56% of Americans approve of Obama...Choke on it Wingers
Too_Many_Tools
people approve of "Mission Accomplished" Bush and "Shoot You In The
Face" Cheney?
Laugh...laugh...laugh..
TMT
Gains for Obama, not his Afghan plans
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer Liz Sidoti, Ap National
Political Writer
WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has
hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.
Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way
he's doing his job.
The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity
holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way
he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the
8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more
than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review
by announcing a big troop increase.
But despite his prime-time TV speech explaining how he reached his
decision to boost U.S. forces in Afghanistan to 100,000, and begin
bringing them home in July 2011, there was no change in the public's
resistance to escalation. Just 42 percent favor sending more troops
while 56 percent oppose it, essentially unchanged from November.
The findings suggest limits to Obama's persuasive skills — and
underscore what's seemingly become the public's default position in
his first year in office: People like him, but they're squeamish about
his policy.
"These were tough decisions this guy had to make," said Steve Pollaro,
67, a bus driver from Torrance, Calif., praising Obama for showing
leadership. But Pollaro, a registered Republican who calls himself a
recent Democratic convert, is lukewarm at best on the new strategy
itself. He opposes a public timeline for beginning a withdrawal and
reluctantly backs the troop increase — on grounds that Obama knows
more than he does.
Others, like Democrat Scott Hanson, 30, a state employee from Duluth,
Minn., give Obama a thumbs-up for leading on Afghanistan but are
absolutely against the escalation. Said Hanson, "I just don't feel
that threatened, so I don't think we really need 30,000 more troops."
And there still are a large number of people who feel just the
opposite. Take independent Larry Sass, 62, a UPS store manager from
East Hartford, Conn., who says, "It's good he sent the troops, but he
took too long to do it and I wish he would show more backbone."
Overall, most people — and most of Obama's fellow Democrats — don't
think Afghanistan is a conflict worth fighting. But Obama is pressing
ahead despite such polling. He told CBS' "60 Minutes" that he ordered
more troops "because I think it's the right thing to do. And that's my
job. If I was worried about what polled well, there are a whole bunch
of things we wouldn't have done this year."
The poll respondents' conflicting viewpoints reflect the complexity of
the issues surrounding Afghanistan and underscore the challenge the
novice commander in chief faces as he seeks to persuade a skeptical
Congress to continue paying for war and an impatient public to stick
with him heading into his first midterm congressional election year.
In some good news for Obama, more people said the country is heading
in the right direction, 46 percent compared with just 38 percent last
month. And the increase is evident among Republicans, Democrats and
independents.
Nonetheless, half the country still says the nation is on the wrong
track, and 42 percent don't approve of how Obama is governing. Those
results could prove problematic for a White House looking to advance
an ambitious agenda next year and to Democrats seeking to retain
control of the House and Senate. Congress' marks remain low, with only
one-third of the country approving of how it's doing and two-thirds
disapproving.
Although the national debate over health care has been heated, there
was little to no change from November in the public's attitudes on the
proposals being discussed — 44 percent oppose them while 36 percent
support them. And only half the country approves of Obama's handling
of the issue.
The greatest shifts over the past month came on Afghanistan.
Since November, the president has completed a lengthy review of his
Afghanistan policy and announced he will send 30,000 more troops into
the war, at a cost of $30 billion for the first year alone. He mapped
out the strategy and explained his decision in a prime-time speech at
the U.S. Military Academy. He said a drawdown would begin in 18
months, but he set no target date for ending the war.
Obama's approval rating on Afghanistan stands at 52 percent — up a
whopping 10 percentage points from November — while the percentage of
those who disapprove dropped to 40 percent from 48 percent. Obama has
improved his standing among members of both major political parties:
70 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans now approve of
his handling of Afghanistan, increases of 9 and 19 points,
respectively, from last month.
Even so, only 39 percent of Americans overall favor the Afghanistan
war, while 57 percent oppose it — roughly unchanged over the past six
months.
The AP-GfK Poll was conducted Dec. 10-14 by GfK Roper Public Affairs
and Media and involved landline and cell phone interviews of 1,001
adults nationwide. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus
3.1 percentage points.
___
Associated Press writers Christine Simmons and Natasha Metzler, AP
Director of Polling Trevor Tompson and News Survey Specialist Dennis
Junius contributed to this report.
___
On the Net:
Peter Franks
> Hey wingers....why don't you pay for a poll asking about how many
> people approve of "Mission Accomplished" Bush and "Shoot You In The
> Face" Cheney?
Socialists are always greeted as heroes by the ignorant. What's your point?
RONSERESURPLUS
> Hey wingers....why don't you pay for a poll asking about how many
> people approve of "Mission Accomplished" Bush and "Shoot You In The
> Face" Cheney?
>
> Laugh...laugh...laugh..
>
Hmm, Lets see, How do we put this???
This approval ratiung (That none of us believe) Is sure different from
the under 45% he had last week? Anyhow Evgen if it is true , does that
make him any less of a Socalist, a Creep that has no real improvement
plans for the USA only a trip down the road to Socalist programs and
make us into a cheap version of eastern Europe,m Hows that 'HOPE and
CHANGE" thing working so far, 1 year and all he's managed to do it
FEDERALIZE the bannk,s the Car Industry and screw up on all his world
tours? Hows that Btter relationship with the Islamic Coiuntries
coming? They all see him as more of a a joke that we do?
When will he do anything PRODUCTIVE? How about a Poll on that?
RON
PS: Least when Bush was in, when he said he'd do something good or bad
he did it with better intent and sucess?
Sueki Tartridge
LOL !! AP Poll !! ROTGDFLMMFAO !!! Why not just axk MOVEON.org or
George Soros ??!! LMMFAO !!!
Curly Surmudgeon
<ronsere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PS: Least when Bush was in, when he said he'd do something good or bad
> he did it with better intent and sucess?
Can you translate that into English for the chemically balanced?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RONSERESURPLUS
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:43:59 -0800, RONSERESURPLUS
>
> > PS: Least when Bush was in, when he said he'd do something good or bad
> > he did it with better intent and sucess?
>
> Can you translate that into English for the chemically balanced?
>
Who ever told you YOU were CHEMICALLY Ballanced?/ Your way off the
tilt for that! Go Back to your Bong, the adults are talking!
RON
edi...@netpath.net
math suggests that - with a few states in the northeast and Kalifornia
ultraliberal and almost sure to be near-totally favoring Obama - he
must be overwhelmingly hated everywhere else for it to average out to
56%.
Bet Obama is near-unanimously hated by whites everywhere but
Kalifornia and the urban northeast. That's safer math than Vegas
oddsmakers use.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
nraclaptrap
news:hgdft5$ct$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Well, you're a very ignorant lil gunloon and you greeted Cheney/Bush -
the fascists who nearly destroyed our country for the sake of personal
and corporate greed - as heroes, eh GOOBER?
So your own ignorance and tolerance of the fake is now imploding the
Republican Party, rolling up the rightwing like a dirty rug, and driving
you all apeshit in the process.
Political slapstick at its finest...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Lefturd Dumbwads
NBC News / Wall Street Journal
12/11-14/09; 1,008 adults, 3.1% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(NBC: story, results; WSJ: story, results)
National
State of the Country
33% Right Direction, 55% Wrong Track (chart)
Obama Job Approval
47% Approve, 46% Disapprove (chart)
Economy: 42 / 51 (chart)
Foreign Policy: 49 / 42 (chart)
Afghanistan: 46 / 42
Congressional Job Approval
22% Approve, 68% Disapprove (chart)
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_national_survey_nbcwsj_1211.php
Curly Surmudgeon
As I thought, you can't speak American English...
Observer
<ronsere...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, Ron the adults are talking. YOU should listen.
__
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
nraclaptrap
d2bf-4d5c-a3a...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 17, 10:56�am, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> NBC News / Wall Street Journal
> 12/11-14/09; 1,008 adults, 3.1% margin of error
> Mode: Live telephone interviews
Wall Street Journal, owned by RUPERT MERDEPOCKETS? And Rupert's opinions
are way far right of ordinary Americans?
Does the word "duh" mean anything to you, turdsucking troll?
Next loon please.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
The guy's too stupid to realize that the drop in his ratings is a
result of left wingers turning their backs on him.
If he loses on health care and global warming, he's done for. Just
the modersates left, and they aren't good for much.
nraclaptrap
news:vmmli5pdu0r86b5tq...@4ax.com:
Why don't we get a progressive third party together so when Bluedogs and
Lieberman and the so-called moderates try to fuck us next time, we get
good people elected and send them to Congress like suicide bombers, but
they'll be suicide representatives who legislate explosive policy reforms
then accept the fact that they'll lose the next election if the policies
don't work. Meanwhile, in red states and purple states, we get other
progressives elected who take over the legislative suicide missions that
help the folks in this country who need it and reform the corrupt and
corporatist-controlled policies that need real reform, and just pass the
fucking legislation knowing your career in Congress is short, but heroic.
And maybe that way we could do the hard things that fucking pussy
Democrats are afraid of. And if Republicans try to obstruct us, we'll
stick together and change the House or Senate rules even if we have to
cheat. Because we know now that 50,000 Americans are doomed to die next
year because the Democrats lack the balls to put their constituents
before their chickenshit politico-lobbyist careers.
And when we control Congress, we can frame a constitutional amendment
that outlaws private money or gratuities in federal elections, which must
be publicly funded; and we outlaw lobbying with money or gratuities or
golf vacations etc., only information concerning the issue lobbied about
will be legal; and no federal elected official can accept anything from
anybody except a paycheck from the taxpayers. And then government in
this country can be as good as any in the world, instead of an assault on
democracy which is what it is now.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Siobhan Medeiros
From the way YOU'RE talking, you sound like the one on the bong.
Siobhan Medeiros
Yeah, except for Washington, Oregon, DC etc.etc.etc.
Lookout
wrote:
Stupid statement. Welcome to my filter
Lookout
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:43:59 -0800, RONSERESURPLUS
><ronsere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> PS: Least when Bush was in, when he said he'd do something good or bad
>> he did it with better intent and sucess?
>
>Can you translate that into English for the chemically balanced?
HAHAHHA What the hell was that?
Curly Surmudgeon
The voice of Republicanism.
Peter Franks
Even stupider response.
> Welcome to my filter
Dwell in ignorance, my good friend!
Observer
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:24:01 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:51:16 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:43:59 -0800, RONSERESURPLUS
>>><ronsere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PS: Least when Bush was in, when he said he'd do something good or bad
>>>> he did it with better intent and sucess?
>>>
>>>Can you translate that into English for the chemically balanced?
>>
>> HAHAHHA What the hell was that?
>
>The voice of Republicanism.
The voice of someone running a meth lab.
Gray Ghost
news:0phoi5he13hen6g2v...@4ax.com:
I think he made it as you proved his point.
--
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
"Hide the Decline"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, don't agree the
science is settled.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
What it appears to be all about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4&feature=video_response
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:34:51 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:24:01 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:51:16 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:43:59 -0800, RONSERESURPLUS
>>>><ronsere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> PS: Least when Bush was in, when he said he'd do something good or
>>>>> bad he did it with better intent and sucess?
>>>>
>>>>Can you translate that into English for the chemically balanced?
>>>
>>> HAHAHHA What the hell was that?
>>
>>The voice of Republicanism.
>
> The voice of someone running a meth lab.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Lib Loo
"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6qhoi5p1d5fud7prj...@4ax.com...
He said chemically imbalanced. You know, like Curly.