caddyman Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Dude, it's tough to take anything you say seriously when you just blow out bald-faced lies like this in the middle of your diatribe. Have you seen the polls? Not a lie. Obama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term. President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term. Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. The new low comes as Obama struggles to overhaul the nation's health care system and escalates America's involvement in the Afghanistan war. He is also presiding over a deep and prolonged recession, with unemployment at 10 percent. "There's no doubt Obama's 47 percent is mainly a result of the continuing bad economy," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "But there is also a growing concern about government spending and debt, and a sense that Obama is trying to do too much, too soon." He added: "President Obama has reason to be concerned about his ratings. Even in tough times, presidents have usually been able to stay above the critical 50 percent mark in the first year, when the public is most inclined to give the new incumbent the benefit of the doubt." When Gallup began taking presidential approval polls 71 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had been president for more than five years. During his remaining time in office, his job approval rating never fell below 48 percent. The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were: -- George W. Bush, 86 percent -- Bill Clinton, 52 percent -- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent -- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent -- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent -- Gerald Ford, 52 percent -- Richard Nixon, 59 percent -- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent -- John Kennedy, 77 percent -- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent -- Harry Truman, 49 percent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 47%, isn't that almost half? When it gets to say 22%, a fourth, then we might have something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 47%, isn't that almost half? When it gets to say 22%, a fourth, then we might have something. The point is that it is the lowest EVER for anyone at this point. You keep your head in the sand buddy. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted December 11, 2009 Author Share Posted December 11, 2009 The point is that it is the lowest EVER for anyone at this point. You keep your head in the sand buddy. Good luck with that. I love that this is the next closest (within the range of error): Ronald Reagan, 49 percent So basically Obama has the same statistical approval at this point as the God of Republican Presidents? Have to agree here!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 PS: um remind me again why he won this prize? Holding my breath here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Holding my breath here. My sympathies to you family. You will be dead before one of these guys answers a real question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I love that this is the next closest (within the range of error): So basically Obama has the same statistical approval at this point as the God of Republican Presidents? Have to agree here!!! :crickets: It's tough to get the public on board with anything the government does, no matter who is in charge, after seeing a president leave office with an approval rating in the 20's. I'm concerned about fiscal responsibility as much as anyone. I believe you DO need to spend money in a recession. I also believe you need to raise taxes and cut spending in good times. If that does not come I will be very disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The point is that it is the lowest EVER for anyone at this point. You keep your head in the sand buddy. Good luck with that. hmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) I love that this is the next closest (within the range of error): So basically Obama has the same statistical approval at this point as the God of Republican Presidents? Have to agree here!!! First you said I bold faced lied...apology accepted...then you try to belittle the results of the poll. By the way, I would wager that Reagan did not start as high as the Assiah did therefore those numbers are not as relevant. Also, Reagan was actually in the process of actual achievements insted of still working the campaign trail 11 months into office. Not a good comparison there sonny. Good work there Robert Gibbs. This president is losing support by the bucket loads and you keep ignoring this. Edited December 11, 2009 by caddyman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 , I would wager that Reagan did not start as high as the Assiah did therefore those numbers are not as relevant. Reagan: 489 Electoral votes Obama: 365 Electoral votes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted December 11, 2009 Author Share Posted December 11, 2009 First you said I bold faced lied...apology accepted...then you try to belittle the results of the poll. By the way, I would wager that Reagan did not start as high as the Assiah did therefore those numbers are not as relevant. Also, Reagan was actually in the process of actual achievements insted of still working the campaign trail 11 months into office. Not a good comparison there sonny. Good work there Robert Gibbs. This president is losing support by the bucket loads and you keep ignoring this. No need to accept any apology as none was given. You completely left out an important part of your point, the EVER meant at this point in thier first term. It is clear that you have been paying attention to the lessons of Beck and Limbaugh in spinning "facts" in order to give the biggest reaction you can from lie by omission. And let me point out to you that while Reagan has the benefit of time in order for us to guage his effectiveness, you allow NONE of that for Obama. Come back in four years with your Have to agree here rhetoric and then we can have a valid argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 No need to accept any apology as none was given. You completely left out an important part of your point, the EVER meant at this point in thier first term. It is clear that you have been paying attention to the lessons of Beck and Limbaugh in spinning "facts" in order to give the biggest reaction you can from lie by omission. And let me point out to you that while Reagan has the benefit of time in order for us to guage his effectiveness, you allow NONE of that for Obama. Come back in four years with your Have to agree here rhetoric and then we can have a valid argument. Um ok...don't listen to either of those guys. Did not in any way lie. I am done with you...you are a lost cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Obama sucks!!! That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 -- George W. Bush, 86 percent-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent -- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent -- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent -- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent -- Gerald Ford, 52 percent -- Richard Nixon, 59 percent -- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent -- John Kennedy, 77 percent -- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent -- Harry Truman, 49 percent Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that those with the lowest ratings were president's that took office during times of crisis (Reagan inherited the hostages, Ford came in after Nixon debacle, Truman at war time, Obama during this country's worst recession of this generation. I think much of this is grain-of-salt you are reporting is due to the fact that Joe Public wants a quick fix, and if they don't get it, they aren't going to be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that those with the lowest ratings were president's that took office during times of crisis (Reagan inherited the hostages, Ford came in after Nixon debacle, Truman at war time, Obama during this country's worst recession of this generation. I think much of this is grain-of-salt you are reporting is due to the fact that Joe Public wants a quick fix, and if they don't get it, they aren't going to be happy. They want a quick fix because both he and the ass in chief before him allocated hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars to institute what we were told would be a quick fix... And then they march out all these jobs saved/created numbers, which were a farce, and even at that each job saved or created cost us over 200K... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that those with the lowest ratings were president's that took office during times of crisis (Reagan inherited the hostages, Ford came in after Nixon debacle, Truman at war time, Obama during this country's worst recession of this generation. I think much of this is grain-of-salt you are reporting is due to the fact that Joe Public wants a quick fix, and if they don't get it, they aren't going to be happy. well said and agree with this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Obama is so peaceful. He eats peacefully, he sleeps peacefully, he evacuates his bowels peacefully... he really is just the most peacefully peaceful person in the world. If he doesn't deserve the Noble Prize then I don't know who does. Who else could possibly compare to the peacfulness of President Obama? Maybe Mother Theresa... and only because she is dead, so she is extra peaceful now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I can see who had money on Kim Jong il to win this year. Why are people so bitter that Obama won? Are you that into some prize that the Norwegians hand out? The Nobel Peace prize nomination parties must be cute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 racists. He's young! He's articulate! He's black! He's hip! (experience? A workable plan? who needs that?) How can he not be the Messiah? Form is what matters, not substance. duh. PS: um remind me again why he won this prize? Holding my breath here. You might not be getting an answer because there is usually very little substantive about your posts other than your ingrained "poor me, I'm a victim" rants, therefore most people skip over them automatically. Whatever, here's your answer: Obama was awarded this Nobel prematurely, in the opinion of most and certainly in the opinion of Obama himself. It is, IMO, an award in hope and anticipation rather than an award in retrospect. It is, however, a damning indictment from the rest of the world of where we have been recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 we were told would be a quick fix... Please post a link to where Obama said his stimulus plan would be a quick fix for this country....TIA. Don't spend a lot of time looking, though, because you won't find it. rather, you might find more info on the fact that much the stimulus funds were used to allow the country to find a bottom....to bridge the gap from our spiral to economic recovery. Most Americans have no idea how ugly things would have been had the administration allowed our residential housing market, our auto industry, and our banking industry to collapese simultaneously, all while we were at war. People only look at how bad things are and judge the current situation, with very little knowledge or insight into how bad things could have been had action not been taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 You might not be getting an answer because there is usually very little substantive about your posts other than your ingrained "poor me, I'm a victim" rants, therefore most people skip over them automatically. Whatever, here's your answer: Obama was awarded this Nobel prematurely, in the opinion of most and certainly in the opinion of Obama himself. It is, IMO, an award in hope and anticipation rather than an award in retrospect. It is, however, a damning indictment from the rest of the world of where we have been recently. +1 What the hell does the Norweigians giving Obama an award have to do with anything? Just another way to attack Obama without substance and marginalize what the right is saying. There are PLENTY of ways to disagree with Obama's stance on certain issues and legitimately challenge them. Disagreeing with the Nobel prize, debating the use to teleprompters and agreeing with the mentally challenged birthers just gets away from the LEGITMATE issues with the direction the country is heading. Foxulists only care about disagreeing with Obama on everything, whether legitmate or not. People that care about the USA should be debating what the best course of action for the COUNTRY to take, irrespective of your personal political party affiliation . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) +1 What the hell does the Norweigians giving Obama an award have to do with anything? Just another way to attack Obama without substance and marginalize what the right is saying. There are PLENTY of ways to disagree with Obama's stance on certain issues and legitimately challenge them. Disagreeing with the Nobel prize, debating the use to teleprompters and agreeing with the mentally challenged birthers just gets away from the LEGITMATE issues with the direction the country is heading. Foxulists only care about disagreeing with Obama on everything, whether legitmate or not. People that care about the USA should be debating what the best course of action for the COUNTRY to take, irrespective of your personal political party affiliation . . . Kinda disagree here. I think the point most people are trying to make is that Obama has this persona that everything he does is great. This persona started with his great speeches and he has been praised as this incredible leader. The fact he got a premature award like this kind of shows that message/personna is still there. He can't seem to do anything wrong in the eyes of the left. Most righties just want some of the nuthuggers to actually come out and say what this great leader has actually done to help this country without using excuses of how bad it was and without saying he is a great speaker. What has he actually done???? Give him credit for adding more troops to Afghanistan and if that or he had anything to do with killing the #2 Al Quaida dude I give him that one also. So what else is there. Time to stop hiding behind the excuses of what the past was and how charismatic he is and start to actually DO something. Edited December 11, 2009 by gbpfan1231 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Kinda disagree here. I think the point most people are trying to make is that Obama has this persona that everything he does is great. This persona started with his great speeches and he has been praised as this incredible leader. The fact he got a premature award like this kind of shows that message/personna is still there. He can't seem to do anything wrong in the eyes of the left. Most righties just want some of the nuthuggers to actually come out and say what this great leader has actually done to help this country without using excuses of how bad it was and without saying he is a great speaker. What has he actually done???? Give him credit for adding more troops to Afghanistan and if that or he had anything to do with killing the #2 Al Quaida dude I give him that one also. So what else is there. Time to stop hiding behind the excuses of what the past was and how charismatic he is and start to actually DO something. Kinda completely disagree with you here. What on earth is he supposed to do by himself without cooperation of other agencies? What magical superpowers do you think he possesses that is refuses to use on a daily basis? What exactly do you EXPECT him to do that he hasnt done? Most righties instead of focusing on solutions, seem content with just sitting back and refusing to participate in the governance process. The Republican Party could look like CHAMPS right now and take an active leadership role by actually WORKING on concrete plans for our nation. Instead they prefer to send super secret chain e-mails to Lady hawke and just sit on the sidelines. get in the game and make a difference, or else ya forfeit your right to complain about the outcome of the game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) Please post a link to where Obama said his stimulus plan would be a quick fix for this country....TIA. Don't spend a lot of time looking, though, because you won't find it. rather, you might find more info on the fact that much the stimulus funds were used to allow the country to find a bottom....to bridge the gap from our spiral to economic recovery. Most Americans have no idea how ugly things would have been had the administration allowed our residential housing market, our auto industry, and our banking industry to collapese simultaneously, all while we were at war. People only look at how bad things are and judge the current situation, with very little knowledge or insight into how bad things could have been had action not been taken. You're kidding, right... I'll capitulate, he may not have used the words "quick fix", but the tenor of his speeches have been that the recovery will come more quickly via government intervention and the introduction of TARP funds... That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth. http://donklephant.com/2009/01/08/obamas-e...ecovery-speech/ Further, I think due to TARP things have become even more tenuous. The government selectively bailed out financial institutions that were too big to fail... From this Wells Fargo, BofA, Chase managed to purchase other banks, large banks, who did not receive TARP funds. This has created even larger banks and consolidated assets into fewer hands. There needs to be an antitrust suit filed on behalf of the citizens of the US regarding this as essentially the US government has consolidated the banking indstry into the hands of the chosen few; a chosen few that, through legislation regarding institutions who have received TARP funds, are essentially partially controlled by the government. In addition, if you look at my previous post, I am not placing the entirety of the blame for this on Obama, I judiciously point out that there is quite a bit of culpability on behalf of the prior administration. For you to make any assertion that my problems w. TARP stem primarily from a loathing of the current administration is at the least inaccurate and at most a purposeful disregard for the entirety of my post on your part. Edited December 11, 2009 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 You're kidding, right... I'll capitulate, he may not have used the words "quick fix", but the tenor of his speeches have been that the recovery will come more quickly via government intervention and the introduction of TARP funds... That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth. http://donklephant.com/2009/01/08/obamas-e...ecovery-speech/ what do you consider quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.