President Obama continues to be massively popular, with a 63% approval rating in the latest CBS/NY Times poll. Thats about double what President Bush had on the way out. Obama still gets high marks (55+) on economy, terrorism, and foreign policy. The only area of some concern is the deficit, and frankly everyone’s concerned about deficits but wants money spent in their backyard. His approval with health care is iffy as well, but my guess is about 15-20% of that is probably people wanting him to get off the stick and get a comprehensive plan passed rather than playing pattycake with the right on it (I would include myself in that group).
And this
While Republicans have steadily increased their criticism of Mr. Obama, particularly on the budget deficit, the poll found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 28 percent of those polled, the lowest rating ever in a New York Times/CBS News poll. In contrast, 57 percent of those polled said that they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.
Heck of a job Rush, Sarah, Glenn, Sean, Dick, Karl, Michael, etc.! Keep it up!
And no, AO, that is not personal approval. It’s his job approval rating.
Wow, that’s even after Letterman told a nasty joke about Palin’s kids! Whodathunkit?
Obviously some Morans need to get brains…
Perhaps his approval will be higher once the “extreme” right finally gets used to the idea that a Democrat is in office. Once that happens maybe they will at least listen to what he has to say instead of looking at ways to attack every move he makes.
This is good news for John McCain.
(Sorry, I still think that’s funny.)
Well that’s odd, someone removed my post. Pot meet kettle.
Once that happens maybe they will at least listen to what he has to say instead of looking at ways to attack every move he makes.
Yeah, not likely.
We can only hope, Oliver. However, it seems to me that even though I was unhappy with President George Bush’s election, and reelection….I snapped out of my discontent and got on board. While there were a lot of things I didn’t like that he did. I was willing to give him credit when he did things right. I was dicontented. It seems that now part of the country is in “mourning” since John McCain was defeated.
Well that’s odd, someone removed my post. Pot meet kettle.
It probably wasn’t Obama himself, but it might have been someone taking orders from him.
@ Quaker in a basement.
LOL!
Back when this was mainly a Bush-bashing blog I thought it was pretty good. We need people to challenge our politicians and uncover things they might not want us to know.
I see that this blog has turned from challenging the ones in charge to mindless cheerleading.
That’s right, I never disagree with the President. I never note when he’s not doing what needs to be done (scroll up).
Is Barack Obama perfect? No. Of course not. But he’s doing a pretty damn good job and I’m going to say so in spite of the temptation to kneecap him for not being perfect.
“Adam ‘Francois’ Herman” is a concern troll that links to a website spouting corporatist nonsense.
At the website he links to is a post on “why lobbyist restrictions are dumb” which asserts that we can’t minimize lobbyist’s influence but rather we should create an entirely unaccountable Fourth Branch (effectively a Star Chamber) that can independently and undemocratically “remove Congressmen from office”.
Essentially “Adam Herman” is arguing that corporations buying politicians is okay but what “Adam Herman” thinks is needed is the dismantling of our American democratic republic of three independent branches each having checks and balances over each other.
I call shenanigans.
“Adam ‘Francois’ Herman” is a right wing corporatist concern troll.
As “C.S.Strowbridge” has already wisely noted of “Adam Herman”: “Your credibility just hit zero.”
“Strowbridge” is being kind.
Right winger “Adam Herman’s” credibility is LESS than zero.
Concern troll? Nah. More like a real troll, by your standards. And if you actually read the blog post, you’d know that my reasoning is not right-wing hackery. Nor am I a Bush shill. But thanks for the free publicity for a blog that no one reads but me.:)
Anyway, to get back to the point of my original comment, I’ve read this blog for years, since at least 2002, and while I didn’t always agree with Oliver, I enjoyed his commentary and thought he raised important issues. The blog now sounds like a government mouthpiece. Hopefully it will get better.
[B]Essentially “Adam Herman” is arguing that corporations buying politicians is okay but what “Adam Herman” thinks is needed is the dismantling of our American democratic republic of three independent branches each having checks and balances over each other.[/B]
In terms of oversight, Congress is accountable to no one.
It’s not a balanced system when Congress can provide oversight of the executive branch, but Congress self-regulates.
Self-regulation, as we know, doesn’t work, and Congress is a primary example. You can silence lobbyists all you want, but as long as Congressmen want to please lobbyists, they will seek them out with hat in hand. Congress is the problem, not lobbyists.
In all of this hoopla you didn’t notice that I want Congress to STOP handing out favors to lobbyists, something which I think we all agree on. You just seem to be under the impression that we can limit access of certain lobbyists, but not others(who we don’t call lobbyists. Lobbyists we like are called activists).
Lobbyists we like are called activists
You mean like the “lobbyists” for Big No-Smoking? Or the “lobbyists” for Big Clean Water? Maybe you were thinking of the “lobbyists” for the powerful “Children Without Health Insurance” industry.
Lobbyists and activists both push for legislation. Any similarity ends there.
Actually, they are the same thing. They lobby for legislation. A Sierra Club lobbyist is the same as an Exxon lobbyist. An AARP lobbyist is the same as an NRA lobbyist. The term “lobbyist” is morally neutral. What an organization lobbies for is not. My point is that there is no way to limit only the lobbying we don’t like and encourage the lobbying we do. And in the end, lobbying doesn’t create bad legislation. Bad legislators create bad legislation. Lobbying reform is a good idea, but as long as the lobbyists are the only ones at serious risk of punishment, it won’t mean squat. Congress won’t police itself, it never has.
My idea may have been too radical. After all, it would take a Constitutional amendment. But one thing that would not would be for the courts to reestablish checks and balances between the executive and legislative branch. Just as the legislative branch provides oversight over the executive branch, the executive branch should have oversight powers over the legislative branch. Perhaps the Attorney General could fufill this role.
The term “lobbyist” is morally neutral.
Lobbyists we like are called activists.
The term lobbyist is neutral, but we use a different term only for those “we” like. Do I understand that right?
the executive branch should have oversight powers over the legislative branch.
Veto–ever hear of it?
I’m talking about in terms of ethics. Congress does not regulate itself.
If the executive branch can’t regulate Congress, then some other entity will have to. Self-regulation doesn’t work. Someone has to watch the watchers.
Self-regulation doesn’t work.
Someone has to watch the watchers.
And then someone will have to watch the watchers of the watchers. And someone else will have to watch them.
This is why we have elections.
I’m talking about in terms of ethics. Congress does not regulate itself.
Mr. Gingrich might tell you otherwise.
“And then someone will have to watch the watchers of the watchers. And someone else will have to watch them.”
Not if the only purpose of the watchers is to watch. Congress has huge responsibilities. Even if they wanted to regulate their members’ conduct effectively, they’d be hard pressed to do it. An independent committee that’s only purpose was to investigate ethics violations would be better.
Otherwise, I’d be interested in your opinion on why Congress is qualified to provide oversight over the other two branches. If Congress inherently superior to the executive branch, that the executive branch can’t be trusted to regulate itself but Congress can?
Neither branch can be trusted completely. This is why our Founding Fathers gave us “checks and balances.” You must have been asleep that day in third grade.
We all tremble before the “the powerful “Children Without Health Insurance” industry.”
lol
h/t “Quaker in a Basement”
Right winger “Adam Herman”: “Congress does not regulate itself.”
Actually, in many ways Congress (the Legislative branch) does regulate itself, though often both of the other branches of American government, the Executive and Judiciary branches, have a hand in ‘checking’ and ‘balancing’ Congress.
I do, however, largely agree with your statement that “Self-regulation, as we know, doesn’t work”.
But, “Adam”, you really don’t have a clue as to how the US government operates.
You say that “the executive branch should have oversight powers over the legislative branch. Perhaps the Attorney General could fufill [sic] this role.”
You assert that without realizing that the Executive branch DOES have oversight powers over the legislative branch and that it IS overseen by the Attorney General.
If a Representative or a Senator breaks a law, the Executive branch enforces the law.
Consider Republican Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham: He broke laws (written by the Legislative branch), the law was enforced by the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch oversaw that enforcement and it led to the prosecution and conviction of Republican Representative Duke Cunningham.
I would agree that the laws regulating unethical behavior of government officials should be strict and strictly enforced but I also recognize that the oversight [Judicial branch] of how those regulations [Legislative branch] are enforced [Executive branch] should be carefully overseen.
Consider how Republican President Bush’s Attorney General interfered with elections through the mis-enforcement of regulations through the Republican US Attorneys scandal.
Congress [Legislative branch] should have exercised more rigorous oversight of what the Executive branch was doing ['oversight' is a function all three branches share, especially in regards to the other branches].
I realize that when a Congressman breaks the law, then he can go to jail. That’s a no-brainer.
The same is true of say, a CEO. That is not what we talk about when we say that self-regulation doesn’t work. We refer to the gray areas or things that aren’t illegal, but are ethically questionable. For example, let’s say a Congressman inserts a $5 million earmark into a bill to pay off someone who donated $2000 to his campaign. It’s a pretty clear case of corruption, but Congress refuses to make rules regulating this practice. Jeff Flake(R) has been calling for an investigation of the link between earmarks and campaign contributions for quite some time.
Let’s take a look at the cap and trade bill. Who gets the free permits? Coal companies. The worst greenhouse gas emitters of all. But also very important to the Democratic Party. Oil companies get far less lenient treatment because most of the oil industry is in red states, whereas the coal industry(and auto industry, which also will receive free permits) exists mostly in blue and purple states.
It’s a bad bill and most environmental bloggers object to those parts of the bill. Perhaps if there was some way to regulate Congress to forbid the giving of campaign contributors special benefits from legislation, we’d get better legislation.
CBS poll has interesting tabs in it-especially the 2008 president vote-48 pct voted for Obama, 25 pct voted for McCain and 20 pct didn’t vote. If I am correct Obama won 53-46, so can you say Democrat and Democrat leaners were OVERPOLLED. So the 63 pct rating comes in a poll Obama beat Mccain by 23 pcts in? Real shocker there
well of course his approval rating is high: green grass and puppies for everyone!!! Obama can’t put off EVERY hard decision for another 3.5/7.5 years.
Right winger “Adam Herman”: “Perhaps if there was some way to regulate Congress to forbid the giving of campaign contributors special benefits from legislation, we’d get better legislation.”
The difficult part is that that means regulating money and unfortunately most right wingers think money is speech (and under the sway of right wing Justices, the Supreme Court essentially agrees).
What that means is that what’s needed are tougher campaign finance laws, or even better, public funding of elections.
But that was one of the reasons that Republicans were so mad at Republican John McCain. McCain passed some modest campaign finance laws that regulated corporate money and Republicans were FURIOUS.
The irony was that Republican McCain found all kinds of ways to get around his own laws, Republican McCain took LOADS of corporate cash, and still managed to get gubmint money on TOP of the corporate cash and private bundles of money for his Republican Presidential campaign.
It was a feat to behold Republican McCain’s sleazy money-grubbing go almost completely unreported by the corporate main-stream-media.
The difficult part is that that means regulating money and unfortunately most right wingers think money is speech (and under the sway of right wing Justices, the Supreme Court essentially agrees).
Does anyone think that politics is cleaner now with McCain-Feingold? Keep in mind that since McCain-Feingold we’ve had Rep. “Cold Cash” Jefferson, the PMA scandal with Reps. Pete Visclosky and John Murtha, the Jack Abramoff scandal, and the rise of self-funded (i.e. multi-millionaire) candidates.
And if McCain-Feingold really poses a threat to the establishment, why did it pass so easily with a 51 vote margin in the House and 20 vote margin in the Senate? Are our politicians really that selfless?
Also, News Reference, in your response I’d like to be referred to as either a corporate shill or right-wing hit man. Preferably the latter.
“The difficult part is that that means regulating money and unfortunately most right wingers think money is speech ”
You don’t have to regulate a dime, at least in terms of donations. You just have to require Congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on any bill in which they’ve received a donation from any of the interested parties.
Obama can’t put off EVERY hard decision for another 3.5/7.5 years
A few weeks ago he was doing too much/taking too much control. Now he’s putting things off? Talking points FAIL.
Obama can’t put off EVERY hard decision for another 3.5/7.5 years
Really….? Way to buy into the fox news propaganda!
‘Obviously some Morans need to get brains…’
Are you referring to those who voted for President Chugalug….twice?
‘I was willing to give him credit when he did things right.’
When did that occur?
‘I see that this blog has turned from challenging the ones in charge to mindless cheerleading.’
Especially after the long haul of 5 months in power, there should be so much to find fault with.
‘Is Barack Obama perfect? No. Of course not. But he’s doing a pretty damn good job and I’m going to say so in spite of the temptation to kneecap him for not being perfect.’
Or the handicap of not being an ignorant White hick you’d want to get drunk with.
‘Shame on…..shame on you? Fool me…..can’t get fooled again!’
‘The blog now sounds like a government mouthpiece. Hopefully it will get better.’
Of course since OW supports this President and didn’t support Dumbya, you’d like to see the same criticisms raised about Bush leveled at Obama?
When O commits the cosmic clusterfucks that Bush did, you might have a case; until then get used to this and other Left wing sites SUPPORTING the President.
You see, that what we ‘loony lefties’ do; we give people a chance to prove themselves, and judge them accordingly. Bush was a miserable failure, the evidence of which is blatantly obvious. Obama has been in power 5 months and the Right is frothing at the mouth over everything he says and does.
Which of these 2 viewpoints seems more reasoned to you?
Let me guess; froth on.
‘well of course his approval rating is high: green grass and puppies for everyone!!! Obama can’t put off EVERY hard decision for another 3.5/7.5 years.’
You continue to expand the term ‘meaningless’ with every post.
well of course his approval rating is high: green grass and puppies for everyone!!! Obama can’t put off EVERY hard decision for another 3.5/7.5 years.
Wow, you’re still stupid, evil, and treasonous.
Hey Oliver– That friggin’ Hostway ad pops up covering your latest headlines and won’t go away. How do you get rid of it? As it is, I have to wait for 1 or 2 more new posts before I can read your older stuff.
Also covers all your contact info on your “Contact Me” page.
Wow, you’re still stupid, evil, and treasonous.
Mainly treasonous.
the poll found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 28 percent of those polled,
There’s that number again!
Obama can’t put off EVERY hard decision for another 3.5/7.5 years.
This is just too awesome, Save. Just too awesome. There is simply no way to parody this.
“You see, that what we ‘loony lefties’ do; we give people a chance to prove themselves, and judge them accordingly”
Bush didn’t get the courtesy of five months. In any case, it’s irrelevant. Many liberal blogs have found plenty to criticise, from Obama’s broken promises on gay rights to his adoption of the same extensive executive powers of detainment Bush used.
All Oliver can criticize him for is being too nice to Republicans. It reads like Pravda in its braver momenets.
‘Bush didn’t get the courtesy of five months.’
That’s right; he only had the paltry tenure of 8 years to display his immense incompetence, for which the likes of you want him beatified.
Interesting you should mention Pravda; your posts have the same degree of falsehoods and distortions.
‘All Oliver can criticize him for is being too nice to Republicans’
Why should he do more than that when you seem to have taken the liberty of voicing every other unbalanced, petty and desperate slur against him?
Whatever will you do when Obama is re-elected in an even greater margin of victory in 2012?
Oh….that’s right….you’ll STILL be whining like a spoiled, petulant child.