Oh-bama

[bjmdds]

[video][/video]

[bjmdds]

President Obama Job Approval
Job Approval on Economy | Job Approval on Foreign Policy
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 10/25 - 11/17 -- 42.0 53.6 -11.6
Gallup 11/14 - 11/16 1500 A 44 51 -7
Rasmussen Reports 11/15 - 11/17 1500 LV 48 51 -3
The Economist/YouGov 11/8 - 11/10 696 RV 40 58 -18
Pew Research 11/6 - 11/9 1353 A 43 52 -9
Reuters/Ipsos 11/5 - 11/9 1624 A 36 57 -21
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/30 - 11/1 1200 RV 42 52 -10
FOX News 10/25 - 10/27 734 LV 41 54 -13

[Kristatos]

You're still obsessing over Obama's poll numbers? The midterms are over and he's not running in 2016. What relevance do they have any more to anyone except Obama himself?

Edited to add: yes, an unpopular president can act as a drag on his party's candidate in a subsequent election, but Hillary has so much baggage of her own that I hardly think he'll even be a factor.

[bjmdds]

His legacy will be a HUGE downward drag to the Democratic party just as Bush's was to the Republicans in 2008. It means a LOT if Oh-bama's numbers tank for 2016. Hillary is no longer a shoe-in. Many "progressives" are NOT at all happy with her and there are calls for Deblasio from NY and Warren from Massachusetts to face her in the primaries. There are NO moderate Democrats any longer. The liberal (progressive) wing has co-opted their party, for now.

[Kristatos]

His legacy will be a HUGE downward drag to the Democratic party just as Bush's was to the Republicans in 2008. It means a LOT if Oh-bama's numbers tank for 2016. Hillary is no longer a shoe-in. Many "progressives" are NOT at all happy with her and there are calls for Deblasio from NY and Warren from Massachusetts to face her in the primaries. There are NO moderate Democrats any longer. The liberal (progressive) wing has co-opted their party, for now.

There are calls for them to run, but that doesn't mean they'll do it, let alone actually win the primaries. And the Republicans have had their campaign against Hillary on ice since at least 2006. Of course, 2016 is a long way off, so it's foolish to make predictions at this stage, but my hunch is that there will be little to be gained by tying her to Obama when she has so many negatives of her own.

[bjmdds]

Who knows if she will even run at this point? Her book tour tanked. The left wingers do not want her as their candidate, She will be an aged looking 69 going into the heart of the election and she refuses to be interviewed by those who are not her supporters and that won't fly once a person runs for President. The Republicans will have VERY STRONG candidates in 2016 and my pick right now is Scott Walker from Wisconsin.

[Kristatos]

Who knows if she will even run at this point? Her book tour tanked. The left wingers do not want her as their candidate, She will be an aged looking 69 going into the heart of the election and she refuses to be interviewed by those who are not her supporters and that won't fly once a person runs for President. The Republicans will have VERY STRONG candidates in 2016 and my pick right now is Scott Walker from Wisconsin.

She's been gearing up for this moment all her life. I don't think there's any way she won't run. Walker seems a good bet, he certainly has all that Koch money behind him, and the fact that he was the first governor ever to survive a recall election shows that in post-Citizens United America, that pretty much guarantees a win. But GOP Kremlinologists seem to think that Jeb Bush is the party's favoured candidate. A Bush v Clinton election - I'm not sure America will be able to stand the excitement

[bjmdds]

Jeb won't get the nomination. He is the insider choice but many are 1) fed up with that family and 2) he is too soft on immigration as well.

[bjmdds]

"The New York Times is reporting an Obama administration plan that would cut out the smugglers and coyotes as the middle men of the illegal immigration business, and take over operations themselves. The plan would involve allowing Central Americans to apply for refugee status and then fly them directly to the United States, bypassing the the dangerous trip through Mexico and the border altogether.

The plan calls for US immigration officials, as well as UN officials, to interview and screen applicants in their home countries, and then fly them into the US, where they will be placed with family, friends, or a sponsor, at taxpayer expense, of course. It should also be noted that anyone who gets tagged with the refugee status becomes immediately eligible for public assistance, so tens, if not hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, brought here directly via Air Obama, would be dumped onto the already stretched and strapped welfare rolls."

[Problem Eliminator]

Its interesting how you havent posted anything about the latest Benghazi report from the republican committee. Spoiler alert: there was no conspiracy. There is no scandal.

[bjmdds]

It made no sense that the report cleared the administration from false reporting. I want to see if more info is available on it........"South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday criticized a recently released House Republican report that concludes no intelligence lapses in connection with the fatal Benghazi attacks, saying congressional investigators did a “lousy job.”

“I think the report is full of crap,” Graham, a Republican, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report released late Friday concluded the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

The report also found no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

“This report puts all the blame on the State Department and absolves the intelligence community,” Graham said.

Graham, among the most outspoken Capitol Hill lawmakers about the administration’s handling of Benghazi, also told CNN the report does not exonerate the administration.

He said the House committee is “doing a lousy job policing their own.”

Graham suggested the findings are flawed because the information was supplied by former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell and other members of the intelligence community who have already misled Congress.

The report found contradictory intelligence reports in the immediate aftermath of the attack on who carried out the strike and why.

That led Susan Rice, then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest.

The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official intentionally misled the American people.

Graham called those conclusions “a bunch of garbage.”

The criticism of Rice by Graham and other GOP senators for her handling of the Benghazi aftermath led Rice to withdraw from consideration for the secretary of state post.

Many of the new report's findings were similar to those in six previous investigations by congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.

The attacks killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. A Libyan extremist, Ahmed Abu Khatalla, is facing trial on murder charges after he was captured in Libya and taken to the U.S.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Republicans criticized the Obama administration and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is expected to run for president in 2016.

People in and out of government have alleged that a CIA response team was ordered to "stand down" after the State Department compound came under attack, that a military rescue was nixed, that officials intentionally downplayed the role of Al Qaeda figures in the attack, and that Stevens and the CIA were involved in a secret operation to spirit weapons out of Libya and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

However, the report did find that the State Department facility where Stevens and Smith were killed was not well protected and that State Department security agents knew they could not defend it from a well-armed attack.

Previous reports have found that requests for security improvements were not acted upon in Washington."

[Problem Eliminator]

So whats the new theory? That the republican members of the committee are complicit in a coverup? That theyre amazingly incompetent?

[bjmdds]

There is more to this. It will come out at some point who told the forces to stand down.

[Problem Eliminator]

No one did.

[bjmdds]

I guess the 3 soldiers who WERE THERE at the time were lying: [video][/video] There are Republicans as well as Democrats who screwed up with Hillary and Oh-bama and they ALL are covering their rear ends. I trust NO geovernment officials. They are ALL full of it

[Problem Eliminator]

Lying? Probably not. Mistaken? Almost certainly. What did the report say about those people's testimony?

[Kristatos]

I guess the 3 soldiers who WERE THERE at the time were lying: There are Republicans as well as Democrats who screwed up with Hillary and Oh-bama and they ALL are covering their rear ends. I trust NO government officials. They are ALL full of it

Whereas three guys plugging their book on Fox "News" are obviously far more trustworthy.

[bjmdds]

You think they fabricated their story Kris? By the way, MSNBC creates an alternate reality to the facts of life, so feel free to watch them with Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz for the truth or with CNN and that shmuck Wolf Blitzer. Kris, explain to me specifically how POLL after POLL rates Fox news more reliable than ANY other news organization in existence right now, more so than ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, or CNN.

[Problem Eliminator]

Polls are not a good way of determining an outlets reliability.

[Kristatos]

You think they fabricated their story Kris? By the way, MSNBC creates an alternate reality to the facts of life, so feel free to watch them with Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz for the truth or with CNN and that shmuck Wolf Blitzer. Kris, explain to me specifically how POLL after POLL rates Fox news more reliable than ANY other news organization in existence right now, more so than ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, or CNN.

I've not seen the polls. I have seen one which suggests that Fox News viewers are less well-informed than people who watch no news at all.