Obama General Discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the Boston Globe Today Re: Republican Congressional Retreat, Baltimore:

Obama, GOP exchange barbs, ideas in rare encounter - Boston.com


Some Republicans prefaced their questions with lengthy recitations of conservative talking points. The president sometimes listened impassively but sometimes broke in.
Click to expand...

Is it any wonder why the Republican leaning people in here think they have addressed issues and made defensible points when they merely repeat something like "socialism" and "Obama's apologizing to terrorists?"

It says alot when one of our major political parties is perfectly willing, as is evidenced by their leaders in Congress, not the lunatic fringe on the streets, to dumb down and cheapen serious issues like this. It is baffling that otherwise intelligent people pick up on these talking points and just repeat them without thinking. Since the rise of talk radio, the 94 revolution and reaching a new height now, Republicans, even in Congress, are told what to say and believe.

Examples:
Despite claims from Sarah Palin about a massive grassroots outcry for offshore oil drilling, I never got a chain e mail from my Republican friends on the matter until after Bush started pushing it in a blatant attempt at election year pandering.

Bush and Republicans were attacking Kerry as recently as 2004 for supposedly supporting drilling off Florida, now the same Republicans, followed in lockstep by Democrats, were in a frenzy to look tough on gas prices in 2008. Now, I have no particular problem with offshore drilling(or onshore, or NPR-Alaska, we should leave ANWR alone though), but the bipartisan flip flop is a perfect example of how Washington exploits fears and ignorance for short term political gain. There is no way we will get any oil out of the opened areas before 2030, and estimates of the reserves there are relatively small and 30 years outdated. Since the most optimistic estimates are of 2 years worth of US oil consumption offshore, and oil is a global market so no guarantee the oil drilled here is sold here, the effect on gas prices will be negligible and is 20 years out. Even now, with the bans gone, are the drills in the ground? Has fight to the death opposition making drilling completely unrealistic off Florida or California, where most of the oil is, gone away? You never would have known that by listening to George Bush or Nancy Pelosi, both of whom billed their drilling plans as ways to reduce pain at the pump immediately.

Another Example:
I never heard a peep, either in person or in those famous chain e mails, from my conservative friends about deficits or debt until Obama took office. More like a quote "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
 
Technically, a turnaround by 12% (though, more precise, percentage points) might be correct, though it's a bit of dodgy maths.
Say, 100 is the base, and in 2009 the economy shrunk by 6%. So then it dropped to 94% of what it was the year before. Then this year the economy is said to grow by 6% again. But GDP is the percentage change of the economy's size as compared to the year before. And a 6% growth raises the economy to a 99.64. So the size of the economy really is not even as big as it was in 2008.

But else, impressive speech. Even if you don't agree with everything Obama or the Democrats are aiming for, I really cannot see how anyone can see it in the best interest of the country to categorically object to everything simply because it comes from the other side.
 
U2387 said:
Examples:
Despite claims from Sarah Palin about a massive grassroots outcry for offshore oil drilling, I never got a chain e mail from my Republican friends on the matter until after Bush started pushing it in a blatant attempt at election year pandering. Bush and Republicans were attacking Kerry as recently as 2004 for supposedly supporting drilling off Florida, now the same Republicans, followed in lockstep by Democrats, were in a frenzy to look tough on gas prices in 2008. Now, I have no particular problem with offshore drilling(or onshore, or NPR-Alaska, we should leave ANWR alone though), but the bipartisan flip flop is a perfect example of how Washington exploits fears and ignorance for short term political gain.
Click to expand...
Might that reflect the pressure from consumers over $4/gallon gasoline prices after a long stretch of stable low prices? I believe prior to that Bush was sensitive to the claim that he was a tool of Big Oil. As for Bush criticizing Kerry, that was pure politics taking advantage of his brother being governor of Florida and yea, asinine considering how the decade played out.


There is no way we will get any oil out of the opened areas before 2030, and estimates of the reserves there are relatively small and 30 years outdated. Since the most optimistic estimates are of 2 years worth of US oil consumption offshore, and oil is a global market so no guarantee the oil drilled here is sold here, the effect on gas prices will be negligible and is 20 years out.
Click to expand...
Not accurate, new technology is mapping before unknown reserves all the time and we are now able to tap old reserves with better equipment to draw out oil unobtainable a generation ago. 82% of the the world's known reserves of oil and gas have yet to be used. Someone born today will not live to see a world without oil or gas reserves. Not to mention shale and coal.

Another Example:
I never heard a peep, either in person or in those famous chain e mails, from my conservative friends about deficits or debt until Obama took office. More like a quote "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Click to expand...

Those "On the right track" polls in the 2nd term of Bush that were so low also included the frustration of fiscal conservatives. You can see that reflected in the Republicans losing the Congress in 06 and the White House in 08.
 
varv01292010a20100129053434.jpg
 
Let's see...

Obama just made a big speech where Pelosi and others in his party were making faces about some of the things he said, yet he's "staying the course"?

Heads Up Ass Syndrome... you, Beck, Rush, this cartoonist need to come out from hiding every once in awhile.
 
I heard that too.

Perhaps they will replay it on C-Span.
(or Fox News - with subtitles or sub-pictures?)

(I wonder if any of them asked him to produce his live-birth certificate)
 
he is superb.


msnbc.com Video Player


it highlights the fact that the American system would greatly benefit from the intimacy of a Question Time with the President, instead of the usual thundering across the ideological chasm.

i think he says "um" once or twice, so expect it to be dismissed.

also, the link is to MSNBC. i would have put up a link from Fox -- since it's so trusted -- but Fox ended broadcasting the debate 20 minutes before it actually ended, so devastating was Obama's performance to their 24/7 propaganda.
 
I watched this today.

Really embarrassing for the GOP, because he obviously schooled them. And because this is obviously a format in which he excels, so why they would think this would be a good idea is baffling. Unless they just expected him to be uninformed and inarticulate like Bush, which sounds ludicrous, but remember this is the crowd that has basically concluded that Obama's oratory skills amount to little more than teleprompter reading - if only I'd actually kept count of how many times U2681 said that here.

I don't think that Obama has been a great president thus far, both because of the way the Congress operates (or doesn't) and because of miscalculations and naivete on his part. But he was exceptionally good here.
 
Sunday Take: The theater in the meeting between Obama and House Republicans

By Dan Balz
Sunday, January 31, 2010; A02

Friday's encounter between President Obama and House Republicans proved to be riveting political theater. The question is whether it will be remembered as a moment that began to ease the tensions between the two parties -- or an asterisk in this era of polarized politics.

Obama and House Republicans delivered 90 minutes of sharp but civil give-and-take, a spirited debate on both the substantive differences that divide Republicans and Democrats and a frank discussion about the breakdown of government in the age of the permanent campaign.

Rarely has there been such an encounter between a president and the opposition party and certainly never on national television. It was the antithesis of the kind of snarling exchanges that often pass for political dialogue, whether between strategists in the two parties, candidates in the heat of a campaign or on the worst of cable television.

Nothing is likely to change overnight. "The main benefit is that greater interaction builds a measure of trust between the president and congressional Republicans," John Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute said. "Trust opens up possibilities for collaboration on some future issue with a more bipartisan character. It also builds trust, which might come in handy if there is a different future political dynamic, like narrower Democratic majorities after the midterm election, or even possibly GOP control of one house."

In the short run, there was plenty of scorekeeping by partisans -- and reason for both sides to feel good about what happened at the House GOP retreat in Baltimore.

For Obama, who is trying to reestablish his standing with the American people after a difficult first year in office, it was the opportunity to rebut his opponents' criticisms while prodding them to abandon their rigid opposition to his major initiatives and begin to cooperate. White House officials were ecstatic with his performance.

For House Republicans, it meant having the president acknowledge on national television that they have ideas of their own. The office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) issued a release Saturday morning that said, in part, "The president himself helped put to rest once and for all baseless claims by members of his own administration that Republicans are the 'party of no.' "

Ultimately, the event may have been most beneficial for Obama, who badly needs a boost. He has emerged as the most polarizing first-year president in history. In that year, unemployment hit 10 percent, his health-care initiative failed to pass the Congress, his poll numbers eroded, independents deserted the Democrats in major statewide elections and some members of his party hit the panic button after Republican Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts.

On Friday, however, Obama reminded his opponents of the singular power of the presidency, delivering a performance that easily eclipsed his State of the Union address. He was knowledgeable about GOP counterproposals. He was robust in his rebuttals without being peevish. He may not have won over his conservative critics, who snickered when he said he was not an ideologue, but he was able, repeatedly, to sound the call for bipartisanship and to challenge the opposition to help lower temperatures.

Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University, said the message Obama delivered in Baltimore was consistent with one of the broad themes of his presidential campaign and therefore likely to enhance his standing with the public. "If the polls are correct -- and they are certainly consistent -- that Americans want a cease-fire if not a full-fledged truce, the event boosted his stock as a peacemaker," he said.

Obama's appearance before the House Republican policy retreat was part of a White House strategy that began with the State of the Union, designed to reconnect him with voters who have grown skeptical of his agenda and to identify himself with the anger that many Americans are expressing toward the way Washington is working.

The best indication that Republicans realized Obama had helped himself came late Friday. Initial reactions to the president by GOP House leaders had been generally civil. Then in the early evening, Boehner's office issued a release with the headline: "Rhetoric versus reality: President Obama repeats discredited talking points during dialogue with House GOP."

The president's advisers said the appearance was not a token exercise. "It was not a gesture," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said. "Our intention was not us-win-them-lose. I think he showed sincerity by going there."

Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, said of Obama, "He genuinely believes that if you get away from all the pure political posturing, there should be enough stuff in each piece of legislation that can garner bipartisan support."

Yet White House officials see little in recent GOP behavior to suggest they may be ready to negotiate seriously across a table with the president. They see a party in which any move toward bipartisan cooperation with Obama by a GOP lawmaker could bring a primary challenge from the right. As evidence, they point to last week's Senate defeat of a proposal for a bipartisan commission to deal with the debt and deficit, in which several Republicans who at one time had co-sponsored the measure voted against it.

Others believe the White House must show greater humility. "Right now the administration reminds me of [former president George W.] Bush in year five, where they can't see what reality really is and refuse to admit mistakes and course correct," said Matthew Dowd, who was a senior campaign adviser to Bush and now is an independent analyst.

"I think open dialogue between the president and Republicans is positive -- and a lesson that the speaker could take from President Obama," Republican strategist Alex Vogel said. "But I don't think it's going to suddenly lead to broad agreement on a range of policy issues. Our fundamental problem is that we think he's wrong on what policies are best for America, not that we don't see him enough."

John Feehery, another GOP strategist, said, "I doubt this will be a regular occurrence -- too much risk in that for both sides." But, he added, " it has left an indelible impression on those who pay attention of perhaps how things will work when the GOP takes over in November."

That is a bullish forecast and much can happen between now and November to affect the fortunes of the two parties. But Friday's great debate came in the context of an election year that already has the two sides in campaign mode. Obama's performance cheered Democrats primarily because they believe he bested the Republicans, not because he advanced the cause of bipartisanship.

Given that, further efforts to reach across the aisle may prove elusive. Asked what other confidence building measures might be offered, a White House official demurred. "I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head," he said. "One of the most important things is to continue the dialogue. It's hard to go beyond dialogue if you can't even have dialogue."

That will be the next test for Obama and congressional leaders in both parties.

Sunday Take: The theater in the meeting between Obama and House Republicans
Click to expand...



.
 
Irvine511 said:
it highlights the fact that the American system would greatly benefit from the intimacy of a Question Time with the President, instead of the usual thundering across the ideological chasm.
Click to expand...

:up: Hopefully this is something that could continue at least quarterly. It's a good idea.
 
Irvine511 said:
it highlights the fact that the American system would greatly benefit from the intimacy of a Question Time with the President, instead of the usual thundering across the ideological chasm.
Click to expand...

I chuckle a bit, because the Canadian "Question Period" has become a bit of a parody unto itself.

Question Period has a reputation for being quite chaotic due to the commonplace cat-calling and jeering from non-participating MPs
Click to expand...

I can only imagine what a joke it would become under the American political system!
 
He was knowledgeable about GOP counterproposals.
Click to expand...

Now, I though they were just the party of "NO."

Personally I'd like to see something like this replace the pointless State of the Union rebuttal by the party out of power.
 
INDY500 said:
Now, I though they were just the party of "NO."
Click to expand...



maybe "NO" and "tort reform" ... but that's about it.


Mr. Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, noted that after generations of failure, Congress is closer than ever to adopting legislation that would achieve the health care goal of his predecessors.

“If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know,” Mr. Obama said.

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, raised his left hand high in the air.

Two days later, Mr. Boehner and his caucus challenged Mr. Obama during the televised question-and-answer session. With dramatic flair, they presented him with a book of Republican “solutions,” including a chapter on health care.

But the debate has raged for so long that there was not much new for Mr. Obama to contemplate.

For instance, a core component of the House Republicans’ alternate health care measure — to create so-called association health plans — was also proposed in 2005 in response to Mr. Bush’s speech.

House Republicans, who controlled the majority at the time, approved the bill only to see it die in the Senate, where Republicans were also in charge. The proposal, disliked by Democrats, was also sharply criticized by conservatives as an intrusion by the federal government in health care.

Mr. Obama, in an exchange Friday with Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, said he had considered many Republican ideas and pointed, by example, to a proposal to allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

“We actually include that as part of our approach,” the president said. “But the caveat is, we’ve got to do so with some minimum standards; because otherwise what happens is that you could have insurance companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations.”

After the session, Representative John Shadegg, Republican of Arizona, took issue with Mr. Obama’s comments, saying the president “got his facts wrong.”

“He insisted that his health care reform proposal would allow Americans to purchase insurance across state lines,” Mr. Shadegg said. “In reality, his bill nationalizes federal insurance regulation and gives the average American family no relief from expensive mandates that drive up the cost of health insurance.”

But in a report comparing the health care bills passed by House and Senate Democrats, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service wrote: “Both bills would allow states to form compacts to facilitate the sale and purchase of health plans across state lines.”

Mr. Shadegg, a supporter of state high-risk insurance pools, also denounced as insufficient a provision in the Democrats’ legislation to temporarily expand high-risk pools until new rules take effect barring insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

“The provision is nothing but a fancy window dressing to make a highly-partisan government-takeover of health care appear palatable,” Mr. Shadegg said. “Well, the curtain has been pulled back and the truth is exposed!” But while the Democrats’ proposal may differ from his own, the idea has been chewed over extensively by lawmakers in both parties.

On a number of points, Republicans and Democrats are closer to agreement than many people realize.

A Deep Divide Separated by Plenty of Common Ground - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...



when will Republicans end their jihad on Mr. Obama and actually put the needs of the American people first?
 
INDY500 said:
Didn't get to watch the session but if the president is now supporting nuclear power I'll add it to the, small, yet existent list of things I applaud the president for. :up:
Click to expand...



what's remarkable, is that the President is able to understand nuclear power not as an all-saving technology like you do -- probably just to anger the liberals who remember 3 Mile Island all too well -- but that it's one piece of a comprehensive energy independence strategy that places equal importance on green technologies and supertrains.

Obama's nuclear loan guarantees draw broad opposition - Green House - USATODAY.com

of course, this requires a whole lot more socialism.
 
Might that reflect the pressure from consumers over $4/gallon gasoline prices after a long stretch of stable low prices? I believe prior to that Bush was sensitive to the claim that he was a tool of Big Oil. As for Bush criticizing Kerry, that was pure politics taking advantage of his brother being governor of Florida and yea, asinine considering how the decade played out.
Click to expand...

It certainly did. People were upset about gas prices starting around 02/03, but there was no massive outcry for offshore drilling until after prices actually started declining in summer 2008. That was my point. Bush's response to the outcry was what determined the chain e mail content, not the other way around. Point remains, it was not an immediate solution to high gas prices, as was sold. I have a problem not with drilling, but how it was sold by Republicans.


Not accurate, new technology is mapping before unknown reserves all the time and we are now able to tap old reserves with better equipment to draw out oil unobtainable a generation ago. 82% of the the world's known reserves of oil and gas have yet to be used. Someone born today will not live to see a world without oil or gas reserves. Not to mention shale and coal.
Click to expand...

Is offshore drilling a viable solution to energy needs - MarketWatch

EIA - Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf
US Govt Sponsored Peak Oil Report Draws Disturbing Conclusions - Commodities - Resource Investor

I don't know where you get your information, but here are the most objective non biased sources on the subject. Yes, we have new equipment and technology, that does not change the amount of oil that is in the OCS. The outdated estimates are of 18 billion barrels of oil, and that will probably be less when the new review is completed.

Insignificant amount; quick question: Who thinks adding under 100,000 barrels a day in supply sometime after 2020(the barrels per day that 18 billion breaks down to) -- some one-thousandth of total supply -- would be more than the proverbial drop in the ocean? Remember the Saudis couldn't stop prices from rising now by announcing that they will add 500,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of this year!

This does not change the fact that oil companies, despite record high prices, will not shell out billions unless they have some damn good idea of the actual yield from doing so. This is why many offshore areas that were not banned
in 2005-08 remained untapped by oil companies, the cost was too high and the benefit too uncertain.

Again, I have no particular opposition to offshore drilling, but Bush and McCain in 2008 sold it as a reasonable response to immediate high gas prices, which is just not true any way you slice it.

I would like to know where the increased commitment is to piping in natural gas to the lower 48 from Alaska? Where the commitment is to drilling the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, or where is the commitment is to making oil companies drill on the interior land they already own that we know for a fact has oil? All of this is less costly and has more of an infrastructure in place than does offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf.

Yes, 82% according to NASA remains untapped, but most of that is off shore, far offshore and extremely deep. Most of it is not subject to any kind of legislative or executive ban, so its not crazy environmentalist socialists holding it up. Is it logical to get this? Is it cost effective for private industry? Absolutely not. Otherwise, they would already be in there getting that oil. That is why NASA is a government agency of the same government that, under GW Bush said peak oil was a reality and had to be addressed.

Of course, we will never see a world without oil. I am well aware of this. I don't know anyone who disputes that. What people dispute is that you can turn on a spigot hooked up to a hose from the Atlantic right into Miami and send it to every refinery in America starting tonight. They are right. They also dispute the claims that "domestic oil is national security" as oil is a global market, and oil companies, having no particular patriotic concerns, or any concerns outside of the bottom line, will sell it wherever they can make the most profit. Rightfully so, that's the market, that's capitalism and I don't oppose it.

Those "On the right track" polls in the 2nd term of Bush that were so low also included the frustration of fiscal conservatives. You can see that reflected in the Republicans losing the Congress in 06 and the White House in 08.
Click to expand...

Of course, what is your point? I was saying that elected Republicans and their chain e mail sending supporters said nothing that I heard about deficits and debt until Obama took office.

So these people can not logically line up with the fiscally conservative frustration at Bush.

You can also see the Republicans have not changed their fiscally irresponsible ways one bit in 2009/2010. They still won't agree to pay as you go, any new revenue, still want across the board tax cuts and are still promising spending on popular programs.(See Scott Brown)
 
Irvine511 said:
what's remarkable, is that the President is able to understand nuclear power not as an all-saving technology like you do -- probably just to anger the liberals who remember 3 Mile Island all too well -- but that it's one piece of a comprehensive energy independence strategy that places equal importance on green technologies and supertrains.

Obama's nuclear loan guarantees draw broad opposition - Green House - USATODAY.com

of course, this requires a whole lot more socialism.
Click to expand...

Now supporting nuclear power?

Obama has always supported nuclear power, nothing new.

This brings up some of the same concerns as offshore oil.

It should remind us, as Irvine pointed out, that private industry incurs significant, significant costs in delivering these energy resources and for that reason, it is not realistic to expect that dozens of nuclear power plants will be on line soon.

Will the government loans be enough to get the industry moving? Hopefully, its carbon free energy and a lot of it at that. However, it is far from certain as the plants go for $10 billion per pop and have been marked by cost overruns and project abandonments in the past.

Will it work? Here's to hoping, but its not without its costs to taxpayers.

Shock of shocks, INDY supports a government role in shaping national policy!! See how it can work to our benefit? Private industry is not willing to take such a big unsubsidized risk, so the government helps out since its in our interest to be energy independent!

This is all Democrats are talking about when speaking of a government role. Nothing to fear Indy.
 
Republicans piss me off on a local level, too. Our school board got overrun by (borderline retarded) Republicans in this last election, and their first major move was to vote down research on an ordinance that would install lights on our one high school's football field, on the basis that it "could cost $400,000." And every Republican in the whole fucking town is going "They're being fiscally conservative! They're keeping campaign promises! We're heading in the right direction, I just wish Washington would act this way!"

Hold on, they didn't vote down $400,000 lights. They voted against finding out how much it would cost. They just fucking guessed how much it would cost. One of the democratic members projected that it could be done for as little as $40,000, but everyone ignored that. They won't even find out how much it costs, because they needed to act like they're being really fiscally conservative.

I feel for my siblings, who are going to have everything good about our schools stripped away in the next couple of years by idiot Republicans. They're already proposing lowering the staff count and cutting class levels, as well as some extra-curriculars.

/rant
 
the irony, of course, is that being fiscally conservative isn't the way to grow an economy that has been in recession and has an unemployment rate of 10+%.
 
Yeah, but the president isn't Republican, so you have to be fiscally conservative now.

That Obama-Republicans forum is great theater. He's kicking their ass (I'm 15 minutes in).

25 minutes till Fox panics and cuts the feed.
 
If you were to listen to the debate, and frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevick plot. That's how you guys presented it. I'm thinking to myself, 'How is it that a plan that is pretty centrist ...'- no, look, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say that this is actually what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

We've got to close the gap between the rhetoric and reality. I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on energy or health care or what have you. But if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have room to negotiate with me. I mean, the fact of the matter is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion, because what you've been telling your constituents is, "This guy's doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."
Click to expand...

Game. Set. Match. See you guys next season.

This is why I supported this man for president.
 
Huffington Post

A new poll of more than 2,000 self-identified Republican voters illustrates the incredible paranoia enveloping the party and the intense pressure drawing lawmakers further and further away from political moderation.

The numbers speak for themselves -- a large portion of GOP voters think that President Obama is racist, socialist or a non-US citizen -- though, when considering them, it is important to note that a disproportionate percentage of respondents are from GOP strongholds in the South (42 percent) as opposed to the Northeast (11 percent). Also note that this is a poll of self-identified Republicans, which means that independent Tea Party types are not included.

Nevertheless here are some of the standout figures as provided by Daily Kos/Research 2000:

* 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.

* 36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.

* 31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.

* 63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not

* 24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.

* 21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.

* 23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.

* 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.

During his appearance at the House Republican retreat last Friday, Obama explained that it was hard to forge bipartisan consensus when lawmakers were trashing his health care bill as a "Bolshevik plot". These poll numbers show that the gulf preventing bipartisan consensus extends well beyond health care. How does a Republican lawmaker explain to his or her die-hard base that it is important to work on legislation with a racist, socialist president who is illegally holding office only because of the help of ACORN?

"This is why it's becoming impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country," said Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of Daily Kos. "They are a party beholden to conspiracy theorists who don't even believe Obama was born in the United States, and already want to impeach him despite a glaring lack of scandal or wrongdoing. They think Obama is racist against white people and the second coming of Lenin. And if any of them stray and decide to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Given what their base demands -- and this poll illustrates them perfectly -- it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no."
 
PhilsFan said:
Dear Christ.

At least, you know, pick someone you could fucking make an argument for. This is just batshit insanity.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Anyone who has ever watched Sarah Palin being interviewed or talking without a script or read anything she has written can tell she is a completely insane nutjob who does not have the 1st clue about anything.

Many Republicans I know were embarrassed by her from day 1.

Whatever, it shows a hell of a lot about where the thinking is in the present Republican Party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
863
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
9 10 11
Replies
314
Views
10K
Hewson
Hewson
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Sticky
U2 in Vegas - Tips for booking hotels, flights and other Vegasy type things.
20 21 22
Replies
642
Views
32K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
45K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
D
Paul Epworth provides some interesting insight into U2's songwriting process.
Replies
24
Views
2K
An Cat Gav
An Cat Gav

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom