Is Obama’s base crumbling?
[Posted by Karl]
Andrew Malcolm seems to think so, based on the new ABC News/Washington Post poll:
Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama’s jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president’s measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.
Obama’s overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.
Malcolm may be overstating his case by a smidge. Obama’s overall approval rating in the new ABC/WaPo is almost exactly what it was in June… and marginally better than it was in April or last September. The ratio of strong dissapproval to strong approval may be the most significant internal Malcolm cites. Remember, 90% of the public is partisan and about 80-90% of those voters vote for their party’s candidate. Thus, presidential elections tend to turn on the difference in turnout between Republicans and Democrats and the distribution of the so-called Independent vote. The strong disapproval/approval ratio may bode well for the GOP in terms of turnout.
The ABC/WaPo does not break out numbers for true Indies, but Gallup suggests approval of Obama is not at an all-time low with them yet. Ruy Teixeira frets over Obama’s erosion with minorities and the youth vote, but the data is mixed. According to Pew, the GOP has recently made gains with the youth vote, but lost traction among Hispanics, despite the fact that the latter have been among the hardest hit in the recession (expect more pandering on immigration and more media avoiding reporting that Dems killed Bush’s immigration reform bill).
The latest polls may show some cracks in Obama’s foundation, but not the sort of collapse Pres. George W. Bush saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Most of the erosion will matter only if it results in reduced turnout for Obama in 2012. And no one will know for sure about that until it is too late.
Update: Link fixed.
–Karl
Overstating a smidge? It’s the BIG LIE theory in action. An attempt at it anyway. Obama will win in 2012.
Comment by Anita Busch — 7/26/2011 @ 8:29 am
Head Cheerleader anita shows up, as if on cue.
Racists.
Comment by JD — 7/26/2011 @ 8:35 am
Racists? How odd of a statement. I urge everyone to get involved and let your voice be heard: http://www.congress.org/
Comment by Anita Busch — 7/26/2011 @ 8:47 am
The negative is that Obama’s policies and petulence are leading the country into a disaster of historical proportions;
The positive is that even during The Civil War, we found a way to hold elections.
See: Frederick Douglass, “Three Box Theory on Liberty”(sic).
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 8:47 am
Why not just call us racist jooooooooooooos anita? you know you wanna let your inner Ahmadinnerjacket out.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/26/2011 @ 8:47 am
Do you have a reason to think this? You sound so sure. I think he’ll lose, and it won’t be close. Hell, Ron Paul, and extremely weak politician, is near the margin of error in recent polls. Obama will lose if the GOP candidate is at all plausibly presidential.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 8:47 am
Anita you turds call obama’s critics racist.
Odd but expected from your kind.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/26/2011 @ 8:48 am
Glenn is running another InstaPoll this morning, and the top three are people who are not in the race, or haven’t even announced:
#1- Rick Perry;
#2- Chris Christie;
#3- Sarah Palin.
The rest are in single digits.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 8:50 am
I am not a “kind,” Mr. DohBiden. I have never called anyone a racist. And you just called me a “turd.” That says it all right there now, doesn’t it.
I like Ron Paul to a point and then he crosses it almost every time.
Comment by Anita Busch — 7/26/2011 @ 8:51 am
Rick Perry and Chris Christie would be such a wonderful ticket. Chris isn’t running, but he’s setting himself up as a plausible presidential candidate for the road ahead. He gets all the benefits of running and losing a primary, and suffers none of the drawbacks.
As much as I yearn to see Palin vindicated after years of pure evil covering her every breath, I want to win states like Pennsylvania. I think 2012 could be a map changing event that scares democrats out of ever governing as Obama did (at least until they forget again). And I need a president with more experience in executive office (fair or not to Palin, she just doesn’t have enough).
Obama shows signs of weakness that would quickly be patched if the GOP chose a candidate that they could galvanize against. While they will try with any candidate, the more I think about Perry the more I think Texas democrats have played hardball against him for eleven years now, and for his flaws he really isn’t offensive to moderates.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 8:54 am
I agree with you there. He will sound like a breath of fresh air… a fount of common sense… and like clockwork he says something additional that makes me roll my eyes.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 8:55 am
One of the nice things about blogs is discovering what sets progressives off.
Comment by Karl — 7/26/2011 @ 9:00 am
Personally, I liken Palin to Thatcher, and she had (please remind me) how much experience as PM before becoming one?
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 9:03 am
Anita,
I tend to believe you are sincere in your belief that Obama will be re-elected. (As opposed to just making a statement for effect such as Nancy Pelosi’s assurance last Nov. that the Dems would keep the House on the eve of one of the biggest (and most widely predicted) blowouts in election history.)
That said, what I’d appreciate understanding better is why you think so. What in particular are the strengths you see in him and in his performance thus far that will ultimately cement a second term? What are the issues upon which you believe the American people will decide to reward him and trust him with four more years? What about him and his presidency do you, personally, find most satisfying? If you could take a second to reply concentrating on his strengths and accomplishments as you see them (rather than evaluating/knocking his potential opponents and political rivals with whom obviously you may have some philosophical differences) that’d be great. Thanks.
Comment by elissa — 7/26/2011 @ 9:15 am
You have a point. Palin was a great governor, too, and didn’t have much experience.
It’s not just me one has to convince. I think Bush and Clinton had developed a trusted circle of lieutenants, and connections with other factions full of trustworthy subordinates. That’s very necessary to run this ridiculously huge government.
Palin is a great leader, but I know moderates will wonder if she’s credible, and I just think someone with a decade running Texas probably has dealt with far more day in day out executive leadership.
Romney similarly just doesn’t have enough of the sort of experience I want to see. A want politicians who were reelected as governor.
A little unfair, perhaps, but it’s just my view, out of an abundance of caution.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 9:29 am
90% of the public is partisan? (your link doesn’t work so I can’t follow it). Maybe in your neighborhood. Perhaps a bit Pauline Kael-ish? And elections ‘tend’ to turn on the independent vote? Name an election in which the winner didn’t win a majority of the mushy middle?
In the end, Obama’s base is going to vote for him so aside from a hit to fundraising and the remote chance of a primary challenge, disapproval among this group is pretty irrelevant come November. No matter how little they think of Obama, they will hate the GOP candidate a whole lot more.
Comment by steve — 7/26/2011 @ 9:32 am
steve,
Sorry about the broken link; it’s fixed now. At that link, click through to political scientist John Sides, who explains both the 90% partisan figure, the degree to which Indies are “leaners” who really vote reliably for a particular party, and how small a slice true Indies really are.
There probably are not many (if any) elections where those true indies don’t support the winner (I hedged because I didn’t quickly find the numbers on true indies in 2000).
Comment by Karl — 7/26/2011 @ 9:59 am
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 9:29 am
“…out of an abundance of caution.”
You would have made a great Union General – until the fall of Vicksburg.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 10:00 am
AD-RtR/OS, Dustin,
Thatcher had prior experience in the cabinet. In Education, where she got the nickname “Thatcher the Milk Snatcher.”
Comment by Karl — 7/26/2011 @ 10:01 am
Touche.
Indeed, there is merit behind the idea of going for broke. Palin being elected would be a crushing victory in a culture war. It would be an amazing accomplishment, no doubt leading to a very hard line on reforms.
I sincerely doubt this can be done. I’m not in a mood to be bold with so much at stake. There’s the counter argument that with so much at stake we either elect a pure reformist or we’re screwed anyway. I want to hear more about Perry’s plans before wholeheartedly sign on.
But there are two issues here. One is simply what I consider presidential experience, and the other is Palin’s ideology. I’m sure you agree that Palin with eleven years governing a large state would be a superior candidate, after all.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 10:06 am
So, does that mean Karl, that we should be looking for a candidate that was a Cabinet Secretary?
Her experience as a Cabinet Minister still grossly exceeds the prior experience our present Chief Executive brought to his post.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 10:07 am
Yes, we need to hear more from Perry as to what he intends to do, and what his core beliefs are.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 10:09 am
Rush just announced that Wu is going to resign!
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 10:10 am
Get real. Sarah Palin wouldn’t even pull a majority of the votes in her home state of Alaska, where she antagonized most of the voters in that state by trying to sabotage Murkowski’s election in a senseless vendetta and for strictly self-serving reasons in 2010. The glorification of Sarah Palin borders on insanity, imho.
Obama doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being reelected. But it won’t be because Palin will be his opponent. She doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of even prevailing in a primary. I have faith in my fellow U. S. Citizens. Most voters have too much sense to vote for either one of those two crackpots ever again. You can take that to the bank. You read it here first
Comment by Summit, N.J. — 7/26/2011 @ 10:11 am
Suffer from PDS much?
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 10:15 am
…more Wu:
With all that swamp draining that Princess Nancy is doing, pretty soon her swamp will be no more than a puddle.
How long before reality sets in within the Dem Caucus that the face of their group is poison to all of them?
Is Steny sitting at the sharpening stone with his sabre?
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 10:19 am
Why can’t Palin’s detractors explain anything accurately?
Seriously, you could have had such a good point, but you totally ruined it. Murkowski is a big spender who lied to the GOP when she promised to honor the outcome of the primary. Her promise led Miller to exhaust his coffers before the race began, because he thought the GOP nominee would win.
Ideologically, there is a huge difference between Murk and Miller, and Murkowski is a symbol of Alaskan corruption. The idea Palin’s fight against corruption is personal is probably not too unfair, but it also is a righteous cause we should all support.
Still, it says a lot that Miller was unable to beat Murkowski. he was a very good candidate. Alaskans want that delicious federal money, stupidly tying themselves to the fate of a country that is running out of money.
Palin isn’t a crackpot. She’s actually almost moderate, but very stubborn about her principles and rooting out corruption. What view, specifically, do you have in mind when you say she’s a crackpot, anyway?
You won’t win over Palin’s huge base of supporters by ignoring the merit behind the person. If you can’t tell she’s one of the good guys, I don’t know where you’re coming from. I agree she’s probably unelectable, but she’s no crackpot.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 10:19 am
O/T…but a looming disaster for those of us living in CA -
The “Moonbeam” is back at full brilliance…
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that California governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown has just nominated failed Ninth Circuit nominee
(and Berkeley law professor) Goodwin Liu to the California supreme court.
H/T- NRO
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 10:43 am
AD-RtR/OS!,
I was merely noting that Thatcher had executive (as well as legislative) experience, despite being in a parliamentary system of government. The UK is otherwise structured such that you don’t really have a pool of governors to draw upon. Mayors, maybe.
Comment by Karl — 7/26/2011 @ 10:50 am
I would say Murkowski’s voting record as a RINO proves Palins’ view was accurate.
Comment by johnnycab23513 — 7/26/2011 @ 10:58 am
Obama’s liberal base is — pitting it very mildly –decidedly unhappy with him. How this affects the election remains to be seen, but at the moment there’s something a lot stronger than an “enthusiasm gap” at play.
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/26/2011 @ 10:58 am
Howard Dean should primary Obama, David. That would pressure Obama.
And the GOP should have primaried Bush, really. It’s not like either party really has gone as far towards solving these fiscal problems as they promised they would.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 11:00 am
Everything is relative. What’s the approval rating of the Republicans in Congress on the jobs front?
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 11:08 am
Last night’s whiny condescending speech showed America that bumble is hopelessly mired in his cowardly inability to take off the blame Bush training wheels.
No one ever talks about this loser “growing into the role” of the presidency have you noticed that? Cause he’s shown no sign of having done so. He lurches and flounders and whines and blames Bush.
Nutless coward.
Comment by happyfeet — 7/26/2011 @ 11:09 am
Rightly or wrongly, Palin is damaged goods in the eyes of too many people to win the general election… and this is likely to keep her from gaining a critical mass of support in the GOP primaries.
Comment by steve — 7/26/2011 @ 11:10 am
Comment by Karl — 7/26/2011 @ 10:50 am
Karl, I need an emoticon for “tongue in cheek”.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 11:10 am
Why wouldn’t Obama blame Bush? A good part of the country still does*.
* including me, who voted for him twice. There are so many things I wish he had done differently. And had he done so, Obama would never have been elected.
Comment by steve — 7/26/2011 @ 11:12 am
Palin is a lightweight pom-pom girl what mostly is just good for shaking her tits and flashing her white and pearlies on fox news.
She had a lot of potential at one time though.
Comment by happyfeet — 7/26/2011 @ 11:14 am
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 11:08 am
Though the “approval rating” of the GOP in Congress is not good (Congressional approval ratings are never good), they remain much higher that what the Dems have, and what the Dems had when they were in the Majority.
Plus, voters historically criticize “The Congress”, but approve of their “Congressman”.
The telling # is the generic GOP v. DEM poll for Congress, where a tie usually results in the GOP taking the majority.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 11:14 am
It’s congress. They have been getting low approval ratings for decades.
Both dems and reps in Congress get poor marks. I can hardly blame them. Their core mission is to pass a budget, and the last time they did Michael Jackson was still alive.
Fact is that the House GOP is not accomplishing anything. I don’t see how they could, though, but there’s nothing to point to and credit them for. But I don’t see how this translates into elections. Every congressman has to run in a local, not national, election.
And Obama will be running against Rick Perry, not a House member. Anyway, I’m glad conservatives are not heaping praise on anyone in government these days. Why should they?
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 11:19 am
Oh for God’s sake, happyfeet.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 11:20 am
Wow gotta love that sexist POS referencing Palins tits and pretending to admire her potential
Yes crappyfeet i’m talking about you.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/26/2011 @ 11:21 am
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 11:20 am
feets never disappoints.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 11:21 am
Feets don’t fail me now!
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/26/2011 @ 11:23 am
America doesn’t need more white trash icons it needs for reals leadership
and Palin is not a leader – she bailed on leadership to become a celebrity pop tart
Comment by happyfeet — 7/26/2011 @ 11:23 am
3. Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling [ITEM]?
7/17/11 – Summary Table*
Approve Disapprove No opinion
a. The economy 28 67 5
b. The federal
budget deficit 27 68 5
c. Creating jobs 26 65 9
d. Taxes 31 65 4
*Full sample asked items a-b; half sample asked item c; other half sample asked item d.
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 11:24 am
Cynthia McKinney would make a good Primary opponent for Obama. She’s the only Democrat who’s more delusional than he is.
Anita, let me guess, George McGovern was your man back in ’72 and it cost you a few bucks.
Comment by ropelight — 7/26/2011 @ 11:26 am
feets, she bailed on the Governorship to save her family from, if not penury, at least a long debilitating legal trek.
BTW, do you know that at the time she resigned, the law in AK allowed the filing of “Ethics Complaints” for up to two-years after the Governor left office?
A law that here successor had changed.
But, it would have only been THIS MONTH (absent the change in law) that Palin would have been free of the “Ethics” campaign mounted by the compasionate, non-judgemental, caring, Left.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 11:30 am
Spartacus, as you said, everything is relative. Show me a poll in the last very long time that shows any kind of national approval for congress on a serious matter.
It just doesn’t happen.
Comparing that to Obama’s approval is making an apples to oranges comparison.
And what we really see right now are conservatives demanding better from everyone. Of course they are not going to see much to be pleased with, but I’m not sure that means anything right now.
Your posting that in this thread suggests you think this information helps Obama, but I don’t think it can.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 11:30 am
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 11:24 am
You should have linked to that poll;
and, you should have shown the comparison results from asking the same questions about the Dems in Congress.
You should have, but you didn’t, and no-one here is surprised by your trollish behavior and dishonesty.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 11:33 am
AD-RtR/OS!
You don’t see the link?
Dustin
5. Who do you think cares more about protecting the economic interests of [ITEM] – (Obama) or (the Republicans in Congress)?
7/17/11 – Summary Table
Both Neither No
Obama Reps (vol.) (vol.) opinion
a. You and your family 47 37 2 12 2
b. Wall Street financial institutions 26 59 4 4 7
c. Small businesses 48 39 2 8 3
d. Middle class Americans 53 35 1 9 2
e. Large business corporations 24 67 3 3 3
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 11:40 am
There is no link posted in that comment.
You perhaps meant to post one at “[ITEM]” (I have no way of knowing), but it didn’t come through, which is why I criticized you for the failure to provide a link.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 11:47 am
Razz has Obama at -19 today (-21 yesterday).
Comment by A. Weiner — 7/26/2011 @ 11:47 am
our politics should aspire to transcend cheap celebrity I think Mr. AD
Is this not the lesson imparted by the improbable ascendance to the presidency of a useless lightweight like Barack Obama?
Comment by happyfeet — 7/26/2011 @ 11:50 am
@Ropelight: I was not old enough to vote for McGovern in 1972. I voted for independent John Anderson in my first chance to vote for president.
I have voted both for Republicans and Democrats. In my opinion, Obama was the best choice this last time around.
I think Palin is more interested in her own celebrity and making money.
@Elissa: I think Obama has done a fantastic job despite the hurdles of what I see as one of the most divided and vitriolic times in our country’s history … as proven with some of the comments here that would rather personally attack then have civil discourse.
I am very happy that he put limits on lobbyists in the White House. I am no happy that he has kept on Summers and Rubin, protege’s of Alan Greenspan whose economic model failed (and he admitted so himself in hearings).
But overall, I approve of his time in office. I think he is trying very hard to serve the American people and I truly believe that someone’s character is evidenced when they get involved with no pay at the community level to try to make a difference in a child’s life.
There are many reasons why I think he is a good President. I think he will win because the independent vote will carry him through. I do not see a Republican candidate that I am willing to support. I see too much vitriol and anti-gay and shielding the wealthy.
I do not like Hillary Clinton and am not a fan of Bill Clinton either.
Like I said, I have voted both ways, but I have not seen anything at this moment to change my mind.
I do believe in CIVIL discourse about our nation’s politics … and that seems to be a thing of the past, unfortunately.
Comment by Anita Busch — 7/26/2011 @ 12:00 pm
Yeah, that fails for the same reason your other arguments fail.
Obama is an incumbent president with constant media coverage. The concept of congressional republican or democrat just isn’t like that. You can’t compare them.
Also, the poll you’re citing says there are several percentage points more democrats than republicans (so it’s probably biased), yet Mitt Romney and Obama are tied statistically.
And this democrat heavy poll says Obama made the economy worse.
Too bad he’s not running against the GOP House or Bush in 2012, ‘eh?
Anyway, if this is the best you’ve got, I’m feeling great about 2012.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 12:00 pm
AD, the poll was covered recently at Daily Kos. It’s a Wapo poll, and it blames Obama for ruining the economy despite appearing to be weighted in his favor.
David’s right. Democrats are not happy with Obama.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 12:02 pm
Apples and Oranges, Mr. feets.
Sarah Palin was not a “Community Organizer” who hid her scholarship behind a firewall.
She was elected multiple times to office, both legislative and executive.
If anything contributed to her “cheap celebrity” it was the “ethics” witch-hunt engaged in by her enemies on the Left (and a few on the Right that she put in jail for corruption).
It is interesting, is it not, that Palin in her public life has attacked corruption where-ever she has encountered it;
yet Obama, is at the heart and center of a circle of corruption that follows him like the cloud over an Al Capp character’s head.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 12:04 pm
I still think he’s about 50-50 for reelect if the economy doesn’t get much better or worse than it is now.
Comment by Gerald A — 7/26/2011 @ 12:11 pm
Dustin, what do they have to be happy about?
GITMO?
Rendition?
War of Choice?
DADT?
DOMA?
Unemployment?
This administration has been an ongoing disaster ever since Ms. Happyface, Christina Romer, flat-assed BD’ed the American People about what would happen if the government did, or did not, engage in $800B of Stimulus spending.
We would have been better off if we had sent the lot of them, 535 Members of Congress, POTUS and the Veep, and all the CabSec’s, on a four-year inspection tour of McMurdo Sound and environs.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 12:12 pm
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 11:10 am
I ususally go with
Comment by Karl — 7/26/2011 @ 12:14 pm
AD-RtR/OS!
Here’s your link:
http://patterico.com/2011/07/26/is-obama%E2%80%99s-base-crumbling/
Enjoy!
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 12:30 pm
That seems a bit circular; but, understandable.
I was kind of hoping that you would be bring new information to the table, not data that we had already digested and discussed.
Silly me.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 12:34 pm
Oh wow. Mea Culpa. He is talking about the same poll. I looked up what spartacus was saying and found it verbatim from Kos, but their spin made it sound completely different from the one presented above.
Ha.
In my defense, the poll itself is long, and I focused on what Spartacus was saying and then the sample itself.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 12:40 pm
From a Ace thread:
Carney called Chuck Todd’s (!) request to see Obama’s specific plan “a Republican talking point.”
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 12:40 pm
I am very happy that he put limits on lobbyists in the White House. I am no happy that he has kept on Summers and Rubin, protege’s of Alan Greenspan whose economic model failed (and he admitted so himself in hearings).
But overall, I approve of his time in office. I think he is trying very hard to serve the American people and I truly believe that someone’s character is evidenced when they get involved with no pay at the community level to try to make a difference in a child’s life.
Well, there you are. The profile of an Obama supporter. She thinks he kept lobbyists out of the White House, for example. What can you do but laugh at these people who are so clueless they accept lies as truth?
Comment by Mike K — 7/26/2011 @ 12:45 pm
Sad, Mike K. Very sad … more making fun rather than discussing the issues at hand.
Comment by Anita Busch — 7/26/2011 @ 12:48 pm
Anita, he put a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, Donilon as National Security advisor, he put another Deputy
Secretary of Defense, He’ll probably put Dimon, the king of the financiers, in as Treasury Secretary,
other persons who have been in the administration like Greg Craig, they had handling the Goldman Sachs matter,
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 12:53 pm
AD @ 12:04 pm, that would be JOE BTFSPLK. He walks around with a perpetually dark rain cloud a foot over his head. Though well-meaning and gentle, his reputation inevitably precedes him, so p.Once he appears dreadfully bad luck befalls anyone in his vicinity.
He is also a character with an apparently unpronounceable name, but creator Al Capp pronounced Btfsplk with a “raspberries” sound, also known as a “Bronx cheer.”
Comment by ropelight — 7/26/2011 @ 12:55 pm
Who has been the most frequent visitor to the White House, Anita?
Comment by JD — 7/26/2011 @ 12:57 pm
He banished lobbyists from his transition team, Ian. He also put an end to his workers receiving gifts and all registered lobbyists got the boot. He has been working very hard to remove conflicts of interests and I give him a lot of credit for that.
Comment by Anita Busch — 7/26/2011 @ 12:58 pm
Anita is the same wench who cannot stand the truth.
Just ignore the hypocritical idiot please.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/26/2011 @ 12:58 pm
Oh, good Allah.
Comment by JD — 7/26/2011 @ 12:59 pm
Like the little obot she is she doesn’t care about Goldman Sachs and the fact her guy is a flip-flopping sham.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/26/2011 @ 12:59 pm
How Obama Got Elected… Interviews With Obama Voters.
That says it all!
Comment by MSL — 7/26/2011 @ 12:59 pm
btw, between Clinton and Bush, the revolving door was non-stop. I give a man credit for trying to end these conflicts with Monsanto and the like.
Comment by Anita Busch — 7/26/2011 @ 12:59 pm
@DohBiden: More name calling. Shows your character.
Comment by Anita Busch — 7/26/2011 @ 1:00 pm
This administration practically = Goldman Sachs.
Not that Lobbying is a partisan issue. Both parties suck here, but one seems to get a huge pass. I blame the media for this.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 1:03 pm
AD-RtR/OS!
Silly you indeed.
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 1:04 pm
Nice link MSL.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 1:04 pm
Dimon, will probably replace Geithner at Treasury,
The chief Deputy for Administration, at State, Nides, was at Fannie, and previously was a congressional staffer.
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 1:08 pm
Like the stupid wench whose side calls Palin a dumb c*nt accusing me of name-calling.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/26/2011 @ 1:12 pm
Hard core leftist liberals and African-Americans are not ever going to abandon The One.Not now, not ever. May be Allen West or Herman Cain on the GOP ticket changes that equation on the margins. But that’s all it would be, marginal.
Young people are a different story. Increasingly they understand as they join the workforce they are carrying a growing bunch of freeloaders that form Obama’s core support.The working people have no problem supporting a safty net for the helpless or the temporarily displaced. But the clueless who’s idea of a productive day is lighting a doobie at 10AM in the “affordable housing” PJs while waking to “Jerry” on their big screen while facebooking their pals on the fedrally-funded iphone are no longer viewed by anyone as the poor downtrodden. They are sucking Obams’s readily-offered federal tit dry to avoid actual work. That 47% of non-taxpaying nonworking societal leeches are no longer seen as anything more than parasites. They are the enemy.
And as to those that cannot find work, they know right now under this President the job market sucks. 9%+ unemployment is not a good figure for anyone seeking reelection.
And having said all that, the GOP can still screw the pooch if they nominate the wrong person. If said nomninee is not verbally-adept at explaining the need to cut government down to size(happytalker Romney), supports these insane wars(almost the entire field spare Ron Paul-for now) or wants to waste time with social issues(Bachmann, Palin, Santorum) rather than this economic debacle, said nominee will be playing on The One’s chosen field of battle.
Comment by Bugg — 7/26/2011 @ 1:13 pm
Obama could sacrfice a baby to Moloch and Anita will kiss his arse.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/26/2011 @ 1:15 pm
“…A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 45 percent of those polled trust Republicans more on the economy, compared with 35 percent for Democrats…”
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Rasmussen-Republicans-Democrats-economy/2011/07/25/id/404783
Oops!
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 1:16 pm
She didn’t call Palin that.
sigh
———–
Let’s not get too cocky. In 2008, this country elected Obama. Don’t take anything for granted as he probably will have many advantages in 2012. I admit I do hope this lefty shill ramps up his efforts to instill urgency in the right. The economy may be terrible, but a lot of voters are scared enough to find entitlements to be a solution to their problems, and damn the long term.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 1:19 pm
Anita Busch, he banished lobbyists? Really? You believed that sound bite but ignored how fast that no lobbyists thing disappeared. His transition team was a who’s who of Wall Street – Citigroup executives, Goldman Sachs executives Froman, Rubin father and son (Bob Rubin being the very architect of the Glass-Steagal repeal under the Clinton admin that the Left so beats on and tries to blame the GOP for …). The revolving door of the Clinton/Bush era you describe hardly changed.
Sometimes, Ms. Busch, I think you don’t actually read any news.
Comment by SPQR — 7/26/2011 @ 1:20 pm
Bugg, I have yet to find where Palin made “social issues” central to any campaign that she entered.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 1:22 pm
A Rasmussen poll no less?
The Republic is saved! Hurrah
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 1:22 pm
They disparaged Moses too.
Ten Commandments! Hah!
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 1:24 pm
She hasn’t in fact she waived an anti domestic partnership rule, yes she supported Prop 8 and 4, but then so did the majority in California and Florida, respectively.
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 1:25 pm
LOL. So you wildly cherry pick poll results, throwing out most of it, and then you whine that an accurate pollster is not because you don’t like a result?
Waaaaaaah waaaaaaah
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 1:25 pm
Palin has never gone too far out on the social issues limb really – much less so than Perry or Pawlenty and especially Bachmann
It was one of the things that was very attractive about her back when she was a serious political figure.
Comment by happyfeet — 7/26/2011 @ 1:26 pm
Comment by SPQR — 7/26/2011 @ 1:20 pm
Facts are so inconvenient, if not deadly to the narrative.
“Facts to a Leftist, are as Kryptonite to Superman.”
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 1:26 pm
She is still, even if not in your view, a serious political figure; otherwise, why would the Left try so hard to destroy her?
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 1:28 pm
cause she’s annoying?
Comment by happyfeet — 7/26/2011 @ 1:28 pm
“Rightly or wrongly, Palin is damaged goods in the eyes of too many people to win the general election…”
Yeah, that’s what they used to say about Reagan.
Unelectable. Too radical. Can’t possibly win.
Comment by Dave Surls — 7/26/2011 @ 1:29 pm
– Ronald Reagan
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/26/2011 @ 1:29 pm
-Barack Obama
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 1:31 pm
What that was technically only his preacher for 20 years, who married him, and whose sermon he named
his memoir after, not him, ‘typical white person’
referring to his grandma that raised him, that’s more his speed.
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 1:35 pm
Yes, it is the “annoying” habit of being on the right side of an issue thay buggs the crap out of them.
And to think, she does it entirely through Facebook and Twittr (whatever) with an occassional interview/opinion piece on FoxNews.
No grand pressers from PA Ave, no dramatic cmte confrontations on The Hill;
all from her “den”, or the deck overlooking Cook Inlet, with her hubby behind the camera.
Now, that is power when the most “powerful” politicians in the Nation’s Capitol have to try and bring down a simple housewife from Wasilla AK because she is “annoying”!
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 1:36 pm
“The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.”–Barack Obama
Sometimes people accidently say things that don’t make a whole lot of sense, Ehrenstein.
Then, there are people like you who virtually never make sense.
Comment by Dave Surls — 7/26/2011 @ 1:36 pm
her movie bombed something awful it’s kind of embarrassing I feel bad for her
Comment by happyfeet — 7/26/2011 @ 1:39 pm
Exactly. He even had his babies Baptiste by the hands of this racist nutjob. Probably had Ayers and co babysit them.
It’s is sad that Palin is less electable than Obama. She is more accomplished, smarter, better spoken, more honest… but for some reason the right is leaning towards its most experienced executive leaders while the left leans towards … I’m not really sure I understand what basis they had for picking Obama actually. Palin actually has a few impressive accomplishments to her name.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 1:39 pm
“Facts are stupid things”
– Ronald Reagan
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/26/2011 @ 1:29 pm
He didn’t say that. I bet all your friend think he did.
Comment by Gerald A — 7/26/2011 @ 1:41 pm
Your link compares it to Harry Potter. It seems designed to be unfair.
Uh huh. In other words, it did extremely well when you compare apples to apples, but we hate Palin.
If it weren’t for the Palin haters, there would be no Palin issue at all. Why you guys won’t get that is beyond me.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 1:43 pm
Anita:
I could do this all day.
Comment by Karl — 7/26/2011 @ 1:44 pm
For those without a program, Greenberg Traurig was Abramoff’s original firm, Daschle was as one recalls was up for some Washington post, till he had a little tax problem,
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 1:49 pm
This is a ‘great leader’? He demands a tax hike, but demands the electoral price wait until after the election. After Obama has absolutely nothing to worry about, and Obamacare and tax hikes devastate the economy. It is staggeringly arrogant, and if the GOP goes for it…
He couldn’t be less democratic. We voted for no taxes in 2010. Obama knows that. He’s hoping we can be conned into voting for higher taxes if he just hides them.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 1:51 pm
They have the sweetest company pens. They must cost a dollar each. I have about 60 of them.
Comment by Dustin — 7/26/2011 @ 1:52 pm
“Is Obama’s base crumbling”
I doubt it. The Democrat base are people who depend on government handouts…and there ain’t much chance people like that are going to switch over to the Republicans, unless the Dems fail to deliver the goods.
Comment by Dave Surls — 7/26/2011 @ 1:57 pm
As to Palin we currently have a President who is not fond of his day job. Palin resigning the governorship was a dealebreaker. She’s certainly preferable to Obama, and I wish her well in pursuit of lucre. But a campign built on whining about the awful unfairness of the MSM is still whining and short on substance. A smart pol knows not to bother talking to Katie Couric in the first place.
Comment by Bugg — 7/26/2011 @ 1:59 pm
Did you here, his ‘nudge nudge’ line about ‘how easy it would be, to go it alone’ at La Raza, the
scariest bit was the audience response.
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 1:59 pm
Anita, I’m not going to criticize you. Supporting and voting for Barack Obama is your prerogative.
In my opinion, though, Obama, Clinton, Holder, Napolitano, Geithner and Panetta in particular, but other people in this current administration, also, have shown so consistently that they are chronic screw-ups with both their foreign and domestic initiatives that they have been an unmitigated disaster, and, therefore, all of them have shown, also, that they are unfit to have the positions which they hold.
You can refute those assertions easily enough if you can cite three examples, just three [credible] examples of any of this current administration’s accomplishments which have been beneficial to all U.S. citizens, not just to a select few left-wing groups. They’ve been in office for going on three years now. So surely you can cite three examples. If not, can you cite two examples? How about one example?
If you don’t feel comfortable responding to this inquiry, please disregard it. I don’t want to make you uncomfortable, nor do I want to put you on the spot. It’s no big deal. I’m just curious.
Comment by Summit, N.J. — 7/26/2011 @ 2:06 pm
Comment by Bugg — 7/26/2011 @ 1:59 pm
See my comment above about the AK Ethics Law, and why (or at least one of many reasons) she resigned when she did.
Also, she had no choice about the Couric interview, it was set up by the McCain Campaign Staff – but, I guess that doesn’t make them too smart does it, and is one of many reasons why they lost.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 2:09 pm
The ironic thing, is I read that law, there really was no violation that she was guilty of, in fact
publicizing a complaint voided it a priori, but that didn’t matter.
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 2:11 pm
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 1:59 pm
Well, Latinos seem to have an acceptance for Caudillos.
Maybe he wants to play the Richard Dreyfus part in “Moon Over Parador“?
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 2:12 pm
From the American Thinker:
John Kerry was introduced at the 2004 Democratic National Convention by Wade Sanders, a retired Navy Captain and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy who served as a Swift Boat officer in Vietnam. Like Kerry, Sanders was the recipient of a Silver Star for gallantry in action. During the 2004 campaign, Sanders functioned as Kerry lead attack dog against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, repeatedly denouncing the veterans on the air as liars and comparing them to Nazi propagandists.
Wade Sanders is now in Federal prison, serving a 37-month sentence for possessing child pornography. Now the Navy Times reports that Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has revoked Sanders’ Silver Star. The highly unusual decision appears unrelated to Sanders’ felony conviction. A Navy spokesman cited “subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself.” John Kerry has to be hoping this doesn’t become a trend.
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 2:13 pm
Well, since he “threw it away”, I suppose it would be no great loss to have it revoked.
More interesting, would be to get the details from his packet on whether or not he received a Presidential Pardon from Jimmah, and just what went on when he travelled to Paris during the Peace Conference.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 2:16 pm
Ad-
No dispute that Mccain ’08 was badly run and Palin did so on the orders of the campaign. Cormac, a real leadrer stays and defends his or her honor.
I want Obama defeated. Palin cannot do that. Though if the economy continues on this disasterous course, who knows.
Comment by Bugg — 7/26/2011 @ 2:30 pm
Palin can’t defeat Obama but I bet she could do a nice reality show about bears or something
Comment by happyfeet — 7/26/2011 @ 2:35 pm
“Facts are stupid things”
– Ronald Reaga
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/26/2011 @ 1:29 pm
– David Ehrenstein is a fact.
Comment by Icy Texan — 7/26/2011 @ 2:41 pm
Dustin
Cherry pick away. Show me something, anything that indicates the public have a more unfavorable view of President Obama than they do of the GOP in Congress. Rasmussen excepted, for the obvious reasons.
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 2:45 pm
Why all the continued gushing over Palin when now you have the real thing in Michele?
Comment by spartacvs — 7/26/2011 @ 2:47 pm
Is it possible robe more disingenuous?
Comment by JD — 7/26/2011 @ 2:47 pm
Robe?
Is it possible to be more disingenuous?
Comment by JD — 7/26/2011 @ 2:48 pm
A real leader goes bankrupt, because she has integrity, lets her state be ground down under
a flurry of baseless complaints, as to policy, as compared to Romney, or many of the other declared
candidates, including the soon departed Herman Cain, who else has been focusing on policy.
Comment by ian cormac — 7/26/2011 @ 3:00 pm
I’m not worried. All of the chronic screw-ups in the Obama Administration have been such a disaster that, as long as the RNC doesn’t select another one of the good, old boys “because it’s his turn” like they did with Dole and McCain, [any] Republican candidate will defeat Obama, whereupon the entire country will sigh with relief.
Comment by Summit, N.J. — 7/26/2011 @ 3:00 pm
Obama’s real base, one which will never desert him no matter what he does, consists of, in order: African Americans, the press, and white liberals.
Comment by mike — 7/26/2011 @ 3:01 pm
LA Times says that’s from the same ABC Wash Post poll cited at the top. So “Facts”, once again you are shown to be clueless. I’ve lost count of how many times that it. Must be hundreds now.
Comment by SPQR — 7/26/2011 @ 3:03 pm
Exactly Obama can order the bombing of a Shanty Town in Nigeria and the African Americans will continue to support him.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/26/2011 @ 3:04 pm
Unelectable???
The latest InstaPoll (just checked) shows Perry @ 33%; Christie @ 19%; Palin @ 14%, and Bachmann/Jeb Bush/Johnson @ 4%.
If an unelectable politician who is not running, and has not announced, is getting 1 in 7 of the votes, and is leading all of the announced candidates, we’re paying attention in IA, NH, SC, etc, to the wrong people.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2011 @ 3:09 pm
He banished lobbyists from his transition team, Ian.
Karl, I think we should leave the little girl alone. She may cry. Some people need illusions. I think she is one.
Comment by Mike K — 7/26/2011 @ 3:56 pm
Karl: after mulling it over for a bit, I can’t buy the argument that victory is dependent on turnout among those we’d agree are partisan.
No matter how disillusioned liberals are with Obama, they know a Republican – any Republican – would be far worse (from their perspective). The same holds for Republicans not happy with whomever the GOP nominee is (or was, as in the case of McCain). Partisans are going to hold their nose and show up and vote. And the number on either side willing to stay at home and let the other guy win in order to position their side for a cleansing and rebound win can be counted on two fingers. The only plausible explanation for a partisan not voting is in situations/states where the outcome is already pretty much decided (why bother showing up to vote for a GOP candidate in California? Or a Democrat in Wyoming?) I wonder if this doesn’t account for much of the ‘the partisan GOP didn’t show up, McCain lost argument he makes?.
By default therefore, the deciding factor in who wins has to be the group who, on occasion, can be persuaded to vote for a candidate from the other party. While they may not be as mushy as I depict, they nonetheless are the group that determines the outcome.
Comment by steve — 7/26/2011 @ 3:59 pm
HERE
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 7/26/2011 @ 4:04 pm
0h condescending
impolitic self-obsessed
a dishonest man
Comment by ColonelHaiku — 7/26/2011 @ 4:09 pm
Anita-
Thank you for your reply to my inquiry up at 14. I asked you a sincere question and I think you provided a sincere answer from your perspective.
When you mentioned the lobbyist issue this is the first thing that crossed my mind:
The White House released the names late Friday in a disclosure that officials said was without precedent by previous administrations. The names on the White House Web site were in response to requests about specific people by watchdog groups or news organizations. By December, the White House intends to regularly release names of visitors in three-month increments.
Among the White House guests was a boldface-names list of chief executives, including Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Vikram Pandit of Citigroup Inc., Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Rex W. Tillerson of the Exxon Mobil Corporation, David J. O’Reilly of the Chevron Corporation and Jeffrey R. Immelt of the General Electric Company The men, who met with Mr. Obama, his advisers or both, were among nearly 500 entries in logs from Jan. 20 to July 31.
The most frequent visitor included in the narrow sample was Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union and Mr. Obama’s top ally in the labor movement. Mr. Stern visited the White House 22 times, sometimes for health care or other public events in the East Room, other times for meetings with the president or aides like Rahm Emanuel, Peter R. Orszag or Ronald A. Klain.
The visit tally underscores the clout that S.E.I.U. and Mr. Stern enjoy in this White House, something that has generated consternation at times among business groups and envy among rival unions. By contrast, Richard L. Trumka, the new president of the AFL-CIO, visited seven times in the same period.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/politics/31visitor.html
Andy Stern’s having made the WH kind of a second home should trouble almost anybody, I think. All administrations host “lobbyists” registered and otherwise. Clearly, Barack Obama is no different even though he has pretended otherwise. (Stern has since stepped down from the leadership of SEIU.) What is he doing now?
Comment by elissa — 7/26/2011 @ 4:24 pm
crumbling like aged cheddar…
Comment by ColonelHaiku — 7/26/2011 @ 4:51 pm
David shut your mouth.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/26/2011 @ 7:03 pm
Bwahahahaha. [wipes tears of laughter from eyes] Seriously? Obama has done that? In what universe?
Comment by Milhouse — 7/26/2011 @ 11:12 pm
Well, technically he did. It was a slip of the tongue, after he had already pronounced the John Adams quote correctly three times; he caught and corrected it immediately, and went on to repeat the quote another two times, again correctly. There can be no question at all that he knew the quote correctly, and meant to say it correctly, and this was a simple slip of the tongue such as happens to anyone, as when Obama said “57 states” instead of “47″. (Obama, of course, did not notice his slip or correct it, as Reagan did.)
It’s nothing like the sort of gaffes Obama has made, e.g. “corpsemen”, thinking Austrian is a language, etc.
Comment by Milhouse — 7/26/2011 @ 11:54 pm
It’s just the usual rope-a-dope strategy. Do you really believe there are more than 3 blacks that won’t vote Obama? Really?
Comment by cedarhill — 7/27/2011 @ 4:01 am
Here is a “what if” scenario for you:
What if raising taxes and increasing fines (like for traffic citations) are just means by which government bureaucrats at local, state and federal levels can steal our money, so that they can increase their own wages and benefits, making arguments over entitlement for the poor just smoke and mirrors to distract us from their extortion and their theft?
We all know that the war on poverty has been a dismal failure. Why? Because trillions of dollars went to employees of government agencies who ran those phony programs, not to impoverished people.
We also know thar there is a huge disparity between salaries and benefits paid to people in the private sector and salaries and benefits paid to people with comparable jobs in the government. (Never mind that government agencies hire lots of people to do jobs which are performed by fewer people in the private sector.)
What if this debt crisis is all about overpaid government workers and extortion, a determination to continue to steal our money, so that they can continue to increase their wages and benefits? More redistribution of the wealth from us to government employees? Government employees are stealing our money to enrich themselves? Just a thought.
Comment by Summit, N.J. — 7/27/2011 @ 4:18 am
Somehow I can hear Gomer Pyle saying, “g-o-l-l-y.”
Comment by ropelight — 7/27/2011 @ 7:07 am
Obama will still have black leftys voting for him.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/27/2011 @ 7:09 am
Dobi, some blacks will vote for Obama because he’s part black whether they oppose his politics or not. It’s a matter of racial identification and largely transcends political ideology.
White leftists will also vote for him because he supports their political agenda, and like blacks described above, some whites will vote for Obama just because he’s black even though they oppose his politics.
I also estimate that at least 85% of voters living on government handouts will also genuflect on cue and kiss the hand that feeds them regardless of political philosophy or racial identification.
But, then, you already know it.
Comment by ropelight — 7/27/2011 @ 7:53 am
Let erhere be a more openly liberal candidate (openly calling for more taxes and more government, openly denying the debt/entitlements problem) put against a openly conservative one (openly calling for significantly smaller gov’t, elimination of departments & curtailing of entitlements).
After all, anything in between tends stealthily toward the liberal, and I’m convinced, given a clear binary choice, that the majority would go with the conservative.
Comment by Amphipolis — 7/27/2011 @ 7:53 am
Maybe sort of like an Obama vs Palin election?
Comment by ropelight — 7/27/2011 @ 8:05 am
Your right ropelight.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/27/2011 @ 8:08 am
Dobi, can you just imagine all the breast beating loud-mouth leftists and Hollywood weenies threatening to move to Canada if Palin wins?
They never actually up and out, but they always threaten to go in the most solemn and sincere tones. And they do it on TV.
Comment by ropelight — 7/27/2011 @ 8:43 am
Maybe it’s time for a real Contract with America, one with enforceable provisions. Just an afterthought.
Comment by ropelight — 7/27/2011 @ 8:46 am
Liberal wet dream, never going to happen with any specificity. Because GOPers know full well the electorate would pound them into sand. The American public overwhelmingly support Medicaid, Medicare & SS and they fully support efforts to regulate the environment, the food they eat and products (yes including financial) they buy.
Comment by spartacvs — 7/27/2011 @ 8:48 am
that is because they are nanny state losers like you.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/27/2011 @ 8:49 am
They tried that crap with bush but reneged on their promise.
Comment by DohBiden — 7/27/2011 @ 8:50 am