days, which I attribute to being the end of the year.

 

[Diemen]

Well, its not so much disagreement or agreement, but the near total silence in FYM with Obama giving two huge speeches on Foreign Policy issues over the past few days.

It could be indicative of the fact that everyone here knows that foreign policy is pretty much the only thing you post about.

 

[oktobergirl]

My honest personal opinion is that America is fucked and will never recover. It just costs too much to hire workers in the US, what with things like minimum wage and health care for workers. Outsourcing is the best business decision for way too many companies, and there's too many people who think allowing the private sector to do whatever the hell it wants to is the best option. Less government regulation on business leads to more for-profit measures which means that more and more jobs are going to leave the US.

I think you hit it on the mark. Sadly, but I think it's true.

 

[phillyfan26]

but it's the only way they can make a point. some people have to create imaginary positions taken by imaginary people in order for their analysis-free recitation of "facts" to have any semblance of coherence.

i've been in a vortex for the past few days, but from what i read, Obama's speech was entirely appropriate for who he is, what he is doing, and where he was going.

it could be that the Left doesn't fall all over themselves trying to defend and rationalize everything that Obama might do that they disagree with in the same way that the Right had a pathological need to explain away every time GWB got drunk and drove the SUV on the neighbor's lawn.

and thus, i've made my meta-point.

George Bush was an alcoholic till 40 (and may have at one point been a crack addict), BUT WHY AREN'T LIBERALS TALKING ABOUT OBAMA AND POT USE THAT ONE TIME WHEN HE WAS A TEENAGER!?

 

[phillyfan26]

I think you hit it on the mark. Sadly, but I think it's true.

I certainly don't hope that's the case, and I do think we can recover, I'm just constantly shocked by the fact that NO ONE on either side even considers the possibility that we'll never recover. It's always about when the inevitable recovery will occur, but I question whether it is inevitable at all.

 

[maycocksean]

Who said anything about complaining? The fact that no one commented was the main point.

What is it that you would like to hear?

I find it easier to post when there's something I disagree with. If I agree with what's happening, I'm not inclined to comment.

 

[Strongbow]

Couldn't possibly be that it's end-of-year for many people at work (many deals close by the 31st) and it's also exam time for students and it's also holiday time so posts in FYM are slower anyway.

How do you feel about the big speeches the President has given the past couple of weeks?

 

[BVS]

You're trying way too hard to find controversy...

 

[Strongbow]

It could be indicative of the fact that everyone here knows that foreign policy is pretty much the only thing you post about.

Really? I only bring this up because its rather unusual for this place.

 

[Strongbow]

You're trying way too hard to find controversy...

LOL! So how do you feel about the Presidents speeches the past couple of weeks?