For the good of the Americans, the Republicans must go

[SirJosephPorter]

Obama's favorability rating is about the same or less than Bush's rating at this time in his presidency.

RanchHand, it is dishonest to make such a comparison. I bet that is the brain child of a far right website in USA (worldnetdaily, townhall or similar). They probably racked their brains as to how they could show their President, Bush (Obama is not the president of the far right, according to them, he is an illegal alien and a Muslim terrorist) in a favorable light, and they finally found a way.

The conditions were totally different when Bush came to power. Thanks to Clinton years, the economy was roaring ahead, there was a healthy surplus (and I think that is what led the voters astray. Economy was not an issue in the 2000 campaign, and people probably thought that the good times will continue, no matter whether Bush or Gore is elected).

When Bush came to power, people were optimistic, bullish about the economy. Bush had not yet taken the country into Iraq. It was no wonder that Bush’s rating was very high.

Now it is totally opposite. Thank to 8 years of Bush, the economy is in the tank, with no light in sight at the end of the tunnel. People are deeply pessimistic about the economy. Where Bush inherited surpluses, a robust economy and low unemployment, Obama inherited huge (Bush) deficits, the sub prime crises, credit crunch, bank bailouts, high unemployment etc, USA is still involved in two wars. It is a wonder that Obama’s popularity is so high.

Saying that Bush was more popular than Obama somehow gives the impression that while Bush’s popularity was in the low 30s, Obama’s is maybe in the high 20s (or low 20s).

As I said, it sounds like a political ploy dreamed up by a far right website in USA. Were did you read it anyway? Worldnetdaily? Townhall? Humanevents?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So, Bush was hated and unpopular. The inflation under his watch is nowhere near to that of the Peanut President. The unemployment rate under Bush's watch is nowhere near of the one under the watch of the Nobel Piss Prize Winner. And let us not forget that the real eastate crush came under the wise Democrat Leadership of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who usurped House and Senate leadership, respectively.

Yukon Jack, you are extolling virtues of Bush like he was the best president ever (or maybe you do think that, I know far right was very pleased with Bush). Surprisingly, you don’t see the inconsistency in praising Bush to high Heaven and the first statement you make (that Bush was hated and unpopular).

Bush had the ignominy of being the only president in recent memory to preside over two huge, deep recessions, two meltdowns. First was the dot com meltdown in 2001-2002, the second is the current one. He also entangled USA in an unpopular, pointless war in Iraq.

While he got rid of a ruthless tyrant, he neglected Afghanistan (which was much more important than Iraq in war on terror) and as a result, Afghanistan has become a huge problem today. Also, Iraq war broke the back of US economy. The huge amounts spent in Iraq, combined with the Bush tax cuts (mostly for the rich) is what transformed huge Clinton surplus into astronomical Bush deficit.

Bush is hated and unpopular and it is well deserved.

 

[RanchHand]

Obama's favorability rating is about the same or less than Bush's rating at this time in his presidency.

RanchHand, it is dishonest to make such a comparison. I bet that is the brain child of a far right website in USA (worldnetdaily, townhall or similar). They probably racked their brains as to how they could show their President, Bush (Obama is not the president of the far right, according to them, he is an illegal alien and a Muslim terrorist) in a favorable light, and they finally found a way.

The conditions were totally different when Bush came to power. Thanks to Clinton years, the economy was roaring ahead, there was a healthy surplus (and I think that is what led the voters astray. Economy was not an issue in the 2000 campaign, and people probably thought that the good times will continue, no matter whether Bush or Gore is elected).

When Bush came to power, people were optimistic, bullish about the economy. Bush had not yet taken the country into Iraq. It was no wonder that Bush’s rating was very high.

Now it is totally opposite. Thank to 8 years of Bush, the economy is in the tank, with no light in sight at the end of the tunnel. People are deeply pessimistic about the economy. Where Bush inherited surpluses, a robust economy and low unemployment, Obama inherited huge (Bush) deficits, the sub prime crises, credit crunch, bank bailouts, high unemployment etc, USA is still involved in two wars. It is a wonder that Obama’s popularity is so high.

Saying that Bush was more popular than Obama somehow gives the impression that while Bush’s popularity was in the low 30s, Obama’s is maybe in the high 20s (or low 20s).

As I said, it sounds like a political ploy dreamed up by a far right website in USA. Were did you read it anyway? Worldnetdaily? Townhall? Humanevents?

Very fair point SirJosephPorter. I heard that on TV a couple of times in the past 5 days or so, but I cannot rember who said it and I cannot find it with google. I don't visit far right web sites, unless you consider Drudge to be far right. It's not. I pretty much watch a lot of CNN and Bill O. I watch Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthews because they are so appalling they can be 'good entertainment' on occasion. And the Sunday morning talk shows. I don't think there will be another Tim Russert for a few more generations.

 

[Tyr]

I agree, EagelSmack, what goes around comes around. So Republicans will be back in power , the question is only when.

And it really does not depend upon the republicans, it depends upon Obama. If Obama does well, Democrats will continue to remain in power. If there is no recovery by say, middle of next year, Republicans will probably gain control of the House (and perhaps the senate, though that seems less likely).

Politics is cyclical (both in Canada and the US) and votes are generally cast in opposition to what is already there unless the "already there" can't be any worse than the unknown (Kerry, Dion)

In Obama's case. It was not so much a vote for what he "promised" but rather a vote for "get the current guy" outta there and the Republican's suffered for that.

They could have run Washington/Lincoln/Jefferson all combined into one and there chances would have been nil.

MCCain (up until the final three weeks of the campaign) was honourable and forthright and would have stood a chance without Palin or his advisors (Rove and Schmidt in particular)

If he would have stood on his morals and basically said "choose" in September it would have been very close

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I heard that on TV a couple of times in the past 5 days or so, but I cannot rember who said it and I cannot find it with google. I don't visit far right web sites, unless you consider Drudge to be far right. It's not.

I am only guessing here, RanchHand, but if you cruise some of the far right websites, very likely you will find it there.

But where is the point in just saying that? I Googled for ‘Obama less popular than Bush', and I found a whole host of websites, most (I assume) belonging to the right and the far right. Wall Street Journal, freerepublic, thenextright. I assume these are all right or far right websites.

And yes, I do consider Drudge to be a far right (or at least a right wing) website. All his news items are to the advantage of the Republicans, and to the disadvantage of the Democrats.

 

[Tyr]

Very fair point SirJosephPorter. I heard that on TV a couple of times in the past 5 days or so, but I cannot rember who said it and I cannot find it with google. I don't visit far right web sites, unless you consider Drudge to be far right. It's not. I pretty much watch a lot of CNN and Bill O. I watch Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthews because they are so appalling they can be 'good entertainment' on occasion. And the Sunday morning talk shows. I don't think there will be another Tim Russert for a few more generations.

I'm a little partial to "Lou Dobbs" as he doesn't seem to be left or right and although he's a little "hokey", he seems to make sense or at the very least looks to make sense of the nonsensical

 

[Francis2004]

I agree, EagelSmack, what goes around comes around. So Republicans will be back in power , the question is only when.

And it really does not depend upon the republicans, it depends upon Obama. If Obama does well, Democrats will continue to remain in power. If there is no recovery by say, middle of next year, Republicans will probably gain control of the House (and perhaps the senate, though that seems less likely).

Here I agree.

Hence why I mentioned the term or two.

But I am not so sure if Obama is the only swing factor in the US. That can be said in Canada but not the US.

 

[Francis2004]

Agreed Sir Francis. The Republicans will indeed find themselves back in power some day and that is for sure.

But hey... the Democrats have one the day per se and it is their turn so they should enjoy and perhaps try and do some good.

All in good time..

Each must enjoy their day in the sun.. How long I do not know and do not have a crystal ball and care not to try and say.. :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

I agree, EagelSmack, what goes around comes around. So Republicans will be back in power , the question is only when.

And it really does not depend upon the republicans, it depends upon Obama. If Obama does well, Democrats will continue to remain in power. If there is no recovery by say, middle of next year, Republicans will probably gain control of the House (and perhaps the senate, though that seems less likely).

IMO I do not think the GOP will win back the house so soon. When the GOP owned both houses and the Executive office they did absolutley nothing and deserved the drubbing they got. People aren't so quick to forget that either. I'd say if things are still bad in four years then the Exec Office and the House may be in jeopardy for the Dems.

 

[Cannuck]

Interesting propaganda piece. I don't think even Faux could have done better.

 

[Spade]

Interesting propaganda piece. I don't think even Faux could have done better.

 

[Toro]

Liberals advocating a one party state.

Hmmm, that's interesting...

 

[Spade]

Liberals advocating a one party state.

Hmmm, that's interesting...

Rather than two identical parties, maybe three or more different parties might make sense!

 

[L Gilbert]

I'd be happy with one that actually worked, given that it had the population's best interest at heart. So far, I've been disappointed.

 

[EagleSmack]

Liberals advocating a one party state.

Hmmm, that's interesting...

I wonder who's party they are advocating.

 

[petros]

Seems to me it's the republic that is under attack more so than the republican.