Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Are liberals falling out of love with Obama?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Respect My Authoritah
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party

In the wake of President Barack Obama's Oval Office address to the country last Tuesday, a narrative has been on the march: liberals, the people who served as the electoral backbone for his candidacy in 2008, have fallen out of love with the chief executive.

Jon Stewart took on the topic on his "Daily Show" -- detailing a series of campaign commitments from Obama on topics ranging from the closure of Guantanamo Bay to his attitude toward executive power and the comparing the actual policies' similarities to those policies put in place by former President George W. Bush. "What happened to Barry from the block," asked Stewart.

Two of MSNBC's primetime hosts -- Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow -- also expressed displeasure with the address, an unhappiness captured by Maddow's long sigh when asked to assess the speech.

And, even prior to Obama's speech last week, organized labor had tried to send a message to the Administration about the lack of movement for a progressive agenda by spending $10 million on an ultimately unsuccessful primary challenge to Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.

The bickering over the Arkansas race -- a White House aide said labor had flushed $10
million down the toilet -- led AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka to pronounce himself "very disappointed" with the back and forth.

Ross Douthat, in a column that ran this morning in the New York Times, summed up the liberal agita thusly:

"Many liberals look at this White House and see a presidency adrift -- unable to respond effectively to the crisis in the gulf, incapable of rallying the country to great tasks like the quest for clean energy, and unwilling to do what it takes to jump-start the economy."

Open and shut case, right? Not so fast.

A look at Obama's standing among both liberals and liberal Democrats in a series of national polls conducted by the Washington Post and ABC since the start of Obama's presidency shows little significant erosion in his numbers.

In the most recent Post/ABC survey, which was conducted earlier this month, 74 percent of self-identified liberals approved of the job Obama was doing as compared with 24 percent who disapproved. Those numbers were even stronger among liberal Democrats -- 85 percent of whom expressed approval for how Obama was handling the presidency.

Those numbers -- among liberals and liberal Democrats -- have fallen from Obama's high water mark around his 100th day in office but are remarkably consistent with his overall approval ratings for the entirety of 2010. (In 2009, Obama's approval among liberals averaged 86 percent while so far in 2010 in stands at 77 percent.)

The Post/ABC data isn't unique in showing a steady but very slight erosion for Obama among self-identified liberals over the past 18 months and little evidence of an increased level of disapproval of late.

In Gallup data, Obama's highest job approval score (92 percent) among liberals came in early May 2009. But, his current standing (77 percent) is at or above the average Gallup number over the past few months -- including a low of 73 percent in March 2010.

There are three reasons to suspect that these numbers may not tell the whole story, however:

1. If there is genuine discontent with Obama rising from the liberal grassroots on up, it will likely take a bit of time to be reflected in polling. Most news organizations will poll again in early July and, if there is a genuine erosion in Obama's numbers among liberals, it's likely to come to the surface in those numbers.

2. On hot-button issues Obama is deeply invested in -- the economy, the war in Afghanistan -- there is already evidence of considerable unrest among his liberal base. On Afghanistan, nearly seven in ten (68 percent) of liberals say the war is not worth fighting with a whopping 58 percent saying they feel that way strongly. Obama's numbers on his Administration's approach to the economy and the oil spill are significantly stronger but in each case there is roughly one in three liberals who disapprove of how he is handling the matter. Given that Obama isn't likely to back away from his positioning on any of those issues, it could be recipe for growing discontent with his presidency among liberals.

3. Voicing broad support for Obama's agenda is one thing, feeling energized enough about that agenda to turn out in the November midterm election is something entirely different. The enthusiasm gap made plain by Gallup this morning -- 35 percent of self-identified Democrats said they were more enthusiastic about this midterm election than previous ones while 56 percent said they were less enthusiastic -- could well be one leading indicator of how Obama's base is simply not as fired up and ready to go as it once was. Of course, that same enthusiasm gap could be attributed to the age-old trend that the minority party always feels more enthusiastic about turning out in a midterm election in hopes of sending a message to the party in power.

What does all of this mean for November -- not to mention 2012?

History suggests that in the immediate run-up to a presidential election, wayward base voters tend to come home as the race is framed as a choice between someone they largely agree with and someone they don't.

While Obama must stay aware of the unrest -- to the extent it exists -- on his left flank, it's not likely to be a major problem in 2012. (Remember how former Sen. Bill Bradley was going to exploit liberal discontent with then Vice President Al Gore 's incremental approach to issues in the 2000 Democratic presidential primaries? Didn't happen.)

If there is further evidence of unhappiness among liberals -- and, to be clear, there isn't much in the data just yet -- it could have some influence on this fall as midterm elections tend to be battles between the two party bases and even the slightest downturn in enthusiasm among liberals could lead to major seat gains for Republicans.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 21, 2010; 2:40 PM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Undecideds run high in Utah Senate primary
Next: Wal-Mart Moms and the Midterms

Comments

Obama still has support... this is just a pity story for the bitter conservatives so they can feel a modicum of justification for that sour taste in their mouths. Remember when they were calling all the "liberals" bitter because Bush got re elected? Now the shoe is on the other foot and they don't like it. Whatever... I'm a centrist and still support Obama. It's a 4 year term not a 2 year. I like to get to that last year before I start judging someone who was handed a plane wreak to start with.

Posted by: tara172 | June 22, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street

Shut the &*!@ up!


Thanks in advance.

Posted by: yahoo999 | June 22, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

There's no limit to what all-powerful government can accomplish under the Right Leader. Carter was a truly great president - we must prevent the voters from ever again making such a mistake as was voting him out. Barack Hussein Obama (Mm-mm-mm) is destined to be far greater. We must keep our boots on the throats of those who would impede his wise and beneficent care of us, his children. We must kick the asses of naysayers who claim spending our way to prosperity is "impossible". Yes We Can!

Posted by: leapin | June 22, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

This would be extremely funny if it weren't so sad. You liberals picked him, now you're stuck with him. The really unfortunate part of course is that we all have to live with him because so many idiots were taken in by his b.s. Who couldn't see this guy coming? Come on, he barely had any experience whatsoever and people elected him to sit in the White House??? I have never before in my life been so worried about a President until this guy came along.

Posted by: Pamela_43 | June 22, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT LOSING HIS SUPPORTER BUT SOME ARE GETTING IMPAIENT OVER US NOT GETTING OUT OF IRAQ,WE NEED TO FOLLOW UP ON GETTING OUT NOW,AND TURNING THE AFGANISTAN MESS OVER TO THE UNITED NATIONS,SO WE CAN START TO CONVERT MORE OF ARE TIME TO CREATING FREE CLEAN ENERGY THROUGH WIND AND WATER POWER AND SOLAR ENERGY

Posted by: IUPAPAW | June 22, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The problem the alleged "Liberals" such as Chris "MacMouth" Mathhews, Rachel"Mad Cow" Madow and Kieth "Old Blabbermouth" Olberman have is that they have watched way too many episodes of "The West Wing". No real president, can neatly solve the crisis he his presented with by the end of an hour-long TV show. Neither is one speech is going to fire-up the nation. Ask Abraham Lincoln how well his "Gettysburg Address" went over with reporters. The president's job is to both govern and to lead the nation. These are two distinct tasks. Moreover, President Obama is not just the president of the far left and who ever holds this position has to be carefully consider all his options and pick and choose among those that will have the best chance of working. These may not be the ones that that the aforementioned members of the 4th Estate would choose but these worthies were not elected and they are not otherwise, even in the least bit, in charge of the fate of the nation and the world. Obviously Mathews, Madow and Olberman can and should criticize the president but they should refrain from their instant and often hysterical Fox News-like rantings. Settle down boys and girl and don't condem the man who has the awsome reponsibility of managing and leading us on the basis of a speech that he did not want to or even need to make.

Posted by: miguelhdz | June 22, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The thing that is truly sad is that Obama's detractor's can't come up with anything of substance. They throw around labels like "socialist" with no understanding of what the term means and resort to childish name-calling any twelve-year old would roll his eyes at.

Stepping back, You can see that the economy has been recovering. The health care bill that was passed is so far from socialism that the mere mention makes real socialists guffaw (clue: there are still private insurance companies running the show!). Quite frankly, if the President had been as far leftist as is claimed, US wealth would not have been redistributed into the pockets of the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Instead, those of us who don't fall into that category would have seen some relief. But the fact remains that taxes still favor the richest few, and the middle class is being pushed out of existence as they are sold a bill of goods by Republican corporate lackeys.

Sure, vote the Dems out. Get ripped off by the Republicans a bit more. One day you'll figure out that the Government doesn't have your money. The Republicans have rewritten the tax code to give it to their rich buddies, and we'll all be nothing but serfs to the megacorps.

Posted by: lurkittyfb | June 22, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Folks, if you haven't figured it out, everyone is falling out of love with the president. He appears to be an egotistical, intellectual elitist...it is his agenda and it does not matter what anyone else has to say. The Gulf oil spill is nothing more than a distraction, an annoyance that interferes with his agenda. So, he used the spill to further his next agenda item, his energy bill... which will cost you dearly in rate increases across the board.

Posted by: Bockscar | June 22, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Often when I found myself in a impossible situation as Obama is in with the blow out, my father General Keeton would suggest I stand on my head and spit bb's. Now I finally know what he meant. Now, about our situation, it is quite possible if McCain had have won he would have had a heart attack and Sara Paylin would now be the Commander in Chief. If that were the case we might all be standing on our heads spitting bb's.

Posted by: trooperkeeton | June 22, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Maerzie-

You found some facts about different topics, and that is nice-but still did not refute my problems with him as a leftist. And buddy, I have been a leftist and activist my whole life, so I don't need some apologist for this middle of the road, self preserving administration to tell me I listen to Repug talking points.

Since you were interested in the tarp/bailout and stimulus- lets talk about that plan- a "top down" plan where the banks were given money for failing- Bush and Obama responded to it similarly, even as it was Bush's fault. In Sept 2007 (look it up) Hillary had a speech on the potential for the house of cards economy to fall- and proposed freezing all mortgages (ala Roosevelt with banks) and renegotiating. Obama did not deal with the potential problem until April 2008 and dismissed the bottom up approach as political. The stimulus package was 45% tax cuts- which have been proven by Reaganomics NOT TO STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH- and was generally a 350 billion dollar way to get Specter and Snowe to sign on when he didn't even need them.

He has taken no action to renew the assault weapons ban, even as our law reeks havoc in Latin America. He has given lip service to same sex civil rights. He has increased our presence in Afghanistan. Rather than being a game changer, the health care bill just shifts the ever growing costs from the richer to the poorer, which is an improvement, but the system is still unsustainable. There is a reason that every other industrial nation utilizes single payer type systems of one type or another, cost control. Our fee-for service system and mandatory money going to private companies is not a way to reduce the exponential increases in cost- even if the rich now will pay their fair share.

I suggest you do all of your reading, take off your rose colored glasses and stop apologizing for the guy. At very least stop attacking anyone who has legitimate beef with someone who has not governed in the way that was needed. This was the opportunity for a new deal or a great society, instead he governed to the right of Carter and Clinton for each of their first year+.

Posted by: NYClefty | June 22, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Maerzie-

You found some facts about different topics, and that is nice-but still did not refute my problems with him as a leftist. And buddy, I have been a leftist and activist my whole life, so I don't need some apologist for this middle of the road, self preserving administration to tell me I listen to Repug talking points.

Since you were interested in the tarp/bailout and stimulus- lets talk about that plan- a "top down" plan where the banks were given money for failing- Bush and Obama responded to it similarly, even as it was Bush's fault. In Sept 2007 (look it up) Hillary had a speech on the potential for the house of cards economy to fall- and proposed freezing all mortgages (ala Roosevelt with banks) and renegotiating. Obama did not deal with the potential problem until April 2008 and dismissed the bottom up approach as political. The stimulus package was 45% tax cuts- which have been proven by Reaganomics NOT TO STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH- and was generally a 350 billion dollar way to get Specter and Snowe to sign on when he didn't even need them.

He has taken no action to renew the assault weapons ban, even as our law reeks havoc in Latin America. He has given lip service to same sex civil rights. He has increased our presence in Afghanistan. Rather than being a game changer, the health care bill just shifts the ever growing costs from the richer to the poorer, which is an improvement, but the system is still unsustainable. There is a reason that every other industrial nation utilizes single payer type systems of one type or another, cost control. Our fee-for service system and mandatory money going to private companies is not a way to reduce the exponential increases in cost- even if the rich now will pay their fair share.

I suggest you do all of your reading, take off your rose colored glasses and stop apologizing for the guy. At very least stop attacking anyone who has legitimate beef with someone who has not governed in the way that was needed. This was the opportunity for a new deal or a great society, instead he governed to the right of Carter and Clinton for each of their first year+.

Posted by: NYClefty | June 22, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse


yes it is very true that major brands always give out free samples on health products check out http://bit.ly/bhhLUy tell your friends also

Posted by: maidalan22 | June 22, 2010 5:26 AM | Report abuse

Lost my original comments. As I was saying, President Obama has been under scruntiny from hundreds of "pundits" and racists for his entire presidency 24/7. Pundits have to say something negative to keep their jobs. Progressives and liberals who voted for President Obama should understand clearly what's going on. If they can't read the 'tea partiers' and 'birthers' then we are indeed in deep dung!
Maybe if the media had used a tidbit of this "scrunity" of Obama for the Bush Administration, we would not be in this awful mess.

Posted by: thelma1 | June 22, 2010 3:16 AM | Report abuse

Lost my original comments. As I was saying, President Obama has been under scruntiny from hundreds of "pundits" and racists for his entire presidency 24/7. Pundits have to say something negative to keep their jobs. Progressives and liberals who voted for President Obama should understand clearly what's going on. If they can't read the 'tea partiers' and 'birthers' then we are indeed in deep dung!
Maybe if the media had used a tidbit of this "scrunity" of Obama for the Bush Administration, we would not be in this awful mess.

Posted by: thelma1 | June 22, 2010 3:16 AM | Report abuse

Lost my original comments. As I was saying, President Obama has been under scruntiny from hundreds of "pundits" and racists for his entire presidency 24/7. Pundits have to say something negative to keep their jobs. Progressives and liberals who voted for President Obama should understand clearly what's going on. If they can't read the 'tea partiers' and 'birthers' then we are indeed in deep dung!
Maybe if the media had used a tidbit of this "scrunity" of Obama for the Bush Administration, we would not be in this awful mess.

Posted by: thelma1 | June 22, 2010 3:16 AM | Report abuse

"the Tea Party movement is gaining momentum"

hahhahaha yeah it's almost reached the cliff edge

the baggers are yesterday's news, even the GOP knows they're poison. Grow a fu cking brain.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 22, 2010 2:50 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who loves Obama gets everything they deserve. Obama is still trying to push his welfare state spending sprees on the Europeans, they can hardly contain their laughter.

All of this analysis is coming from the Democrats. The rest of the country has buried the welfare state idea. The Tea Party movement is gaining momentum, it's message is simple, fiscal responsibility, small unobtrusive government, jobs, healthy private sector generating growth, and that message resonates with Americans, not Gay Marriage, and Health Care.

That was the path the Democrats could have taken, but chose not to, now it will cost them. It will be such a wonderful to get moving again. The Obama administrations, blaming, shaming, negativity, can't do attitude, is really wearing everyone down.

Posted by: jjoyce6018 | June 22, 2010 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Oh he still will take care of his campain promises. He has over two more years to do it. But, but you must remember that he may of thought he might get one or two Republicans to go along with some of his new programs. He got 0! Now just try to get any thing done. He had to get one of the hardest things ever passed and did it with 0 halp from the Republicans. Even Big Bill could not do that.

Posted by: rutoft64 | June 22, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

"Liberals falling out of love"??? Heck, I fell out of 'like' months ago. Our problem, as noted by Bill Maher, is that democracy has failed us- there is no one to vote for. Obama will likely get our votes because the GOP has, incredibly, gone further to the right! One almost wonders if they work this out...

Posted by: ihateliars | June 22, 2010 1:32 AM | Report abuse

1 AM and still bzzzzt-brain is at the keyboard spewing away.

Hurry up and OD on that stuff.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 22, 2010 1:17 AM | Report abuse

So let me summarize these comments:


For a very long time, the Conservatives have been saying Obama is a FRAUD - and his campaign in 2008 was a FRAUD on the American People.


Now the liberals are saying Obama is a FRAUD, that he isn't putting his platform into place - and his campaign in 2008 was a FRAUD.


Sounds like Obama is uniting the nation - finally a BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 22, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

I think the whole nation is gradually coming to the consensus that Obama should be put on trial and thrown in jail.

This thing with Kyl - if true - is illegal.

Ironically, it is the same thing Blago is on trial for right now. You would think that Obama would learn from Blago, Ha !


Well - the country still deserves a special prosecutor for the Obama-Valerie Jarrett- Blago combo with the union official scandal.

The Sestak Scandal.

The Obama-Romanoff Scandal.

And all that adds up to a RICO conviction.


PLUS Blago is walking around a little too confident in his trial - one has to wonder if he is holding back some juicy information on Obama -

It would make sense that Blago would be trying to offer to keep this information silent - in exchange for getting out of the charges against him.

So, if Blago believes that he is NOT getting this deal, he just might decide to reveal this information.

See Blago is holding onto this info because he needs it - to get off - and he is trying to bargain with it -

Otherwise, if Blago feels as though that plan will not work, he just might spill the beans.

But there is just too much stuff going on with Blago - Rahm - Obama - Tony Rezko - come on folks -

This story is not over.


I think the London odds on seeing Obama in an orange jumpsuit at the end of all this is 50-50 right now.


.
.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 22, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

I did have an entire response written, NYClefty", but I did some stupid move and the whole column disappeared, so I'm not sure I can re-capture the thought.

I do know that the Wall Street collapse occurred on Bush's watch, only weeks after they had announced that the economy was sound! I'm sure they knew what was happening by then, but they crossed their fingers and just HOPED it wouldn't come to a head till Obama took office so he could be blamed.

It just sounds like you have fallen for the spins from the Republicans instead of using your head and facts, and THAT sure doesn't sound very much like a Leftist Democrat. Also, like I said earlier, all the plans and regulations were set up for the deep sea drilling by the oil barons, Bush and Cheney, themselves. This gusher is the FIRST that their plan(?) was being tested. It is not customary (and I have NEVER heard of it at all) that a President changes all the legislation of the previous administration without any trial and error for change. Surely, the two oil men should have known reams more about what to restrict or precaution in their planning anyway than Obama would know off the cuff. But THEY made the useless "sweetheart deal" with their cronies that Obama will be blamed for, and that he has been working on almost 24/7 since the reckless ness caused the gusher!

Facts are facts. And the facts ARE that Bush and Cheney actually ARE responsible for a LOT of VERY SERIOUS problems that are keeping Obama stonewalled as far as any of the plans HE had!

However, if you feel it's right to absolve Bush and Cheney for their negligence in formulating a plan to allow BP to police themselves, and pretend as if none of it is their fault, you are NOT looking at the whole picture.

Needless to say, I am retired, so I can and usually DO study these political occurrences more than most, and I also do lots of research into the details. I do believe Obama is being codemned by many people who don't even bother to find out the complete story and reasoning, which is why I think YOU should run for the office so you will have a more complete picture of the reasons for the outcome. I know that I DO understand lots of the reasoning, and I wouldn't want the job for several trillion or ANY amount of money. Any person accepting that thankless job has to be nuts!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 22, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

So,since I live in Phoenix,Arizona and I have faith in Senator Jon Kyl telling the
truth about what Der Leader Comrade Messiah
Golfer in Chief Barack Hussein Obama told him,about why he (Obama)and Eric Holder and
Janet Napolitano will not secure our violence ridden US and Mexico border. I add
all Comrade from Kenya Barack Obama and the
Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid Democrats
see in 40 Million Illegal Alien Criminals
are 40 Million New Democrat Votes,in return
for Illegal Alien Amnesty,Instant US Citizenship and Democrat Party Voter Registration and Free Everything. Impeach
Obama and Vote every incumbent Democrat Out
on Election Days 2010 and 2012!

Posted by: Jan1977 | June 22, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

in a private meeting in the Oval Office, Obama said “the problem” with border enforcement measures is that “if we secure the border then [Republicans] won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”


Kyl said the president’s supposed statement is proof that Democrats “don’t want to secure the border unless or until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.”


___________________________________


This story has been going around for a few weeks now - that this is the White House position.

The problem is that it is ILLEGAL.


Obama can not withhold executive branch actions - which he is legally obligated to perform - in exchange for political benefits.

Obama is also changing the dynamic on Capitol Hill - because normally a President can not bargain with withholding enforcement - Obama would have to bargain with something else.


IN ANY EVENT THIS IS A DISGRACE.


OBAMA IS A DISGRACE TO DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

Obama should resign - if Bush did this, the democrats would be screaming.


The country deserves a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE THIS AND THE OTHER OBAMA CRIMES.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 22, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

"Democrap Socialist."

armpeg, did you even graduate from high school? Or is high school somewhere in your future?

Between you and this immature junk, zouk and his drivl & Obungler, "and" brigade with, well,everything he posts, it's tempting to conclude that there's a direct connection between conservative politics and FAILING TO GROW UP.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Give him a break, Chris. I won't catalog all the details (because you know them), but this president has seen more than most in his 18 months and has worked harder than most to confront them.

You have stated gazillions of times that you are stubbornly neutral, but this diatribe exposes your right-wing hand. Say hi to Dick Cheney when you see him next time in Falls Church.

Posted by: tjbv1 | June 21, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Maerzie-

I will not be lured into some sort of personal attack thing with you- since you did not refute one point I made- it is better to ignore someone who can only hurl insults.

I have been involved with the Dem party since I was 13- working for Mondale/Ferraro, Cuomo, Dinkins, Jackson and a host of others- so please don't tell me I am a Republican.

Dems who get starry eyed for this guy who has done nothing for their cause and continues to do nothing for their cause- and will constantly make excuses for why he betrays liberal principals are just as bad as a bunch of talk radio listening repugs.

Maybe this blog thing is just not the venue for conversation.

Posted by: NYClefty | June 21, 2010 11:34 PM | Report abuse

There is nowhere for the libs to go but to Obama. They might whine but he's all they have and they can't think for themselves so far as any alternative. Having drunk the kool-aid, they are lemmings to amorphous oratory. Eventually they will learn, just as Greece, Italy, France, Norway, etc.. have learned, even with their 75% -82% taxation, you eventually run out of other people's money when you try to support cradle to grave entitlements. Example: wonder why they don't ask why U.S. drilling is suspended but $2 billion is going to Brazil for drilling there. Hmmmm? Could there be an agenda behind that kool aid? No one asks.

Posted by: mickeyc606 | June 21, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Actually, NYClefty, why don't YOU run "next time"!?? You know the saying:

"Those who "CAN", DO!.....Those who "CAN'T", CRITICIZE!"

It sounds much more far right Republican than even a middle of the road "leftie"! That's what Republicans are notorious for: criticizing and voting "NO"!

Posted by: Maerzie
===========================================

Actually, Obama and the rest of you liberals retards have done nothing but point fingers and critize everyone but yourselves for the current situation! So you want to talk about those "who Cant", just take a good look in the mirror!

Silly liberals! I think you all are afraid to admit that you were sold a bag of goods with this guy. So in order to save face you have to support him no matter how insane and uneffective his policies are!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | June 21, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Actually, NYClefty, why don't YOU run "next time"!?? You know the saying:

"Those who "CAN", DO!.....Those who "CAN'T", CRITICIZE!"

It sounds much more far right Republican than even a middle of the road "leftie"! That's what Republicans are notorious for: criticizing and voting "NO"!

Posted by: Maerzie
===========================================

Actually, Obama and the rest of you liberals retards have done nothing but point fingers and critize everyone but yourselves for the current situation! So you want to talk about those "who Cant", just take a good look in the mirror!

Silly liberals! I think you all are afraid to admit that you were sold a bag of goods with this guy. So in order to save face you have to support him no matter how insane and uneffective his policies are!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | June 21, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

The rest of America is already soured on this sorry excuse for an American president. This country desperately needs a leader but all we've got is a community organizer and agitator.

Posted by: elby | June 21, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Yes, but have you looked at how many are now SELF IDENTIFYING as liberals, next to how many did so two or three years ago?

Posted by: sailingaway1 | June 21, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I think that we Liberals are getting tired of seeing so many important initiatives being written off by Obama and Rahm Emmanuel, or Obama and Bob Gates, or Obama and Tim Geitner, because they are calculated to be politically impossible or at least very difficult and thus not worth expending political capital. It seems to me like huge warning signs are going off everywhere, like the Wall Street collapse, like the oil spill, like the mine disasters, like the rising cost of health care. And where it seems like Obama should be able to run the table on reforms, he always gets stuck in the realm of business as usual in Washington, and we get watered-down reform at the very best. You can say the whole system is bad, and its not Obama's fault. But if that's the case, why isn't he making changing the bad system a top priority? It was probably deemed to be too difficult.

I do think Obama is a good man, and he is very smart, and is basically a good representative of America on the world stage. But when it comes to fighting the good fight in Washington, he's no Lyndon Johnson or Franklyn Roosevelt. The military budget has gone up, rendition still goes on, Gitmo is not closed, he's been hands-off on Don't Ask Don't Tell. A Public Option it seemed was happily tossed over the side like ballast with no push-back from the White House. Private industry insiders populate his cabinet (Geitner, Salazar, etc.). The two newest Supreme Court nominees are less liberal than the people they were nominated to replace, both of which were REPUBLICAN nominees!!

So anyway, yes Liberals have a right to be soured on Obama. Good Presidents work well within the political system to get things done. Great Presidents change boundaries of the whole political system for the better. Given the scope of challenges we face and the damage done to this country over the last 30 years, we need more than a good President right now. I am tired of seeing proud, hard-charging conservatives in the White House interspersed with Democrats who run in the middle, work in the middle, never stray from the middle, etc. This is a center-right country about as much as it is a center-left country. So let's have a President who stands up for Liberal values because they make sense. Centrism and pragmatism are great traits, sometimes. When that’s ALL you’ve got in a President, it doesn’t inspire people very much, and the whole system never gets changed.

Posted by: Scubergmu | June 21, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Actually, NYClefty, why don't YOU run "next time"!?? You know the saying:

"Those who "CAN", DO!.....Those who "CAN'T", CRITICIZE!"

It sounds much more far right Republican than even a middle of the road "leftie"! That's what Republicans are notorious for: criticizing and voting "NO"!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

To the comment at 10:51


Exactly the leftists were never in love with Obama - they were in love with their far left wing agenda.

They were just using Obama.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"nharewp wrote: What kind of love is it that bails out when the going gets rough, when the battle has only begun?"

************

EXACTLY! Love simply gets stronger and more durable when the bumps are endured together. And God knows, the bumps and the ruts, the Ponzi schemes, the Republican welfare recipients, the oil gushings, and the anti-Obama campaign definitely are the most severe of tests. We'll survive with flying colors! There's nothing phoney in loving America and wanting what's good for us all!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Have to admit I am further left than most "liberals" and never got why they were supporting this guy who has:

a) no progressive voting record, state senate, or national senate

b) less ambitiously progressive policy proposals than his Democratic party rivals including Hillary- who had a far more aggressive domestic policy

c) a notable tendency to negotiate from a point of weakness and make concessions before even asking for anything

Thus we have not addressed gun policy, immigration, trade policy or civil rights issues-

We have weakly addressed the environment, regulation of financing, jobs and healthcare at a time that systematic changes were possible and necessary-

And we have continued or escalated many of the worst of the Bush policies including warrentless searches, Guantanemo, Afghanistan, Drone attacks, etc.

He was the lazy man's vision of change- he never really promised any more than he has delivered.

Perhaps next time we can read the label before buying the product.

Posted by: NYClefty | June 21, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

You don't spend $15 million trying to send Obama a message by defeating his candidate. We begin to see why cynics say there's no difference between liberals and conservatives; or even that liberals are worse, being "wishwashy" if not dishonest. You sat through eight years of George Bush. Do you want to do that again? They'll be glad to accommodate you if you don't grow up. "Falling out of love" with Obama? What kind of love is it that bails out when the going gets rough, when the battle has only begun?

Posted by: nharewp | June 21, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

It was a meeting with Kyl. Kyl lying to three people instead of one is still Kyl lying. As I said, ask his wife about his versimilitude. She'll help you out with that one.

Buh-Bye

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 21, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington


Kyl is not lying - because the same story about the White House position has surfaced in at least two other places over the past few weeks.


I am certain about that.


Kyl added that Obama actually said it to him.

Besides, it was reported tonight on a panel that White House confirmed Kyl's account "on background."

No one is saying that Kyl would go to a town meeting and start lying - there is no benefit for Kyl to do that - and it makes no sense.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Most hilarious post of the evening:

*****

"armpeg wrote: If you want all the news from all sides of any issue, you'll have to go to Fox News. They're the only "Watchdog for the People" we Americans have left."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Obviously another gullible highschool dropout, who doesn't understand the big words in the REAL news programs. Yes, FAUX knows how to come down to their level cuz they NEED all the uneducated voters they can con!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

From Politico:


in a private meeting in the Oval Office, Obama said “the problem” with border enforcement measures is that “if we secure the border then [Republicans] won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”


Kyl said the president’s supposed statement is proof that Democrats “don’t want to secure the border unless or until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.”

___________________________________

This story has been going around for a few weeks now - that this is the White House position.


The problem is that it is ILLEGAL.

Obama can not withhold executive branch actions - which he is legally obligated to perform - in exchange for political benefits.


Obama is also changing the dynamic on Capitol Hill - because normally a President can not bargain with withholding enforcement - Obama would have to bargain with something else.

IN ANY EVENT THIS IS A DISGRACE.

OBAMA IS A DISGRACE TO DEMOCRACY ITSELF.


Obama should resign - if Bush did this, the democrats would be screaming.

The country deserves a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE THIS AND THE OTHER OBAMA CRIMES.

.


.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

That's OK, Hoya. Kyl is lying. You might ask his wife about his honesty. Assuming she speaks trollese.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 21, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

If Senator John Kyl is telling the truth, OBAMA HAS ANOTHER SCANDAL ON HIS HANDS.

First of all - this is not the first time the story has come out that Obama is TRYING TO WITHHOLD ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS, in exchange for comprehensive immigration reform.

Clearly, this seems to be a horrible road to go down.


NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY WANTS AMNESTY.

And yet, Obama doesn't think he represents what AMERICA WANTS.


Isn't this the same thing that BLAGO IS ON TRIAL FOR ???

In that trial, Blago is accused of withholding the release of appropriated money to schools and hospitals - in exchange for something.


Well - ISN'T THAT WHAT OBAMA IS DOING - WITHHOLDING AN EXECUTIVE ACTION - holding out for something in exchange ?


Sure sounds like Obama should be indicted.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Thank God the teenage nutcases have gone out to get their drugs. Maybe this can turn into a sensible blog again.

Obviously there's no moderator tonight.

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

There are two groups in America on this issue - and what it proves is that the democrats are BANKRUPT OF ALL IDEAS.


The ideas of the democrats now have unrealistically high price-tags - and try to talk to a democrat about the cost of anything they want - and they have no idea


What is worse THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT THE COSTS OF THEIR IDEAS ARE.


THE LIBERALS want to:


- triple our electicity bills


- run gasoline to $7.00 a gallon


- Run the budget deficit over a trillion dollars for Obama's entire term


- Waste the stimulus money on special interest groups


- Run the Health Care Agencies like the Minerals Management Service.


Your biggest problem is the Obama administration is incompetent - and it WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO AS MUCH DAMAGE AS YOU ARE AIMING TO.


.


Sad.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

hey, armpeg. Don't you mean...
LAME stream media???? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

"Democrap Socialist Party you refer to"

and who was it that you said hates America with such vile language describing a party that opposes your political view of America?

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

"Democrap Socialist Party you refer to"

and who was it that you said hates America with such vile language describing a party that opposes your political view of America?

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Who cares what the America--hating yahoos like Mathews, Olberman, Maddow, Stewart, or what's mistakenly known as the Main Stream Media like WaPo, thinks about America's Socialist Comrade Barack Obama. All their news has to be taken with a grain of salt anyway, since they all are in the tank with the Democrap Socialist Party anyway, and always censor news that might do political damage to them.
As much as all you Obama--worshippers are whining now about Comrade Obama, you'll all vote for this incompetent dope anyway come 2012, no matter how he screws up our country.
If you want all the news from all sides of any issue, you'll have to go to Fox News. They're the only "Watchdog for the People" we Americans have left.

Posted by: armpeg | June 21, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully the President will ultimately seek to satisfy all liberal and progressive supporters, since that will assure the loss of his congressional majorities and a potential second term. The key current trend is the independents abandoning the good ship "Leveler," not what is going on in either fringe.

Posted by: mark31 | June 21, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

"Its relevance is that there are enough nutbaggers to go around, without trying to hang them all on one party of the other"


are you suggesting that Ms. Rogers and Ms. Angel are both nutbaggers? if so that would be a pretty accurate, bold and honest admission by a conservative. my only argument with you here is that the conservatives would sure seem to have the numbers on their side as Ms. Roger's candidacy is pure insanity.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

dodger, take your anti-BHO fake controversy of the week somewhere else. To stromfront maybe?

Golf wasn't a problem when Ike, Kennedy, and Bush One played it non-stop. Why is it an issue now all of a sudden? Hmmmmmmm.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 21, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives should lay down the pipe for a moment, and get a dose of reality. The national average price of gasoline on 07/02/2001( before Cheney's national energy policy took effect) was $1.47. The Cheney regime gave out subsidies and tax breaks( and took the national debt to its highest level ever) while starting two wars of choice. As much as you might disagree with Obama's middle of the road policies, the Republicans are worse. They are the party of BP and the outsourcing of jobs and corporate welfare.

Posted by: RuEb10 | June 21, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

While Obama critcizes BP CEO Tony Hayward for participating in a yacht race; however, Obama plays golf during the massive oil spill. Obama either must be on drugs or he's so in love with himself he can't see the forest through the trees.

Below is an article from "The Hill" regarding Obama's hypocracy:

-------------------------------------------

White House dismisses critics, defends Obama's golf outings during Gulf crisis
By Sam Youngman - 06/21/10 07:20 PM ET

The White House is dismissing criticism that President Barack Obama shouldn’t play golf during the Gulf oil spill.


White House spokesman Bill Burton on Monday said the president deserves some time to relax, and he doesn’t “think that there’s a person in this country that doesn’t think that their president ought to have a little time to clear his mind.”


Obama has been on the links frequently since moving into the White House. Over the weekend, Obama played the 39th round of golf of his presidency, according to reports.


White House reporters joke among themselves about who might get stuck with weekend pool duty, which seems more likely than not to include a few hours sitting at the food court near either Andrews Air Force Base or Fort Belvoir while Obama hits the links.


Posted by: Dodgers1 | June 21, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

While Obama critcizes BP CEO Tony Hayward for participating in a yacht race; however, Obama plays golf during the massive oil spill. Obama either must be on drugs or he's so in love with himself he can't see the forest through the trees.

Below is an article from "The Hill" regarding Obama's hypocracy:

-------------------------------------------

White House dismisses critics, defends Obama's golf outings during Gulf crisis
By Sam Youngman - 06/21/10 07:20 PM ET

The White House is dismissing criticism that President Barack Obama shouldn’t play golf during the Gulf oil spill.


White House spokesman Bill Burton on Monday said the president deserves some time to relax, and he doesn’t “think that there’s a person in this country that doesn’t think that their president ought to have a little time to clear his mind.”


Obama has been on the links frequently since moving into the White House. Over the weekend, Obama played the 39th round of golf of his presidency, according to reports.


White House reporters joke among themselves about who might get stuck with weekend pool duty, which seems more likely than not to include a few hours sitting at the food court near either Andrews Air Force Base or Fort Belvoir while Obama hits the links.


Posted by: Dodgers1 | June 21, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

While Obama critcizes BP CEO Tony Hayward for participating in a yacht race; however, Obama plays golf during the massive oil spill. Obama either must be on drugs or he's so in love with himself he can't see the forest through the trees.

Below is an article from "The Hill" regarding Obama's hypocracy:

-------------------------------------------

White House dismisses critics, defends Obama's golf outings during Gulf crisis
By Sam Youngman - 06/21/10 07:20 PM ET

The White House is dismissing criticism that President Barack Obama shouldn’t play golf during the Gulf oil spill.


White House spokesman Bill Burton on Monday said the president deserves some time to relax, and he doesn’t “think that there’s a person in this country that doesn’t think that their president ought to have a little time to clear his mind.”


Obama has been on the links frequently since moving into the White House. Over the weekend, Obama played the 39th round of golf of his presidency, according to reports.


White House reporters joke among themselves about who might get stuck with weekend pool duty, which seems more likely than not to include a few hours sitting at the food court near either Andrews Air Force Base or Fort Belvoir while Obama hits the links.


Posted by: Dodgers1 | June 21, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Reesh, why does it matter who the SecTrez is? The reason the stimulus was inadequate wasn't because of Obama or Geitner. It was Congress who watered it down with a bunch of tax cuts.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Reesh, the problem is that the stimulus wasn't enough. It wasn't enough in terms of dollar amounts as well as in the type of stimulus. So much of it was based in tax cuts which is one of the least efficient types of stimulus. It leads to people saving, not spending. The use of stimulus to fund shove ready projects or extend unemployment benefits or fund medicaid are far more stimulative. In each of those, the dollar gets spent and spent providing the most bang for the stimulus buck.

************************

I know that, DDAWD. And, I think that Paul Krugman should have been offered the job of Treasury Sec. The middle-class would have been given a fighting chance. Larry Summer and Tim Geithner are the problem not the solution. Both are neocon economists, true believers. They can't help it. That's what our mono-dimensional MBA mills produce. Milton Friedman lent his reputation to the movement but neocons reduced his ideas to drivel. HOWEVER, HIS IDEAS WERE WRONG.

Capitalism is beyond salvage. It can't be done. To prop up capitalism we had to create the military-industrial complex to infuse the "free economy" with public cash. We have been doing that for a half century. I bet we are up to 30-40% of GDP trying to maintain the sham. It can't be continued. And, why should it be? to keep the 1% that owns 90% of EVERYTHING happy and content in their freedoms?

We just spilled more oil in the Gulf of Mexico than we import from the middle-east in a year. Now, why do we buy oil from middle eastern despots when we have thousands of such wells capped and unused?

Next question. Why are we giving our domestic oil reserves away to foreigners like BP? Believe it or not, if they drill it in the Gulf and it doesn't even leave the Gulf oil pipeline grid (that's a huge network under the Gulf waters) it becomes an export of the UK. Want to get a handle on deficits? Stop giving away our natural resources.

Posted by: Reesh | June 21, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

BTW, how about a shout out to internationally acclaimed trombonist Gregory Charles Royal?

Now that Phalin has learned to keep her wig on straight and has enhanced her "personality" -- allegedly -- maybe Greg should give it another try. Maybe Phalin's finally changed her, er, "policy."

Has she made any major policy statements other than the one she made to Mr. Royal?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 21, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

It's time for you to watch the "REAL" news occasionally then, Brigade, so you DO learn a couple "facts"! I don't watch your lover boys, Limbaugh and Beck. Neither one had the brains to make it through college which is WHY they're so NARROW minded. Thinking is beyond their comprehension. Riling people up is their expertise.

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama, a "center-left moderate". This is really an educational blog.

Posted by: buggerianpaisley1 | June 21, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

If we wanted the democratic conservative "Clinton", we would have voted for the candidate. This Obama "Clinton" is not very good.

The Colorado democratic party is more conservative than the republican party, and they think we love them. They even said that they have cut more money and programs than the republicans ever did. These "new" democrats will be voted out in November. These poor little rich people must lose. We can't afford them. We need jobs!

Posted by: erroll47 | June 21, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Fake 37, a special treat from your Mom. After you finish your self-abu-, er, "reading" and come up from the basement, she has for you not only two double glop mayonnaise sandwiches but ... one Twinkie. Your Mom ate the other one in the twin pack. Sorry. All the best, corner.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 21, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Prison-water (aka brig-ade) has poisoned the information stream with some disinformation about "Kesha" Rogers. Here's the real scoop on this sad Stockholm Syndrome cartoon character from wikipedia:
_____________________

"[Lakesha] Rogers is an active supporter of the LaRouche Youth Movement, and has been photographed holding a LaRouche campaign sign depicting President Obama with a Hitler mustache. Rogers has attacked President Obama for allegedly trying to dismantle NASA (a big employer in the Houston area), and supports his impeachment. She has also criticized Obama's health care reform proposals, arguing that they are fascist and will kill Americans."

Pathetic.


Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 21, 2010 8:26 PM
-------

And what was the disinformation?

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Rogers and she won't be receiving a dime from the state party. and its relevance to anything??

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 8:15 PM |
-------

Its relevance is that there are enough nutbaggers to go around, without trying to hang them all on one party of the other.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Prison-water (aka brig-ade) has poisoned the information stream with some disinformation about "Kesha" Rogers. Here's the real scoop on this sad Stockholm Syndrome cartoon character from wikipedia:
_____________________

"[Lakesha] Rogers is an active supporter of the LaRouche Youth Movement, and has been photographed holding a LaRouche campaign sign depicting President Obama with a Hitler mustache. Rogers has attacked President Obama for allegedly trying to dismantle NASA (a big employer in the Houston area), and supports his impeachment. She has also criticized Obama's health care reform proposals, arguing that they are fascist and will kill Americans."

Pathetic.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 21, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

37th, much of our energy costs are being subsidized through deficit spending by the government. We pay our $2 per gallon or whatever. But that doesn't include our military excursions, our protecting trade lanes, the costs of environmental disasters, the health problems caused by smog. I bet the Gulf Coast fishermen would be salivating at $7 gas if it meant this accident was prevented.

I don't know if it's up to $7. Americans probably pay $5 per gallon.

We sure do like our handouts, though.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the democrats is that CLEARLY the nation does not want their ideas.


So they have to jam them through.

Obama lost so many people trying to do what he has done, there will be an electorial disaster this year.

AND still the leftists are not happy with that - they want to go further to the left.

I don't know how to describe this kind of insanity.


We are talking about GOVERNING HERE - which means a government FOR the people

Not for one wing of one party -

Governing involves ALL the people - just just the wacko agenda of the leftists.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1 wrote,
"Had he been in the US Senate at the time, he would have voted for the war, too.

and you know this how; by your devine powers?"

-------

Divine powers are not necessary when one has common sense. He would have voted for the war for the same reason the other 30 Democrats voted for it. He is a man of great political aspirations, and a vote against the war, based on the intelligence available at the time, would have appeared to be a short cut to cooking one's own goose.


Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

sdavis, where are the votes coming from?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Is that what conservative sounding posters are?

I just assumed they were Afghan nationals.

Posted by: Reesh | June 21, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Brigade at 8:02 makes some good points

There are two groups in America on this issue - and what it proves is that the democrats are BANKRUPT OF ALL IDEAS.

The ideas of the democrats now have unrealistically high price-tags - and try to talk to a democrat about the cost of anything they want - and they have no idea

What is worse THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT THE COSTS OF THEIR IDEAS ARE.

THE LIBERALS want to:


- triple our electicity bills


- run gasoline to $7.00 a gallon


- Run the budget deficit over a trillion dollars for Obama's entire term


- Waste the stimulus money on special interest groups


- Run the Health Care Agencies like the Minerals Management Service.

Your biggest problem is the Obama administration is incompetent - and it WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO AS MUCH DAMAGE AS YOU ARE AIMING TO.

.


Sad.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

curious what "What about the Dem candidate for the house seat from Texas who's calling for Obama's impeachment?" has to do with Sharon Angel's use of the term second amendment sollutions. are you defending the use of those
specific words;I presume not? incidentally the state D party is renouncing Ms. Rogers and she won't be receiving a dime from the state party. and its relevance to anything??

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Private to Fix interns:

BHO slam today noted but...

we're still waiting for two free Charlie (BHO's HCR = W's Iraqi War) Cook Report ad/mentions/excerpts (otherwise no one will read it), three Pawlenty shout outs, and free pub to four GOP wannabe candidates nobody knows or cares about. Chip Saltsman or Tucker Carlson shout out wouldn't hurt as well.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 21, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

"Brigade" is obviously a NON-THINKER, who licks the behinds of Limbaugh and Beck so she finds out what she should believe. You can see she denies facts and just reacts to commentary. It's a little harder to respond to facts so she just ignores them!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 7:29 PM
-----

Oh, yes, Maerzie, you're obviously the deep thinker, and I'll even defer to your expertise on licking behinds. But it is hard to respond to facts when you can't present any. Lowbrainer.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Social time now, obviously! Sounds like Facebook sorta chatting to get away from the politics of the article?? I guess that's fine for now since I have to get dinner on anyway.

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama's healthcare deal was a harbinger of things to come: Rahm's political calculus. He did his dirty deal with big pharma and actually got a healthcare bill that, over time, can be improved. As distasteful as parts of it were, I understood. Given that Kennedy was out of commission, we had to rely on a pathetic Chairman in Senate Finance: Max Baucus.

The crucial change for me (and I'm really not that liberal) is energy and global warming. These are converging catastrophes tied to stubborn physical facts. "Cutting a deal" won't get the job done here. We need bold leadership and someone that can summon the nation to a great purpose that we can all get behind. I thought Obama was capable of this. So far, however, he seems almost to fear a political party who will damn him no matter WHAT he's for. I still have a shred of hope left in me, but truly wish Gore had run and been elected president at this point. At least I knew I could count on him to lead on this the greatest issue of our time.

Barack, I hope you're listening and I hope you intend to grow into the office that you hold. Eventually, a president has to lead and not sit in the background waiting for bipartisanship that will never come. You need to go over the head of Congress and speak to us about preventing the environmental and economic catastrophe that surely awaits our descendants if we can't seize this moment and embrace a different energy future.

I've read about SO MUCH encouraging research in new nuclear technology that is safer and burns up nuclear waste instead of leaving it behind. Enough fuel for thousands of years. No emissions. No waste. Plenty of energy. Can you imagine? (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor and Travelling Wave Reactors)

In the short run, we pursue a massive wind, solar and geothermal energy build out and Nat Gas transportation. All this is possible if you'll lead and put a price on CO2. Be a leader not a wimp.

Posted by: sdavis3398 | June 21, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if I've just been in a pessimistic mood lately, but I do think the Republicans have hit on the right strategy to let the economy flounder for two years. If 10% unemployment becomes the new normal, then Republicans have a decent shot at taking back the White House.

For all of Bush's idiocies, I don't think two wars could really cause the US to lose our position as a favored nation.

I do think 10% unemployment will. I don't mean we go crumble to third world status, but I do think it means we stop being the world's superpower.

And that's not a good thing for anyone who loves this country. Obviously Republicans can't be swayed by the moral argument of helping the downtrodden, for some reason, but the US simply can't be competitive with our economy in the toilet for a decade. If we come out of it, we won't be on top.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

obviously 37th you can't read since I linked the R architects of the repeal of Glass Stegall
Gramm-Leach-Bliley; Gramm's words of praise of the bill and that Gramm bragged that he had enough votes to override a veto.

and your response: ugly name calling. wow
we are impressed with your ability to participate in political discussion. Someone doesn't agree with you, they must be either a
socialist or racist.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Angle for example has called for "Second Amendment solutions" to having a Democratic congress, which isn't even euphemistic, it's a call for assassins to step forth. She should be on a no-fly list, she should be arrested by the FBI and interrogated about her leanings and her affiliations.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 5:43 PM
------

According to you, everyone who isn't a Dem should be in prison. What about the Dem candidate for the house seat from Texas who's calling for Obama's impeachment? A black woman I believe; how's that fit the narrative, bozo?

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

leichtman


Again you have no idea what you are talking about.


It is difficult for you - as a Hillary person - to watch Obama make such a mess out of everything.

NOW, Obama is going to take the democrats to electorial disaster - and that gets you angry.

Your beef is with Obama, not me.

As for you wanting to ban me - in response, you can leave - that would solve the situation, right ???


And if you can not stand the FREE SPEECH RIGHTS of other Americans,

I suggest you join Noacoler in Vietnam and maybe end up hanging upside in a pit - listening to him all day and night.


That would be a fitting result to your positions.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

They'll just up and leave.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:42 PM


Ped has been banned a record number of times and keeps coming back. she also threatened (promised) to leave several times and not return. As did drivl, Baghdad BJ and many others.

But what would they do? the other aspects of their life are what drive them here to spread the rage and envy at all things non-obungler. they are so far along in this psychosis, NO ONE else in the world has jobs, houses, cars, families, even it seems, distinct identities. Such is the "lives" of drivl and Ped.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 21, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

The conflict between the commenters is fascinating:

Side A: I used to love Obama, but he's too far right. But, I will vote for him again.

Side B: I always hated Obama, and still do, and he's the most left person that God ever created. I never voted for him and I never will.
-------------------------------

The facts according to the article: There is no appreciable deterioration in President Obama's numbers.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 5:04 PM
------

I don't think the article was exploing group B. The independents are the ones to watch.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I would LOVE to see gas to to $7 a gallon, if only that particular scare tactic was true. Then all those c*nts driving the Escalades and the Escapes and Excretions and all the rest would drive away from the pumps with ashen faces as the total shows triple digits just to fill the tank to get across town. It'd serve them right, the lousy bassards.

And the extra revenue would go a long way to gettign us into renewable energy sources instead of going to the Saudis.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 5:13 PM
-----

Do it! Do it! I'll be fine. But $7 gas is going to drive the economy even further into the ditch and increase the number of the poor and unemployed. But that's the commie dream isn't it? I'll be fine, you'll be in you Vietnamese hovel, and there will be even more libs living under American bridges. Go for it! Another Obama re-election slogan: "7 per gallon gas!"

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

his abuses to this site are notorious and destructive to this site.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

you must mean posting the same moronic insults three times in a row.

or something like that.

right?

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 21, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

gee broadwayjoe


You really are freaking out.

Don't you understand it is already too late????

Once Obama decided to stop being bipartisan, he threw away all his chances for the future.

NO ONE WANTS THE FAR LEFT WING AGENDA.

And to bring back Hillary - who spent 10 years raising money on WALL STREET - after her husband repealed the Glass Steagall Act -

And after her husband put all his people into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -

That would be some TV commercial.......


.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

so it is OK for you to leave.


NOW.

37th that is precisely your intent. To continually post racially charged and hate
filled rants until you drive everyone who
does not agree with your garbage away.

hopefully someone at the WP will learn that
your tactics here are not dissimilar to jake.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

37th wants all the Democrats to go to the inner cities and just, well, I don't know, like disappear or something. We just don't know what to do.

Should we go? Or not?

He really feels strongly about it, and lord knows, we want to do everything we can to help him out. Maybe he'll be happy then?

Do you think it will make him happy? Or not?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 2:10 PM

-------

Hey 37th! There are no conservatives in these violent inner cities. They're all libs---the ones who bother to vote and haven't lost the privilege. That's why Bush41 was accused of running dope into the inner city. If it's okay with Dems, it's okay with me. Let them shoot the hell out of the place. Just that many fewer libs to worry about.


Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Within O-Nation, the murmurs about bringing Hillary Rodham Clinton into the White House ASAP are now open discussions (see Sally Quinn's column last week).

Whether the former First Lady (and survivor of Bosnia sniper attacks) comes in as Chief of Staff or as vice president replacing Biden doesn't matter to folks talking about this at Ground Zero. JUST GET HER HERE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

BHO, perhaps because of his dignity and nobility, is simply unprepared to deal with the vast rightwing conspiracy that seeks to block his agenda and take us back to 1954 Birmingham, 1939 Germany, or 1865 Gettysburg. Hillary and her government-in-exile known as "Hillary World" were never needed more by her country than now. Bring HRC in first as COS and then make her your running mate in 2012; once in, Hillary would have Phalin and Rand Paul for lunch and still have room for dessert.
______________

July 4, 2010:

Mrs. Clinton, welcome back to the WH. Mrs. Williams, your office is over here. Mr. Blumenthal, yours is two doors down. Mrs. Mills and Mrs. Luzzatto, yours are ...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 21, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Brigade


It is true that the majority of the posts on this blog are by the leftists.

Yet they complain.

I supposed they are unhappy unless 100% of the posts are leftist.


It is Bizaree, because this is America


They really have a twisted view of this country.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

shut up, ash-brain.

Go score a hundred bucks and see how quickly you can smoke it. Hit that tina pipe till you OD and die. Just imagine how good the rush will be

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

the only blogger I have ever asked to be banned from this site is 37th period. his abuses to this site are notorious and destructive to this site. Most reasonable people here know and agree with that.

brigade we need your conservative voice here whenever we need a good chuckle.

p.s. get a life brigade everyone in Texas even
his supporters refer to him as goodhair.
I doubt even the Gov would find that to be offensive.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

the only blogger I have ever asked to be banned from this site is 37th period. his abuses to this site are notorious and destructive to this site. Most reasonable people here know and agree with that.

brigade we need your conservative voice here whenever we need a good chuckle.

p.s. get a life brigade everyone in Texas even
his supporters refer to him as goodhair.
I doubt even the Gov would find that to be offensive.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

the only blogger I have ever asked to be banned from this site is 37th period. his abuses to this site are notorious and destructive to this site. Most reasonable people here know and agree with that.

brigade we need your conservative voice here whenever we need a good chuckle.

p.s. get a life brigade everyone in Texas even
his supporters refer to him as goodhair.
I doubt even the Gov would find that to be offensive.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"The militas mentioned in the Second were citizen armies before we had a standing military as we do now, those militias are obsolete and the only reason we still have that stupid amendment is our national fetish over gun ownership. I say repeal it."

-------

At least you seem to understand that the 2nd amendment DOES cover the individual's right to bear arms and would have to be REPEALED to change the fact. So get your cronies to run with it. Libs have principles don't they? It would make a good slogan for Obama's re-election campaign. "Repeal the Second Amendment!" Go for it. Please!

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

They'll just up and leave.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:42 PM


We should be so lucky. We have been trying to fumigate drivl out for years. No amount of prophylactic will repulse that vermin.

I can't believe I'm actually talking to myself. Ped was right. We are ALL crazy. Now please go back to ignoring us, I mean me.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 21, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman


If you think this blog is a waste of your time, please leave.

You are complaining - however no one here sees your posts as driving up the quality.

Quite the contrary - even today you have engaged in name-calling - which is proof that you know you are wrong.

In addition your posts are dragging down the blog.

So you really are not contributing anything - so it is OK for you to leave.

NOW.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

hahahaha and the funny part is he thinks people believe him.

yeah, zouk, boat, gold, and five-star.

hahahahahah a couple of quarter-pounders and three packs of fries, plus some more fries scavanged from another table.


hahahahahah high-roller zouk.

you need to pay more attention to which moniker you're posting under. Ooops.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

agree, leichtman and margaret. i'm not sure which is worse, CC or the interns. but they are all R watercarriers. i've been reading dave weigel, he's amusing.

pretty soon, no one will be here but zouk and 37.

Posted by: drindl | June 21, 2010 4:18 PM

-------

And BobSanderson added,

"Chris doesn't know his blog is still not bat crazy enough for the extreme right...and that is what really counts."

-------

bat crazy? Yup, only about 90% Democratic posters. If we can't get that up to about 99%, I just don't know what we'll do. Liberals don't function well in an environment conducive to more than one point of view. They'll just up and leave. Or so they say.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

leichtman


Who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall into law ???


Who could have vetoed it ?????

You must be some new kind of idiot - because most idiots don't act like you do.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Bumblingberry has been absent most of the day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Long weekend on the boat. thanks for caring. also a trip to a five star and a golf tourny. a little too many calories, a little much sun.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 21, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I think finance whiz snapped. Or lost her job. all her clients are behind bars.

time to chase ambulances it looks like.

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 21, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Between 37th and CC this site has become a
total waste of time. I doubt I am the only
regular feeling that way.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 4:10 PM
----------

Let's see now. Bumblingberry has been absent most of the day, so now it's 37th and CC. 90% plus of the posters here lean left, but that's evidently not enough. All conservatives should be banned and the moderator should lean to the left of the lefties. Then all could form a circle in the echo chamber. And that's how you propose to get a lively exchange of ideas?

-------

And here's part of a leichtman1 post from earlier in the day:

"stations ran stories promoting full fledged gambling to close the $18 billion gap which goodhair totally rejects."

Strange talk coming from one who continually complains about lack of civility and disrespect of elected officials. Is "goodhair" anything like "buffhead"?

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

The liberals are hopeless

If you don't like this country, please leave.

At least on that point, Noacoler is setting a good example - one you should all follow.


It is clear that you do not like this country enough to stay.


So, do us all a favor and leave.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

You have to define "liberal."

We fear that, in Drudge/Faux News/Fix World, a liberal is anyone who opposes slavery, criminalization of "living while brown," a living wage, child labor, clean air and water regs, and the colonization of the entire Middle East. That said, it IS true many in O-Nation are tired of the WH dithering, the wasted time on seeking bipartisanship, the failure to pursue campaign promises (e.g., geting out of the Middle East), and the inability to smack down in pulbic and vocal way the racist reactionary teabagger agenda.

I mean -- good grief -- Sharron Angle called for a "Second Amendment" solution to deal with Members of Congress who disagree with her. Rand Paul bleated about bringing back whites-only lunch counters and buildings inaccessible to the disabled. Sue Lowden thinks folks facing long hospital stays or major surgery can pay the doctors with Kentucky Fried Chicken. Yet the WH didn't say anything, much less develop a major ad campaign and PR offense, to confront and discredit this unhinged, bigoted, rightwing lunacy.
____________________

Totally agree with Pulitzer Prize winner Frank Rich today:

"The president’s shake-up of his own governance can’t wait, as tradition often has it, until after the next election. The Tea Party is at the barricades. When Obama said yet again on Tuesday that he would be “happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party,” you wanted to shout back, Enough already! His energy would be far better spent calling out in no uncertain terms what the other party’s “ideas and approaches” are. The more the Fox-Palin right has strengthened its hold on the G.O.P. during primary season, the sharper and more risky its ideology has become."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/opinion/20rich.html?ref=frankrich

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 21, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Poor Lonely Ped.

Still ranting on and on at the only "friends" she can find. What a waste of a life. do you ever say anything intelligent anymore or is it just spooky economics, vietyaya, multiple personality paranoia with the associated voices and proud and out?

Posted by: bumblingberry | June 21, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Had he been in the US Senate at the time, he would have voted for the war, too.

and you know this how; by your devine powers?


37th you again show your ignorance.

Again you are not even aware the name of the
Senators who crafted the repeal of Glass Stegall.

It was called the Gramm(Phil and Wendy)-Leach-
Bliley Bill for a reason; they were its architcect.


"Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001."

"We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.

"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."

the words of Phil Gramm; it brought us freedom and deregulation. thanks Phil you were an embarassment to Texas.

incidentally while I agree ad fault Clinton for siging this clearly R DEREGULATION BILL,
Gramm had garnered enough votes to override
any potential veto, Clinton knew that, we
mistakenly thought you might have for once done your research and known that as well.

the bill was the proud product of Phil Gramm
and his fellow R henchmen who bragged how it would DeRegulate the banks.

http://banking.senate.gov/prel99/1112gbl.htm


since you seem so upset about this R legislation we would love to read your 1999
letter to these R leaders reflecting your concern,so let's see it 37th.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Some of us are a bit finicky
Others can make choices with ease
Especially those who think Obama's "the greatest"--
They're notoriously "easy to please".

Re the latter, a scene featuring Bob Hope and Jane Russell (in the Paleface)comes to mind as being illustrative of the concept:

She (an undercover federal agent way out west) needed a husband to complete the cover and hit upon Bob Hope (Painless Peter Potter--a dentist) as the perfect patsy. On their wedding night, not aware of his intended role, Painless put his arms around Jane and was in the course of (for him) a passionate kiss when she hit him in the back of the head with a gun butt, rendering him completely unconscious.
Next morning, Painless sat up slowly in bed while rubbing his head wonderingly, and said:
"Darling, thanks for a lovely evening", to which Jane replied sarcastically: "Boy, you sure are easy to please".

Posted by: Gonzage1 | June 21, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Mark Kirk makes like bunny, flees from press
Posted by Greg H. at 6/21/2010 1:56 PM CDT on Chicago Business

The Democratic and Republican nominees for the U.S. Senate, Alexi Giannoulias and Mark Kirk, gave their views on planning and environmental issues at a Metropolitan Planning Council lunch on Monday.

But the news was what happened afterward: Mr. Kirk literally ran out the hotel door rather than answer questions about a host of recent reports that he repeatedly has exaggerated his experience and credentials.

The Peter Cottontail moment happened at the downtown Hyatt Regency, where about 1,000 folks were on hand for MPC's annual big do.

Mr. Giannoulias, on the way in, stopped for a couple of minutes to chat with reporters. He left quickly after speaking but had a good reason: a fundraiser with Vice-president Joe Biden. Lunch then was served.

Mr. Kirk arrived after lunch, coming in via a side door.

He spoke for about 20 minutes, than walked down from the dais to have his picture taken with MPC President MarySue Barrett.

As soon as that was done — with a swarm of TV cameras and reporters moving toward the front of the ballroom — Mr. Kirk bolted for a back door.

With media in hot pursuit, he raced through a Hyatt kitchen and into the back seat of a black SUV — I believe it was a Cadillac Escalade — which instantly peeled out.

Mr. Kirk, of course, has been under increasing scrutiny for falsely suggesting that he was named the naval intelligence officer of the year, commanded the Pentagon's war room, came under fire while on active duty, and declaring he learned about the impact of guns while teaching at a British prep school for a year at an upstate New York nursery school.

In addition, a Pentagon official has said Mr. Kirk improperly engaged in political activities — media interviews and Tweets — while deployed overseas.


Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 21, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"Brigade" is obviously a NON-THINKER, who licks the behinds of Limbaugh and Beck so she finds out what she should believe. You can see she denies facts and just reacts to commentary. It's a little harder to respond to facts so she just ignores them!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Save it, Maerzie, just wait it out, he'll blast out a long string of insults, lies, and wingnut boilerplate and vanish again, then Moonbat will reappear. Same pattern every day.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

October30 wrote,
"Many of the liberals like our cohorts James Carville and Chris Mathews do not really believe this (guy) I mean this person is really qualified to be president. Hell, he freightens Mathews, but Bush didn't."

-------

Anyone with a mental capacity greater than a trilobite knows Obama's over his head as President. But some people are just too ashamed to admit they wasted their vote on him and that the country's fortunes are getting worse instead of better. Too bad.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't the original problem that the liberals WERE in love with Obama?


Sometimes his campaign looked like more of a cult than a campaign.


Serious problems there.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Given the choice between Obama and Old Blood and Guts McCain and the Moose Skinner Palin I wouldn' hesitate to vote the same way again.

Posted by: sauerkraut | June 21, 2010 3:35 PM

-----

You probably shouldn't brag about it. If the shape the country's in is to your liking, keep voting liberal---and blaming the Republicans. Personally, I'll do fine, but those 10% unemployed are going to be a long time getting to work with banks not lending and the only "stimulus" evident in creation of public sector jobs.
Hey, how about that deficit? And that great new entitlement program (HCR) that isn't going to cost a dime.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

No, "Brigade". Just a little LONG on FACTS that you obviously don't like to remember! It's history. Your rhetoric can't change it.. When a prsident LIES to Congress, the Congress obviously thinks he must have the country's welfare at heart, but what they didn't know, is that Bush's HEARY? is made out of money and oil!!

Facts are FACTS! He KNEW the fairy tale he told Congress was a lie, and he told it anyway. He also knew from history that ANY war begun over in that region would be almost impossible to end because of all the inter-tribal and cultural differences and fighting. But, he did it anyway BECAUSE of his PERSONAL grudge against Saddam and because he thought he could rip off their oil! That pair are SNAKES, like the devil himself, and you should be ASHAMED to connect yourself to the sleazy criminals!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Oh look, zouk's here again. Expect a dozen posts in a row now as "Brigade," with an insult in each and little else. Yawn.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Blarg wrote,
"Liberals don't move in lockstep like conservatives. People like Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow generally support President Obama, but they'll call him out if they don't like something he does."

-----

Call him out? Are you insane? They've got their heads as far up his butt as they can reach. They complain because he isn't liberal enough. But HE DOESN'T CARE! Like Noacoler's, their support is already in the bank. Obama only cares about appealing to people that might, under some circumstance, vote for somebody other than him.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Reesh, the problem is that the stimulus wasn't enough. It wasn't enough in terms of dollar amounts as well as in the type of stimulus. So much of it was based in tax cuts which is one of the least efficient types of stimulus. It leads to people saving, not spending. The use of stimulus to fund shove ready projects or extend unemployment benefits or fund medicaid are far more stimulative. In each of those, the dollar gets spent and spent providing the most bang for the stimulus buck.

The fault here isn't with Obama. He is the one who has been calling for the stimulus. The problem is Congress. While they will fund wars and TARP at the drop of a hat, they (and I mean Republicans) have been less than willing to provide stimulus money. This money would save necessary jobs and would be spent and stimulate the economy. Economists are almost unanimously believing this. Even during the massive spending for FDR's New Deal, it wasn't enough to get the country out. It was once the US started pumping money into a massive military complex that the US was able to escape the Depression.

Republicans are all too willing to let the economy rot so long as Obama can't add to his accomplishments. I can't blame Obama for that. He's a President, not a king. I have issues with him on the national security stuff, but he's been right on target domestically.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote,
"Well you can count me as massively disenchanted with Obama, and I donated over $1500 to his campaign. I'm disenchated because he's way too far to the right"

-------

LOL. A fool and his money . . . Obama doesn't care what people like you think. Your vote is already in the bank. Why don't you do something liberal with your sparse assets, like helping a poor person, instead of sending it to this moron?

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

However, Obama didn't sit and read a story book to the gradeschoolers, did he? And he didn't lie to Congress about "weapons of mass destruction" so he could murder Saddam and thousands of innocent people either "because he tried to kill MY DADDY!", OR break the Geneva Convention agreement. I guess Obama'll just never be as "wonderful" as a murderous WHITE criminal president.

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 5:24 PM
-----

A little short on common sense are we? Hillary Clinton and 30 Dems voted for the Iraq war because of DADDY? Because they couldn't interpret intelligence on their own? Poor things. I guess that makes them war criminals, too. Obama gets no credit for opposing the war because he was a state representative bowing to Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Had he been in the US Senate at the time, he would have voted for the war, too. Wise up.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

worth a chuckle reading about "being clear" from a guy who's ashed his brain with amphetamines.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I openly support capitalism, the corporation, free markets and am even PRO LIFE, which I make no secret of. I made my living in venture capital. When I am called a leftist, something is really wrong.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 5:21 PM
-------

If you more often voiced these positions instead of defending Obama at all costs and cozying up to every leftwing nut on the blog, people wouldn't call you a leftist.

Posted by: Brigade | June 21, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Is today's "unthinkable" more unthinkable than 1929's "unthinkable.
----------------------------------
No. And it could happen again. But it didn't. And why didn't it happen? Because the worlds' central banks flooded liquidity into the banking system. The exact opposite of what happened in 1929. We came close to clinching up though, and I give GWB full credit for not doing that. And I give Obama full credit for supporting that action. And both Bush and Obama have paid a horrible political price for that decision.

What would McCain/Palin have done? I honestly don't know.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure happy to see that some Democrats have come out of the woodwork! Usually I'm in the minority on these WaPo blogs because the Democrats are workin, while the pseudo-republicans that vote for the wealthy corporations sit back and draw their fake disability checks or their girlfriend they knocked up so they could live on her ADC. They THOUGHT their unemployment checks would last forever, while they sat back and never even TRIED to find a job, but all good things must come to an end! THESE are the Limbaugh and Beck gullible "Republicans?", who vote AGAINST themselves!! Actually, good social workers would put an end to the freeloading too, but there aren't very many good ones left since my husband died.

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse


We might still be better off to give the Presidency and Congress back to republicans. Let them speed the job of destroying the United States. One way or another, it's going to happen.
-----------------------------------
Don't believe that. The U.S. is a lot more resilient that you think. When there's trouble anywhere, it's the U.S. dollar that bounces. Even when it is the U.S. that causes the problem, as in the financial collapse, still, the U.S. is seen as relative safety.

Our dominance won't last forever, but I'm willing to bet it'll last longer than my lifetime. I'm willing to bet my grandchildren will be glad to be Americans.

**********************

Well, my view is somewhat different. The unthinkable in 1929 became the commonplace by 1934. Is today's "unthinkable" more unthinkable than 1929's "unthinkable." Do you really believe we are so much smarter or tougher than those Americans? Does it mean anything to anyone that we went into this depression when prosecuting two wars? Government intervention in the economy began in earnest in 2002.

I have grandchildren today so for me concerns about about my family are not prospective. Right now Switzerland is high on the list for safety. I don't mind my progeny having some real life experiences. I just rather not risk having them barbecued along with all other living things accessible to the mobs.

Posted by: Reesh | June 21, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

12 Barblues

Our dominance will last forever.

And if our dominance ever dips, it will be the fault of Obama - and the sick liberals who hate America.


That much is clear.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

12 Barblues

Our dominance will last forever.

And if our dominance ever dips, it will be the fault of Obama - and the sick liberals who hate America.


That much is clear.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

We might still be better off to give the Presidency and Congress back to republicans. Let them speed the job of destroying the United States. One way or another, it's going to happen.
-----------------------------------
Don't believe that. The U.S. is a lot more resilient that you think. When there's trouble anywhere, it's the U.S. dollar that bounces. Even when it is the U.S. that causes the problem, as in the financial collapse, still, the U.S. is seen as relative safety.

Our dominance won't last forever, but I'm willing to bet it'll last longer than my lifetime. I'm willing to bet my grandchildren will be glad to be Americans.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman


I have said numerous times that the economic situation is Clinton's fault more than anyone else - for deregulating the derivatives markets and for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.

In addition, many Clinton people ended up in high positions in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac far into the Bush administration.


I never called Obama any of those things you listed - just a racist.


And that was for bringing his children to Rev. Wright's church week after week, year after year.


The democrats have a great deal of responsiblity - the idea that all they are going to do is blame Bush and BP - and walk away smelling like roses.


That is a joke.

The democrats have the control now - it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS.

BLAMING SOMEONE ELSE DOES NOT CUT IT.

IF THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS, GET OUT OF THE WAY, AND LET SOMEONE ELSE WORK ON THE SOLUTIONS.


RIGHT NOW YOU ARE IN THE WAY.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman,

Where you sit on the left/right continuum, there are a few truths that a lot of us agree. I agree with you that when the world financial system was teetering on 9/08, the only responsible thing to do was to backstop the worst losses, as Bush did. The only thing he could do. The right thing. Every other country in the world did the same thing to varying degrees.

Anyone who wants to become informed about what happened during 9/08 should read one of the many books written about those events. I recommend Andrew Sorkin's "Too Big to Fail", but there are others. Then, come back and talk about bailouts when you know what you're talking about.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else see this clearly ???

what we see is that you are blithering,
foaming at the mouth, idiot that comes
here every day for the sole purpose of wasting our time.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I am a lifelong liberal. My biggest misgiving about a Barack Obama presidency was the timing. The country had just suffered the worst financial disaster history and no one was admitting that a full blown depression was inevitable. That means millions of homeless and starvation or charity soup lines. But depressions take years to settle in. Honest Americans try to keep the country working by dipping into their saving. When the middle class goes broke then the worst effects are realized. In 1929, working people did not know that in 1933 many of them would be penniless and homeless. Then, like today, many were republicans and believed the party rhetoric. To change political beliefs it is important that the causes of the economic meltdown be clear as well as those responsible. President Obama has muddied the waters so much there will always be uncertainty.

We might still be better off to give the Presidency and Congress back to republicans. Let them speed the job of destroying the United States. One way or another, it's going to happen.

First, it may be inevitable. Keynesian government spending didn't avert a depression. It merely put millions on the government payrolls making the depression less severe. That is, there is no guarantee that anything can stop a depression once it sets in. No depression was ever stopped before.

But, on a deeper level, there is no real will to force change. The people don't believe that liberal solutions to running the country are superior to conservative ones. That myth has somehow ingrained itself even though the greatest period of economic stability and prosperity (40 years) in the United States came after FDR's changes. let Republicans buy the blame for the next 6 years. The country will fall down to the level of other third-world conservative countries. Then, former republicans and democrats (as they did in the 1930s)will join and demand change--not talk.

President Obama's failure to carry through on campaign promises should be protested not by disorganized Tea Partiers but by Liberals.

Posted by: Reesh | June 21, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Well if you read the Republican and Wall Street tea leaves it seems pretty obvious that they yearn to have labor by the balls.

When unemployment goes down, so does the DJIA.

Republicans are friends of big business, not of the working man, and big business wants cheap labor. They hate unions and they don't want workers to have any negotiation leverage, we should work for a dollar an hour and take it. "This is a business," not a charity," sound familiar? "Nobody forces you to work here," sound familiar?

Why should Republicans want the economy in good shape? That just means low unemployment and higher wages, which means lower profits.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

" I made every dime I ever made betting on America, and I still think that being bullish on America is a winning strategy."


absolutely, and as Ds, we must persist in that exact message that our opponents can call us all the horrible names in their limited vocabulary but that we are the optimists, who believe in our country and our POTUS and are bullish on America(a sentiment shared by Larry Kudlow and CNBC).

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Every time the campaign against Obama runs a "poll", statistics know AHEAD OF TIME, how the "poll?" will come out! I found out how it's done when I took statistics. You only poll the ones whose answers you ALREADY know and then stack it for whichever answer you want to win!! It actually takes a GENIUS to figure out how they always get the answers they want!! DUHHHH!! If I hadn't taken Statistics, it would've been WAAAAY over my head (when I was 5 y/o! and I still believed people were honest!)

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Senator John Kyl has said that Obama promised an exchange - Obama will enforce border security in exchange for immigration reform

Well - It is Obama's CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THE BORDER.


So, Obama is refusing to do his job - until he gets something in return.


WELL - ISNT THAT WHAT BLAGO IS ON TRIAL FOR ??


Blago is accused of withholding the release of funds until he gets something in exchange - releases which were his responsibility as Governor.


IT IS ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHING THAT OBAMA APPEARS TO BE GUILTY OF THE SAME CRIMES THAT BLAGO IS ON TRIAL FOR.

Does anyone else see this clearly ???

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

and I am likely far to the right of you 12bar
but you do understand that to the fanatical
right wing here , anyone who is a D is a socialist, fascist, marxist, nazi, communist, racist even if those philosophies are contradictory and regardless of our personal economic philospohy.

I am also a deficit hawk, but some of us Ds
know a little history and understand what
happened in 1937, and so does this Administration. G** help help us all if Rs
get in control of Congress next January, and
try to prematurely put a halt to the stimulus
before employment dramatically picks up. Paul Kruegman made that precise point this weekend in a NY Times editorial.

It is fascinating that these current deficit hawks gave Bush a pass for 8 year and don't realize that the Bank Bailouts and Stimulus
which they rail against, were not the policies that Obama or Ds ever wanted to enact in 2009, but had to, to keep our economy from total collapse. That is not hyperbole but a 2008 economic reality. The bailouts started in Sept, 2008 and with the collapse of Lehman Bros and AIG it came to a head in Dec 2008 months before Obama was sworn in as POTUS. China, Germany and the US have all had massive stimulus policies over the last 18 months that were necessary to keep the world economy from falling off a cliff.
Rs can whine all they want about the deficits being caused by the bank bailouts and stimulus, but had they had their way the US today would likely look like 1932; and since they don't understand economic history, they seem hell bent in repeating the disastrous mistakes of 1937 which they now advocate.
So I guess b/c I want so much for the economy and world markets to fully recover, and for my unemployed friends with very advanced degrees to be back working at thir lawfirms, I must certainly be one of those hated socialists, communist, marxist, fascists Ds as the POTUS is so generously referred to at this site.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of paranoia, I used to post on RCP. There's a bunch of posters there who are convinced that the dollar is going to collapse any minute now. They have got each other so hyped up, they sold their stocks and bonds, bought gold, and are buying wheat and bottled water for the impending disaster. Meanwhile, the dollar has recovered, the stock market has gone up and interest rates have stayed low.

Not too long ago, I posted on there, a very mild post about the stock market being up 70% and how I was glad I stayed in. What a barrage I got back. I was just too stupid to understand that disaster was just around the corner.

Maybe they're right, but one thing's for sure, they are not right yet. I made every dime I ever made betting on America, and I still think that being bullish on America is a winning strategy.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Q: What is the essential difference between

(a) I'm proud to be a Crip
(b) I'm proud to be an American
(c) I'm proud to be white

A: scale

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama has not disillusioned me - Congress has made me wince a lot though. Both parties have squeezed many of Obama's proposals almost to death, ultimately distorting them, making them unrecognizable. If Obama has erred in his assessment of Congress and its receptivity to his proposals, he has several more years to review his political approach and make the adjustments necessary to have his ideas survive the legislative process more intact. Those who voted for Obama shd remain hopeful that his better ideas will have another opportunity to go into effect as he intended, that he will learn that Congress yields to corporate and interest group pressures to which he is not subject, and that he will be able to instill sufficient ideological rigor into his Congressional supporters to resist the next rounds of irresolute legislation.

Posted by: dickodonnell | June 21, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

@TeaPartyPatriot,

You sound more than a little paranoid. I hope you get a little perspective in the rest of your life, or you will always be miserable.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

hahah ah "TeaPartyPatriot," more like paranoid freak.

"Marxist" (oh, if only), "anti-Semitic. "drug use," "lunatic left socialist media" .. no wonder the TP can't put together a rally of more than a dozen aged bearded smokers. And no wonder their candidates can't win elections. Bunch of bedwetters.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Why do people on this blog have to remind you every day that you have been BANNED - and you should leave???


You have been asked to leave, and yet you refuse.


AND you appear perfectly comfortable complaining about other people.

Please leave


Leave the country - go to Vietnam and show your pinko colors.

And stay away from the little boys while you are there.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Loved the post by the tea partier.
It is just additional proof of the irresponsible, lunitic group they are.
All names, no substance.
They are a disgrace.

Posted by: kathlenec | June 21, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

prossers,

Other than the Glenn Beck show, do you have any sourcing for your story?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

"Because Hilary should and would have won had it not been for that little game."

Interesting point, because we never learned how many "super delegates" were to vote for her. It is possible they would have carried her to victory. But the vote never was held that way.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | June 21, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Americans (even some of the lunatic-left) now see hussein for what he really is: a shallow, profane, arrogant, platitude-spouting, inexperienced, Marxist, drug-addicted, elitist, narcissistic, flip-flopping, racist, anti-Semitic gas-bag who is so mentally deficient from extensive drug use he even has to plagiarize his hollow platitudes, who hijacked the nomination with fewer votes than Hillary received, and who stole the election with extensive ACORN fraud.

He is nothing more than an artificial creation of the lunatic-left socialist media with no more substance or depth than a Daffy Duck cartoon. Wherever there are no mirrors, no cameras and especially no teleprompters (heavy drug use significantly impairs short-term memory), hussein vanishes.

Americans will now take back our country from the socialist and his cadre of tax-and-spend loonies, who are goose-stepping the nation down their "Road to Hell."

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | June 21, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Maerzie

You just don't get it - you are lost.

It is time to stop blaming - and start solving.

It was clear from the first weeks of this spill that Obama's policy was to "blame BP"

That does NOT do anything for America -


It is a policy to help Obama politically, NOT TO HELP AMERICA.


Besides, the problem with this oil spill was Obama's people at the Minerals Management Service were not doing the safety inspections correctly.


This Oil Spill is Obama's fault.


Obama should have cleaned up MMS during his year long review of energy policy.


If Obama had DONE WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO WITH MMS - THIS OIL SPILL WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

The reason Progressive Liberal Dems have their collective noses out of joint is because Obama stopped all off-shore drilling for the U.S., HOWEVER...

OBAMA GAVE $2 BILLION OF TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS TO BRAZIL TO DRILL FOR OIL (OFF SHORE) 14,000 FEET DOWN FOR OIL FOR A COMPANY OWNED BY GUESS WHO? G.E.O.R.G.E S.O.R.O.S OWNS THIS OIL COMPANY IN BRAZIL! OBAMA'S MENTOR. AHHH, WHAT ARE FRIENDS FOR, HUH? NOTHING CROOKED GOING ON HERE, FOLK, NAH...

Right, that is why liberals are ticked off with Obama, he's supposed to hate drilling for oil too.

Posted by: prossers7 | June 21, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

When Stewart and Olbermann are unhappy, I can only conclude that the President is doing the right thing. What do they know. They go around town with a "for sale" sign on their t shirt.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | June 21, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

hey maerzie don't bother with 37th, he's deep in the grips of amphetamine psychosis. He's a meth addict who posts here 24 hours at a time and hes' deteriorated markedly since he showed up. He's also a racist c*nt whose unintelligible junk is tolerated here despite his clear intention to suppress conversation. Don't add to it; when you see his moniker, just PgUp past it.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"37thandOstreet wrote:What matters is whether the people are charge are FIXING THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE.
On this, Obama is a miserable failure."

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Pray tell?? Exactly WHICH of the "problems" would Obama have to be "FIXING" if the republican criminals wouldn't have CAUSED them?? I'm sure you are QUITE AWARE that the sweetheart deal for the deep sea drilling was ALSO composed by the criminal oil baron administration, Bush, and "Halliburton" Cheney! THIS DRILL was the VERY FIRST time it was put into practice; NOT that it is the practice of new presidents to dismantle all legislation made by the previous administration, ESPECIALLY before it's ever been put into practice!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather be falling out of love with Obama over the next 6 years than having to stomach who could have been it that office!

Posted by: AverageJane | June 21, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Are liberals falling out of love with Obama?
-------------------------------------------
No. And even if they are...once they realize what the alternatives are...they'll be back.

Posted by: Sharon_6441 | June 21, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

He prossers7, you should take a valium and lie down for a while.

Sharron Angle for example has called for "Second Amendment solutions" to having a Democratic congress, which isn't even euphemistic, it's a call for assassins to step forth. She should be on a no-fly list, she should be arrested by the FBI and interrogated about her leanings and her affiliations.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Stewart on top as usual but the last frame was awesome:
"No, not Gollum but the other one"!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: rogerhq | June 21, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama has never been the choice of liberal.We always wanted and would have had Hilary,if Michigan and Florida had a chance to vote.So,under Obama's Presidency you have to put a * with a footnote.Because Hilary should and would have won had it not been for that little game.

Posted by: apez54 | June 21, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"prossers7" obviously didn't pay attentio to WHICH administration was taking away our peronal freedoms! I think it's time for him to backtrack a little and go see what President Cheney and his moron were up to during their 8 years of damage to our country! It's ALL in the history books. Too late to change all the failures and commissions those criminals accomplished right under our noses! And they're idiot enough to be PROUD of WHAT they voted in?? That was the most disgustingly SHAMEFUL administration our country has EVER suffered!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The rumours that anyone is falling out of love with Obama is due to Hitler style republican and tea party propaganda. The job of President is a monumental position with men and women trying to influence his office from the senators to the lobbist. Don't believe the republican, tea party, right wing garbarge about Obama. The republicans want more of the Bush style pro business and bank agenda to go down in WDC. They want to win and not cooperate with the world. You cannot allow these old evil folks to tear down America with uber capitalism. They sold our jobs down the pike and now they are screaming about corrections that would work in America's favor? Don't fall any of this America.

Posted by: ruffyy | June 21, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Liberals may be disappointed becasue Obama isn't one of us. He never was. He's a moderate and the only people who think he's a socialist are the conservative idiots who by their bluster and stupidity also pretty much guarantee that most liberals will still vote for Democrats. Because you have to ask yourself, where are you going to go? Whatever disappointments liberals may face with Obama, (and here I am only speaking for myself) it is nothing compared to the contempt and disgust I feel for the idiot teabaggers and conservatives who continue to pollute these posts and the airwaves with their infantile rants.

Posted by: ElectricBill | June 21, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The rumours that anyone is falling out of love with Obama is due to Hitler style republican and tea party propaganda. The job of President is a monumental position with men and women trying to influence his office from the senators to the lobbist. Don't believe the republican, tea party, right wing garbarge about Obama. The republicans want more of the Bush style pro business and bank agenda to go down in WDC. They want to win and not cooperate with the world. You cannot allow these old evil folks to tear down America with uber capitalism. They sold our jobs down the pike and now they are screaming about corrections that would work in America's favor? Don't fall any of this America.

Posted by: ruffyy | June 21, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, "sandra14"! Absolutely WONDERFUL post!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Dear ..... Noacoler

YOU CONCERN ME GREATLY WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT:
some of the GOP leaders should be under FBI interrogation for their public statements.
(????)

THIS STATEMENT IS WHY MANY IN AMERICA HAVE BECOME WORRIED ABOUT OBAMA AND THE FANATICAL LIBERAL DEMOCRATS - FREE SPEECH!!! THEY WANT TO STOP IT!!!

WHO IN HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE SAYING THAT SOMEONE'S SPEECH SHOULD BRING THEM UNDER FBI SCRUTINY??? FREAKIN COMMIE!!!

Posted by: prossers7 | June 21, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"Ross Douthat, in a column that ran this morning in the New York Times, summed up the liberal agita thusly: "Many liberals look at this White House and see a presidency adrift -- unable to respond effectively to the crisis in the gulf, incapable of rallying the country to great tasks like the quest for clean energy, and unwilling to do what it takes to jump-start the economy."
################################

However, Obama didn't sit and read a story book to the gradeschoolers, did he? And he didn't lie to Congress about "weapons of mass destruction" so he could murder Saddam and thousands of innocent people either "because he tried to kill MY DADDY!", OR break the Geneva Convention agreement. I guess Obama'll just never be as "wonderful" as a murderous WHITE criminal president.

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

@noacoler,

To bolster your point that there is no left, it's only a matter of how right you are.

On the continuum of left to right, I am WAY right of you. And yet, on a daily basis, I've been called a socialist, Marxist, communist, despicable human being who should never be trusted with the vote. And I openly support capitalism, the corporation, free markets and am even PRO LIFE, which I make no secret of. I made my living in venture capital. When I am called a leftist, something is really wrong.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

IN the end - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO THE LIBERALS ARE BLAMING


What matters is whether the people are charge are FIXING THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE.

On this, Obama is a miserable failure.


At times, it even appears that Obama is SIMPLY BLAMING, AND NOT TRYING TO FIX ANYTHING

OBAMA SEEMS TO HAVE THE ATTITUDE THAT IF HE BLAMES SOMEONE ELSE, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE AND HE IS DONE.


But that is not what governing is about - Obama appears to NOT WANT TO GOVERN.

All Obama wants to do is push through an agenda which is against what American wants.

A complete recipe for disaster.


OH we already had a disaster.

And the theme applies to Obama's year-long review of energy policy - Obama showed a clear preference for saying he had unprecedented solutions - but the parts which were governing - SAFETY STANDARDS, SAFETY INSPECTIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS - Obama didn't care about.

We have an Obama administration which is INCOMPETENT AND NOW IS SO WORTHLESS IT IS DANGEROUS TO THIS NATION.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Looks like this blog entry in hopes of a Drudge link didn't get it. Too bad, you'll have to settle for thits you get from 37th repeating his own posts, and he's gone for a little while, probably out to score more meth for another all-nighter posting junk on here.

But a page hit is a page hit, right, CC? Who cares if it's triple-spaced racist junk?

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

IN the end - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO THE LIBERALS ARE BLAMING


What matters is whether the people are charge are FIXING THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE.

On this, Obama is a miserable failure.


At times, it even appears that Obama is SIMPLY BLAMING, AND NOT TRYING TO FIX ANYTHING

OBAMA SEEMS TO HAVE THE ATTITUDE THAT IF HE BLAMES SOMEONE ELSE, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE AND HE IS DONE.


But that is not what governing is about - Obama appears to NOT WANT TO GOVERN.

All Obama wants to do is push through an agenda which is against what American wants.

A complete recipe for disaster.


OH we already had a disaster.

And the theme applies to Obama's year-long review of energy policy - Obama showed a clear preference for saying he had unprecedented solutions - but the parts which were governing - SAFETY STANDARDS, SAFETY INSPECTIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS - Obama didn't care about.

We have an Obama administration which is INCOMPETENT AND NOW IS SO WORTHLESS IT IS DANGEROUS TO THIS NATION.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

sandra14,

Your post is the one that most describes my own views. Thank you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I seem to remember all these same kind of comments during the election. All the big "republican" boasting, etc. Now, almost a year and a half later, they are STILL sucking on their sour grapes! It's the kind of game that's fun to watch and make copies of the great and wonderful "republican" bloggers to play over when they lose. This tme they've gotten LOTS of help from the media too, so the anti-Obama campaign must be the wishes of the Tri-lateral Commission. Like I said though, there is no longer any organized republican party, so they'll need all the luck and conning to the gullible that they can muster up!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Yeah 12Bar and one really needs to wonder at these idiots who think Obama is "left," or "far left," or who believe there is any such thing as "the left" in America.

I mean, even people who consider themselves of the left in America still believe a lot of junk that's far right on any rationale evaluation of political polarity .. they believe in the corporation as a legitimate entity, they believe in free markets, they're against most social safety nets, they believe crime results from insufficiently punitive laws and not the result of poverty.

There is no left in American politics, only right, far right, and bizarro cuckoo-clock right

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

My friends and I continue to be highly supportive of Obama, so I guess that must mean we are "liberals". Given the enormous challenges the U.S. faces, I can't think of anyone else who could do the job of President. I cringe when I think of "President McCain", and don't get me started on that woman from Alaska!

The MSM has to have a new meme every other day! When 2012 roles around, we'll see who the GOP runs against Obama. A generic Dem vs Rep. says less than a poll of two candidates facing off.

Given the last 8 years, Obama has made great strides. To paraphrase, it's difficult to turn a big ship around. Patience, folks, or have we forgotten that trait?

Posted by: sandra14 | June 21, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Golum likes like GW Bush will in another decade. It's uncanny.

Posted by: Reesh | June 21, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Of the two corporatist parties, the Democrats are the more humane. Obama was the lesser of two evils in 2008, and will be the lesser of two evils in 2012 - without a doubt.

Posted by: Jihm | June 21, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

The conflict between the commenters is fascinating:

Side A: I used to love Obama, but he's too far right. But, I will vote for him again.

Side B: I always hated Obama, and still do, and he's the most left person that God ever created. I never voted for him and I never will.
-------------------------------

The facts according to the article: There is no appreciable deterioration in President Obama's numbers.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

This liberal fell out of love with Obama the moment he chose homophobe Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration.

I knew what to expect from them on - craven cowardice. And that's what Obama has been providing on a nonstop basis.

I am not swayed by arguments that Obama is better than Bush.

I expected a whole lot better than somebody who wasn't as bad as Bush, and I'm never going to stop criticizing Obama when I think he deserves it. I am an old fashioned bleeding heart liberal and AFAIC Obama is a disaster.

Posted by: solsticebelle | June 21, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

In reality it is very easy to close Guantanimo, but there will be a political price to pay. If he would have done it quickly, it would have been George Bush's blame. But now some of it has to fall on Obama, because there is no justification for keeping the majority of these people locked up because many of them are just people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Unfortunately Obama is just a wuss. His policies on the wars resemble LBJ in his unwillingness to accept the cost of winding down failed polices, so he keeps piling on hoping it will fix things.

Posted by: geewhizbang | June 21, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Of course I still support President Obama.
When you look at the alternative there is no choice. With the negativity by the republicans, the media and radical groups and commentators, there are those of us who can still sort out the truth, what is best for our country.
The party of NO, the party with undying love and support for Wall St., the party that puts their campaigns, party, personal gains and goals over the welfare of our country and us, the party which takes no responsibility for their past or future, the party that is trying with their obstruction to create further destruction has no place in deciding on our country's survival.

Posted by: kathlenec | June 21, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Well the inexperienced community organizer beat the pants off that daffy-azzed experienced adult McCain who by now would have us at 25% unemployment and at war with Iran so I think we'll stick with the community organizer since all you sh*theads have to offer are more unhinged lunatics. No thanks. I don't care how shiny Mitt's suit is or how wet you get when he centers his tie.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Buyers remorse" OR "Liars Transparency" ???

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but YOU can't fool ALL of the People ALL of the time !!!

Welcome to REAL word reality that Politicians LIE to get Votes, and then THEY LIE to stay in office !!!

Posted by: thgirbla | June 21, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

While I will hold my nose and vote for him again, this makes me far less motivated than I was last time.

Obama has been a huge disappointment. He had a powerful mandate, and he has squandered it being too careful and cautious on every issue. The right approach to the issue is rarely splitting the difference between two warring sides.

His policies on torture and other human rights are nearly as appalling as George Bush. The wars continue, even the scheduled pullout from Iraq leaves a huge number of troops in place. We need to be spending this money at home on jobs.

The stimulus was good, but way too small. The deficit hawks are being encouraged, even though their advice is just as dead wrong now as it was in 1938 when Franklin Roosevelt balanced the budget.

Obama allowed a process that gutted most of the progressive elements from the healthcare bill, including the all-important public option.

The response to the BP spill is still too slow. We need to be making plans on what to do if the well can't be shut down, which is a real possibility. Furthermore, BP shouldn't have been allowed to use the dispersants which only make the environmental problem worse.

Posted by: geewhizbang | June 21, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

So campaigning is easier than ruling? Responsibilities of government trump touchy-feely, sound good blather? Sausage making is ugly, even if the results bring a smile. Have I missed a cliche...do liberals know anything about worldly realities? Have we abandoned any credible thoughts of returning Obama to a second term, or liberals to Congressional leadership roles next year? We've flirted with Community Organizers; please lets get back to experienced adults.

Posted by: ecrutle | June 21, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Well you can count me as massively disenchanted with Obama, and I donated over $1500 to his campaign. I'm disenchated because he's way too far to the right and apparently marble-free when it comes to taking note of how the Republicans are acting, still holding out for bipartisanship when some of the GOP leaders should be under FBI interrogation for their public statements.

But I'm not about to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire, because voting for the GOP would make as much sense as running off a cliff with my eyes closed. And I'm willing to bet that most of your vaunted "independents" are going to make the same choice for the same reason.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Never underestimate the capacity of liberals to put ideological purity ahead of winning elections. Hopefully, for every progressive who abandons Obama there will be a moderate from the middle to take his/her place. That's where elections are won, anyway.

Posted by: mcknight131 | June 21, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Never underestimate the capacity of liberals to put ideological purity ahead of winning elections. Hopefully, for every progressive who abandons Obama there will be a moderate from the middle to take his/her place. That's where elections are won, anyway.

Posted by: mcknight131 | June 21, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I have to chuckle about all the comments on which Democrats will stick by Obama in the elections and which will not.

It wasn't the Democrats that put Obama into office......it was the Independents.

So check your polling on the Independents...we are "quite" disenchanted with this man.

Posted by: maxandmurray

_____________


And we have a winner.........who cares what liberals think.........they dont have the voting block to put him in for a second term...........independants make the deciding votes.....

Posted by: PTAgain | June 21, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I have to chuckle about all the comments on which Democrats will stick by Obama in the elections and which will not.

It wasn't the Democrats that put Obama into office......it was the Independents.

So check your polling on the Independents...we are "quite" disenchanted with this man.

Posted by: maxandmurray | June 21, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, actually, the republicans don't really even have an organized "party"!! Even I get their solicitations in the mail because they are so hard up for members they think I'll abandon ship! They have no leader; they have no organizer! If they're counting on the Tea Party folks, even that avenue is closed! THOSE people are Libertarians, FAR away from the republican philosophy of making the rich RICHER! Oh yes, there are STILL enough stupid people with only normal incomes who vote republican because they don't know any better. They continue to vote FOR the multi-millionaires and AGAINST themselves because they haven't figured it out yet. They are the gullible people who don't have enough time to turn on the news or to figure out WHAT the facts in the case really are. Our busy lives keep them mired down in the Republican fables to suck them in because otherwise, therde simply are NOT enough multi-millionaires in this country to EVER win ANY election. the desperately NEED those poor unthinking suckers!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. ..... Maerzie,

You are delightful; misguided in your love for Obama, but delightful, nonetheless...

And, you certainly CAN "THINK"!!!

Posted by: prossers7 | June 21, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Democrats, who are not in Capitol Hill and White House do not hesitate to show that they all, but hate Obama, prossers7. Your analysis is wrong. And it would be clearly shown on November. The election of Obama was the serious mistake, mainly because of his unexpectedly unpleasant personality (people didn't know him, they placed him in White House in advance) and the country is paying the price for it, and would pay even greater price for it for many years to come. Alas.

Posted by: aepelbaum | June 21, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats have completely lost touch with reality. At least Obama has partially come to grips with it. While in a dream closing Guantanamo may have seemed like a good thing to do, the reality is that it is simply not possible. Once reality strikes, it is hard to keep up those liberal delusions.

It is the Democrat's effort to perpetuate those delusions that is driving the entire country to the right and driving the Democrats right out of office in November.

Posted by: johne37179 | June 21, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street -"Far left...fiscal irresponsibility." Obama is Bush Light -
and if you compare Obamacare with what Nixon outlined - it is virtually the same.
Fiscal irresponsibility - oh yes, he has the wars funded through the budget not outside the budget like the bad Bush.
Come to think of it, Lincoln, Nixon. and Goldwater would be booted out of the Republithug Party.

Posted by: bgreston | June 21, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

october, don't confuse the pundit thought process with the American thought process. For all of Bush's so called decisiveness, people don't consider him a strong leader. He left office with Americans thinking of him as a blowhard. As for Obama, he isn't out there yelling or out on a boat with a pipe like *ahem* some governors.

Yet poll after poll shows that Americans consider Obama to be a strong leader. People saw this in hin during his campaign and people know you don't need to make a lot of noise to be a strong leader.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse


"We are completely in the bag for Barack Obama and have been whitewashing Barry's three ring circus of blunders since Day One."

Your Editorial Staff

Posted by: screwjob16 | June 21, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

agree, leichtman and margaret. i'm not sure which is worse, CC or the interns. but they are all R watercarriers. i've been reading dave weigel, he's amusing.

pretty soon, no one will be here but zouk and 37.

Posted by: drindl | June 21, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

My God, 37thand0street, Obama has been elected by left liberals, but through his presidency he has been pushing mainly far right agenda. Why are regular Americans so outrageously illiterate politically, ah? Do you know the difference between left and right? I do not think so. Why can't you , at least, remotely to find out the meaning of words, which you are utilizing, ah?

Posted by: aepelbaum | June 21, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

There are:
(a.) Democrats, and there are;
(b.) Liberal Democrats and there are;
(c.) Progressive Liberal Democrats

Liberal begins with (a.) and goes through (c.), becoming more fanatical as they progress.

(a.) Democrats. The plain old Democrat is still very much in love with Obama and will follow him anywhere, even over the cliff, which is where they are headed at the present time.

(b.) Now, the just Liberal Democrat is still hanging in there, hoping with everything in them that they can continue to persuade Obama to continue down the path to destrustion he's been on so far into his presidency. These people are somewhat disenchanted with Obama, but they still love him.

(c.) Progressive Liberal Democrats are the true fanatics. They are a difficult breed of individuals to satisfy in any area, on any subject matter. That is why they are referred to as fanatical. And, one might safely say that these people have fallen out of love with Obama.

Fanatical is the operative word when discussing Democrats. In order to understand which group of people you are talking about, one must first assess the degree of fanaticism the individual possesses.

Posted by: prossers7 | June 21, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

All this liberal hogwash is just that: complete garbage


We have to get the fiscal situation in this country straighten out or this nation is going to have serious problems.

There really is no question: THE COUNTRY HAS TO REPEAL OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN AND GET RID OF THE MASSIVE DEFICIT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.


Every day that ticks by represents DAMAGE WHICH THE LIBERALS HAVE DONE TO OUR NATION.


THIS IS SERIOUS STUFF.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

So the liberal pundits are upset with the president...so what's new. They are just members of the white boy network who like their GOP colleagues get upset when the President doesn't do a shuck and jive to their tune.

My advice...bugger off boys. The view from the street is still very much in favor of our president maybe because we don't have the huge paycheck but are smart enough to understand that problem solving takes time.

Posted by: Coodeh | June 21, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

There is NO WAY for ANY mortal to ever satisfy those who seek "miracles-on-demand." Furthermore, it's difficult to assess how much of this is real and how much is media-manipulated.

Posted by: Artisan1 | June 21, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

There are many people who know how to write the "convincing??" former democrat stories. I get e-mails from groups like this every day, which are obviously intended for uneducated, gullible people, but accidentally they usually get a FEW into the wrong mailboxes!

Yes, just listen to MY sob-story! I have been an extremely strong Democrat for as many years as I can remember, and I am 70 y/o! I also heaar all the anti-Obama stories and spins to put him in a bad light. Unfortunately, I was fortunate enough in my life to learn HOW TO "THINK"!! I went and got myself edjeekated!! So, I am one of the people who simply won't lie and PRETEND taht I am falling for the twisted anti-Obama campaign plan. You see?? Like I said, I learned HOW to THINK, with MY OWN brain and research the facts!! I don't have to be so lazy and gullible that I fall for the FAUX entertainers. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Breck are VERY WEALTHY REPUBLICANS, as far RIGHT and WHACKO as a person can get, and I don't need or WANT them to do my thinking for me and tell me what I am supposed to believe!

I am so happy for my very educated husband, who taught me how to THINK, and for acquiring my own college degree at age 53! I used to be this nice little yes girl, who voted for the candidate who lied the best. Yes, I USED to vote Republican. I helped Barry Goldwater in his TRY for the Presidency, but fortunately, THEN I started taking an interest in and looking up my OWN information so I didn't HAVE to fall for the best talker because I could figure it out by their actions, which speak LOUDER than words!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Are conservatives falling in love with Cillizza? Nope!

Democrats are becoming annoyed though.


Chris doesn't know his blog is still not bat crazy enough for the extreme right...and that is what really counts. That is a high standard to be reached by only a few loons in America. No Chuck Todd clone with his pandering polls and RNC rumors can reach the Mount Olympus of Tea Bag Republicans.

Being biased towards and actively promoting Republican propaganda is simply not good enough today to get him on Rush's good list. If he is not firmly on that list he will stay lamestream all the way and only hope to lose the left in trickles with his postings.

What might a simple tweet from Wasilla not mean for the Fix? "U don't lie" or something less mysterious and more encouraging like "U R not lamestream" would be so timely and think of the publicity and the book that one rogue tweet would make possible!
Cue in the mad scientist celebrating: AAAAHAHAHA


All in all, the current run is not really good politics for one who professes being a scholar of the beast.

Posted by: BobSanderson | June 21, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I recall all too painfully how many so-called liberals bailed on Jimmy Carter in 1980. And, as the quitter from Alaska might ask: How'd that morning in America thingy work out for liberal ideals?

I recall all too painfully how many Democrats bailed on Al Gore in 2000. And, as the quitter from Alaska might ask: How'd that bushy/cheeny thingy work out for liberal ideals?

Given the venomous hatred and America-hating legislative obstinance spewing from the minority (reminder: elections have consequences) side of the aisle, This is one Lefty not about to bail on the Democrat in the White House.

Posted by: ImaDem | June 21, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

It is not necessary to be a prophet to see that liberals now all but directly hate Obama and his presidency, and that republicans expect to have the great profit from it on midterm election. Cillizza has been trying to deny this obvious situation as long as he could, but now even he can't.

Posted by: aepelbaum | June 21, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Number 4 Negative Thread from the GOP Fix
about Ds toay and counting.

How about The Country Falling Out of Love
With Whacked out Rs? Nope just more GOP
threads from the Fix.

Let's just place a large Free Ad at the top
supporting GOP candidates.

Between 37th and CC this site has become a
total waste of time. I doubt I am the only
regular feeling that way.

Posted by: leichtman1 | June 21, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been pushing an far-left liberal agenda on America.


That much is true.

In response, the centrists and the blue dogs in Congress have been advising financial caution - and have tried to get Obama to be more in touch with America.


The pivotal point came with Scott Brown's election - Scott Brown won - stunning the democrats. AND the reaction of the liberals was: Obama is not liberal enough.


THAT IS REALLY OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICA.


Obama's major problem right now is his own incompetence - and how he tried to sell out to speicial interests and how that is hurting him in the Gulf of Mexico.

The liberal agenda pays little attention to reality - ASK ANY LIBERAL ABOUT THE NUMBERS - HOW MUCH WHAT THEY WANT IS GOING TO COST - and you do not get an answer.


Same with health care - NONE OF THE LIBERALS WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE COSTS OF THE PROGRAM.

S0 - it is moral bankruptcy compined with fiscal irresponsibility.


AND as I have said repeatedly, the original democratic idea of helping the innercities has been thrown ou the window by the democrats themselves.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | June 21, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Many of the liberals like our cohorts James Carville and Chris Mathews do not really believe this (guy) I mean this person is really qualified to be president. Hell, he freightens Mathews, but Bush didn't.
I think they all believe he needs a little presidential back seat driving, or at least public berating to get him off that "lackadaisical and naive" stance.
It seems to me the national media shrinks are secretly hoping for the return of that emotional Bush Bravado and full speed ahead - backwards governing methodology. Come on, raise some hell man, say something even if doesn't stop the leak...Scream why don't you.
President Obama said he would talk to American people like Adults. This was his second mistake, the first was to think we wanted to be grown ups, or that we even wanted a leader instead of the quick fix of a Magician.

Posted by: october30 | June 21, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Many of the liberals like our cohorts James Carville and Chris Mathews do not really believe this (guy) I mean this person is really qualified to be president. Hell, he freightens Mathews, but Bush didn't.
I think they all believe he needs a little presidential back seat driving, or at least public berating to get him off that "lackadaisical and naive" stance.
It seems to me the national media shrinks are secretly hoping for the return of that emotional Bush Bravado and full speed ahead - backwards governing methodology. Come on, raise some hell man, say something even if doesn't stop the leak...Scream why don't you.
President Obama said he would talk to American people like Adults. This was his second mistake, the first was to think we wanted to be grown ups, or that we even wanted a leader instead of the quick fix of a Magician.

Posted by: october30 | June 21, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Many of the liberals like our cohorts James Carville and Chris Mathews do not really believe this (guy) I mean this person is really qualified to be president. Hell, he freightens Mathews, but Bush didn't.
I think they all believe he needs a little presidential back seat driving, or at least public berating to get him off that "lackadaisical and naive" stance.
It seems to me the national media shrinks are secretly hoping for the return of that emotional Bush Bravado and full speed ahead - backwards governing methodology. Come on, raise some hell man, say something even if doesn't stop the leak...Scream why don't you.
President Obama said he would talk to American people like Adults. This was his second mistake, the first was to think we wanted to be grown ups, or that we even wanted a leader instead of the quick fix of a Magician.

Posted by: october30 | June 21, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I didn't vote for Obama- always knew he was just bushlite...

another corporatist ..

Posted by: newagent99 | June 21, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris's posts have come full circle today, as they usually do.

Fix lead with the Republican Burst of Enthusiasm headline, burying some mixed news below, particularly that cash-on-hand stuff that seemed like good news for the GOP until you read it a second time and realized that the Democrats had $20 million more on hand, 45% more than the GOP.

Then we got the Republican Internal Polling Might Be Brilliant (or might not) post.

Then Felicia, lucky girl, got to write about the Utah Republican primary. That attracted 6 posts -- unhappily HALF of those posts are from 37th. :-( Some stories get more exciting as they get closer and some don't.

Then we get the long post about what a MESS Obama is making in the Court of Public Opinion.

Sometimes it takes Chris a whole week to perform this circuit, but he is getting so very practiced at that he can now do it in one day. A tidy, satisfying narrative in which Obama is responsible for everything is so easy to digest.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 21, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Many of the liberals like our cohorts James Carville and Chris Mathews do not really believe this (guy) I mean this person is really qualified to be president. Hell, he freightens Mathews, but Bush didn't.
I think they all believe he needs a little presidential back seat driving, or at least public berating to get him off that "lackadaisical and naive" stance.
It seems to me the national media shrinks are secretly hoping for the return of that emotional Bush Bravado and full speed ahead - backwards governing methodology. Come on, raise some hell man, say something even if doesn't stop the leak...Scream why don't you.
President Obama said he would talk to American people like Adults. This was his second mistake, the first was to think we wanted to be grown ups, or that we even wanted a leader instead of the quick fix of a Magician.

Posted by: october30 | June 21, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

No, librals aren't falling "out of love" with Obama. It's just that the pollsters PURPOSELY choose samples that are KNOWN to be FAR RIGHT and/or actively ignorant and gullible to the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the country, as has been planned. I am 70 y/o and have ab enormous following of educated, THINKING people, AND an enormous family spread out over the United States, who know how to research facts, and, guess what??

NOT a single ONE of them was interviewed for this poll or any poll that is slanted the way the Republicans want the results to fall. It's simply the kind of sample they choose, and I sure can't guess WHY?? Can anybody else??

I find that VERY interesting! It would take a VERY gullible Republican to NOT be able to figure this out!!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 21, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't consider myself a "liberal" per se, but I am a strong democrat who has voted for perhaps 5 republicans or independents since reaching voting age in 1984...and the luster on Obama has long since worn off for me.

At this point, were he to be challenged in a Primary in 2012, or if he were to be challenged by a credible 3rd party candidate, I would seriously consider voting for them. Obama has pi$$ed away a strong majority in both houses of congress because he simply doesn't seem to understand the "bully pulpit" or the "power of the presidency". No one fears crossing him.

His problems began when he ordered Harry Reid to forgive Joe Lieberman for campaigning aginst him. As soon as he did that, it gave free license to everyone in Washington to cross him without fear of punishment. In the long run, Obama (and Reid, and the entire country) would have been better off had Lieberman been stripped of his committee chairmanship. The dems would have had only 59 in their caucus to begin the session with, but they would have been a cohesive 59...which is better than a loosely bound 60.

Posted by: Coloradem1 | June 21, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama was a liberal only in the imaginations of us 'liberals'.

When we liberals saw him in action, we knew he was no liberal (see his actions below).

It is a shame that 'liberals' get blamed for his administration's failures, when, in fact, most of his failures have been because he leaned toward the corporations and away from people, workers, families.

It is not Obama's supposed 'liberalism' that has made his policies so bad, but his Republican Lite approach.

Obama's 'un-liberal' actions:

1. Ignored previous Republican profligacy, crimes, misdemeanors 
(Effectively, allowing torture and rendition to stand as precedents for future Presidents and Vice-Presidents to use at their discretion)-


2. Supported a stingy stimulus that was a third tax breaks (Contributing to the current 9.7 % unemployment)-


3. Doubled-down, the accelerated the Bush bailouts (Effectively closing off any other options to address the recession) -


4. Escalated a meaningless and fruitless war ("Oops, they're not in Afghanistan anymore, they're in Pakistan!"-


5. Gutted real financial reform (no Glass-Steagle, no 'too big too fail) –
6. Not helped people with bankruptcy & mortgages remediation (record foreclosures and more 'help' for Freddie and Fannie measured in billions)-


7. Fiddled around & not passed a jobs bill (see 2 above) -


8. Rejected the only option that would have simultaneously extended coverage and cut costs (Single payer) -
and more recently...


9. Promoted off shore drilling (Think he won any 'moderate' or Republican votes with that move?) -


These are not the actions of a 'liberal'.

Posted by: theworm1 | June 21, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama was a liberal only in the imaginations of us 'liberals'.

When we liberals saw him in action, we knew he was no liberal (see his actions below).

It is a shame that 'liberals' get blamed for his administration's failures, when, in fact, most of his failures have been because he leaned toward the corporations and away from people, workers, families.

It is not Obama's supposed 'liberalism' that has made his policies so bad, but his Republican Lite approach.

Obama's 'un-liberal' actions:

1. Ignored previous Republican profligacy, crimes, misdemeanors 
(Effectively, allowing torture and rendition to stand as precedents for future Presidents and Vice-Presidents to use at their discretion)-


2. Supported a stingy stimulus that was a third tax breaks (Contributing to the current 9.7 % unemployment)-


3. Doubled-down, the accelerated the Bush bailouts (Effectively closing off any other options to address the recession) -


4. Escalated a meaningless and fruitless war ("Oops, they're not in Afghanistan anymore, they're in Pakistan!"-


5. Gutted real financial reform (no Glass-Steagle, no 'too big too fail) –
6. Not helped people with bankruptcy & mortgages remediation (record foreclosures and more 'help' for Freddie and Fannie measured in billions)-


7. Fiddled around & not passed a jobs bill (see 2 above) -


8. Rejected the only option that would have simultaneously extended coverage and cut costs (Single payer) -
and more recently...


9. Promoted off shore drilling (Think he won any 'moderate' or Republican votes with that move?) -


These are not the actions of a 'liberal'.

Posted by: theworm1 | June 21, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I suppose it's impossible for Chris Cillizza to even consider suggesting that much of what liberals want is so insanely stupid that even the Marxist they elected can't/won't do much of it in light of the consequences that liberals usually don't imagine until after the gas chamber doors are slammed shut behind them.

Posted by: rethman | June 21, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

No, we are falling out of love with commentators. I find myself turning them off.
No, Obama isn't perfect but I feel the positives are being too easily skated over with the need to fill the airwaves with criticism of something.

Posted by: Dr_JES | June 21, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

No, we are falling out of love with commentators. I find myself turning them off.
No, Obama isn't perfect but I feel the positives are being too easily skated over with the need to fill the airwaves with criticism of something.

Posted by: Dr_JES | June 21, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

No, we are falling out of love with commentators. I find myself turning them off.
No, Obama isn't perfect but I feel the positives are being too easily skated over with the need to fill the airwaves with criticism of something.

Posted by: Dr_JES | June 21, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

No, we are falling out of love with commentators. I find myself turning them off.
No, Obama isn't perfect but I feel the positives are being too easily skated over with the need to fill the airwaves with criticism of something.

Posted by: Dr_JES | June 21, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

And really CC, look at reality. Even if liberals' WERE unhappy with obama, they more than anyone else look at the loonytunes running as gopers and realize they have no choice but to fight to keep these nutbaggs out of office, or god help us.

The financial meltdown they brought us would be small potatoes compared to the havoc they COULD wreak.

jane norton, nutbag running for senate in colorado, suggests we should 'declare war on Islam." -- Yes, that's right, declare war on the of world's 4 major relgions, every member of it, 1/5 of the world's population and several countries.

They are not simply stupid, they are also insane.

Posted by: drindl | June 21, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"falling out of love with Obama."

Guess you couldn't find a way to work "Messiah" or "The One" into the title, huh? What a suck up boob you are.

Every morning CC puts on a suit despite a casual office, looks at his prematurely middle aged by choice demeanor and says "how can I suck up to the people who trashed the country today? Gosh, just love those Republicans, they're so cooooool an' conservative an' stuff."

Posted by: Noacoler | June 21, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

No, liberals are NOT falling out of love with President Obama.

You have some wacko right wing Tea Bagging hacks pretending to be Democrats, and pack of liars, is what you have trying to affect polls and make their teeny tiny minority seem like a big majority.

The wackos have been trying to fake being a majority ever since they were out-voted and we elected President Obama.
____________

Damn......how do you argue with logic like this???????

Posted by: PTAgain | June 21, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

For many of us voting for the least objectionable has become common place. Certainly voting for someone who is educated and doesn't panic at the drop of the hat has merit. My only problem with Obama is his apparent pandering to people who do panic and want to react without thinking.

Given the choice between Obama and Old Blood and Guts McCain and the Moose Skinner Palin I wouldn' hesitate to vote the same way again.

Posted by: sauerkraut | June 21, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

No, liberals are NOT falling out of love with President Obama.

You have some wacko right wing Tea Bagging hacks pretending to be Democrats, and pack of liars, is what you have trying to affect polls and make their teeny tiny minority seem like a big majority.

The wackos have been trying to fake being a majority ever since they were out-voted and we elected President Obama.

Posted by: lindalovejones | June 21, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

WillSeattle wrote:

"Liberals aren't falling out of love with President Obama.

He's a wise President, but we always knew he was right of center."

=======

Stopped reading right there. If you think Obama's "right of center", you must be placing the "center" somewhere near Lenin. You're insane.

Posted by: charlesbakerharris | June 21, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Also, ugh, count me as a liberal who rolled her eyes at Rachel Maddow's faux-presidential speech. Her point about the drilling moratorium/safety was just a rephrasing of Obama's same point, her point about creating a "federal commission" for cleanup ignores that a federal commission already exists (it sucks, but that wasn't her argument), and her point about passing legislation using reconciliation (!) and executive orders (!!!) was just crazy. Not only that, but Obama went further than her by discussing changes at MMS as well as long-term restoration of the Gulf Coast, but for some reason I'm expected to clap and cheer for her bizarre Walter Mitty-esque fantasy of a speech? This, before Keith Olbermann flounced over one anonymous comment at DailyKos, and after Jon Stewart called for simplification of subjects that are, quite frankly, not simple. And this while Howard Fineman criticized Obama for being short on detail--which of course came after a few weeks after Fineman criticized Obama for being TOO detailed in his press conference at the end of May.

Maybe it's not so much that liberals are falling out of love with Obama, as it is that liberal commentators are becoming increasingly whackadoodle and out of touch with reality.

Posted by: dkp01 | June 21, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Liberals will fall back in love, and in line, when Obama restores civil liberties and human rights in America.

DEFENSE INTEL AGENCY TO EXPAND DATA COLLECTION ON 'DISSIDENTS?'

http://newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/06/18/pentagon-spies-build-new-database-on-foreign-and-domestic-threats.html

There already IS a de facto "military secret police" being run out of the nation's multi-agency "fusion centers." Extrajudicially, unjustly "targeted" Americans -- including this veteran journalist -- are being ideologically censored, and electromagnetically TORTURED and impaired.

Is this DIA announcement a clever way around human and civil rights abuses being committed by the Homeland Security- administered fusion center multi-agency network -- putting those Americans unjustly targeted by the fusion centers under military scrutiny, an ex post facto justification for unconstitutional and inhumane persecution of "dissidents" and those slandered as undesirables or enemies of the state?

Congress must open a round of Church-committee- style hearings into the nationwide multi-agency fusion center network and reported abuses of human and civil rights.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener -- Facebook -- Vic Livingston ("Notes")

Posted by: scrivener50 | June 21, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I suspect liberals and more than a few moderates are "falling out of love" with Obama, and understandably so.

People voted for:
1. An end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. Trying to limit if not end the control of Congress by special interests
3. No more lobbyists in top executive branch an admnistration slots
4. Meaningful health care reform
5. At least an attempt at bipartisanship

The people got: none of the above

Posted by: bethesda4 | June 21, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I suspect liberals and more than a few moderates are "falling out of love" with Obama, and understandably so.

People voted for:
1. An end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. Trying to limit if not end the control of Congress by special interests
3. No more lobbyists in top executive branch an admnistration slots
4. Meaningful health care reform
5. At least an attempt at bipartisanship

The people got: none of the above

Posted by: bethesda4 | June 21, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Liberals aren't falling out of love with President Obama.

He's a wise President, but we always knew he was right of center.

It's just you gullible extremists in the MSM and your Tea Bag Terrorist comrades that are waking up to the fact that President Obama loves America AND is right of center.

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 21, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Most "liberals" today do not seem as liberal or progressive as those during the 1930's or 1960's. Most support Obama's policies, which are clearly not overall liberal or progressive, for reasons which seem sort of inexplicable.

Probably they are very reluctant to oppose the first African-American president, and desperate to cling to their fantasies about him being the first truly progressive president since Johnson in domestic policies.

Liberalism has changed in recent decades. Liberals during the 1940's, 1950's and early 1960's supported equal rights for everyone. This degenerated for many "liberals" into supporting reverse discrimination by the 1970's.

Liberals during the 1930's and 1940's supported the right of workers to unionize. In recent decades, as the Democratic party has become beholden to unions, the overly generous salaries and pension benefits to some public employees has become financially unsustainable, but most liberal and Democratic politicians do not seem to care, seeking ever rising taxes, to maintain their political power.

The latest odd manifestations of modern liberalism are the contempt most liberals seem to have for the rule of law in opposing enforcement of immigration laws and the support by some for a regressive, value added tax.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | June 21, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Re: Hot-button issues--most liberals who voted for Obama in November 2008 understood that it was a choice between him (a center-left moderate) and a pair who were much, much further to the right. Any liberal who'd been following the campaign was probably discontent with him from the start, but if they voted for him, they voted knowing that he was more in-line with their core beliefs than the other candidates.

Better polling would include both questions asking about approval, and questions asking who they would vote for if the presidential election were held today: Obama, a Republican, or other/nobody. If a ton of people shift into the "other" category, then Obama may be in trouble, but I'm not sure if that combination of questions been used lately.

Posted by: dkp01 | June 21, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

RE:Wow, this sounds like a school assignment. "Write a story why Obama is losing support, even if he isn't."

Agreed! If the polls don't show it, Chris can still fabricate a new Democratic disaster in the making.

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 21, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand this story. "There is nothing in the data to support liberals falling out of love with Obama." So the story is: but there could be data in the future? And goes on to cite 3 reasons:

1) If the data changes, it could change by July.

2) The data should change, even if it hasn't.

3) Who cares about the data, it's the enthusiasm gap. But then, who cares about the enthusiasm gap because it's not unusual.

Wow, this sounds like a school assignment. "Write a story why Obama is losing support, even if he isn't."

Isn't the real story that liberals still love Obama. I guess that's not interesting enough.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | June 21, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Liberals don't move in lockstep like conservatives. People like Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow generally support President Obama, but they'll call him out if they don't like something he does. That doesn't mean that they suddenly hate President Obama or wouldn't vote for him; it means that they have enough intellectual honesty to admit that their "side" isn't perfect. That's never a problem for conservative pundits, of course.

Posted by: Blarg | June 21, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Yup, we hate him.

Can we get more from the interns now, please?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 21, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"Ross Douthat, in a column that ran this morning in the New York Times, summed up the liberal agita thusly:

"Many liberals look at this White House and see a presidency adrift -- unable to respond effectively to the crisis in the gulf, incapable of rallying the country to great tasks like the quest for clean energy, and unwilling to do what it takes to jump-start the economy."

You are kidding, aren't you? Douhat is a self-professed rightwinger. Just more wishful thinking, all you seem to do anymore.

Posted by: drindl | June 21, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I think Chris Matthews is still getting some tingling in his groin area but it has stopped for most others.

Posted by: battleground51 | June 21, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Democrats are free to have an original thought apart from their party. They can and do criticize when appropriate.

A better blog entry could be: Why are the Republicans so enthused and what do they stand for?

It could answer the pressing question:
When will the Republicans learn to criticize their party leaders when mistakes are made so they can get their party back on the rails, define an agenda to clarify what they stand for in all their enthusiasm.


Being the party of No is no way to run a country.

Posted by: mariewilson11 | June 21, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I told you that 37 was driving everyone away. Happy now?

"If there is further evidence of unhappiness among liberals -- and, to be clear, there isn't much in the data just yet -- it could"

"if' 'could' 'maybe' -- in other words, there's no story here. just more republican cheerleading and wishful thinking.

Posted by: drindl | June 21, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company