Louis J:

I hope you are right about the oil spill being over but I am afraid that the pipe under the ocean floor leading to the reserve has already developed small leaks. If they grow and or blow out as a result of the pressue then one can begin speaking of the dooms day scenario for the Gulf of Mexcio and perhaps even beyond. And, I think BP already knows that these leaks are present but are not saying much of anything about them.

CA,

Sad to say but I think you're right! There's a lot more going on down there that we are not being made aware of!

It's not like BP has been honest & forthcoming with information so far - so why would they start now?

I pray that we don't wake up one morning and see mass evacuations or even worse going on in the Gulf!

I'm hoping, as many others are, that they they will have the relief well in place by then. Has anyone read about the fisherman that committed suicide? This is really affecting some livelihoods.

I can only imagine that the amount of oil that is currently in the gulf will eventually float out into the greater ocean as it is swept around Florida. It will affect tourism but that seems like the only way it will work itself out. This is years in the making and their is nothing man can really do about it other than relieving the pressure and cleaning up the beaches.

If Florida gives me a free ticket on an airline and a few nights in a hotel, with a few hot meals, I'll bring a shovel and some cash. See, I'm trying my hand at some give and take brokering. Elect me to office.

Louis J,

I hear you about helping in the clean up effort as I've thought about it myself. The issue I have with that is since there is no end in sight to stop the oil spewing - trying to clean up the beaches at this point would be futile!

It's like for every 'tar ball' you pick up 5 more wash ashore... Because I DO believe the worst is yet to come!

I realize we can't just sit back and do nothing so I'm unsure what the solutions are... :0(

I don't know a tea bagger, but some sack has lost a nut.

The Republicans need to focus on those they can do something about, Nancy and Harry !! I have little faith in Republicans or Democrats (and I hope neither party EVER HAS A SUPER MAJORITY again!!) but since the chances of them gaining super majorities slim to none hope they make gains to put Comrades Harry and Nancy in check!! Focusing too much on the President is a loser. Jam TARP and the Stimula$$ down the throats of those who passed them and keep hitting on the need to get the Govco. check book out of the hands of Nancy and Harry !! Also make sure that the growing number of independent and conservative African Americans are catered to in campaigns since even most liberal African Americans have conservative values when it comes to agenda items like gay marriage (which is why Obama won California in '08 but the gay marriage bill was soundly defeated) and gays in the military . The FACT that 60% of Americans feel that the country is on the wrong track tells a lot about where campaign efforts need to be focused which on the party that has BEEN IN CHARGE FOR ALMOST 4 YEARS but still wants to blame everything on a President who's been out of office a year and a half!!!!

CA-

That's why the correct response to the Live Poll question is Barack Obama.

Issues change...the quality of the President's leadership doesn't.

The mid-terms will be about his Administration's management of the economy and job creation, its response to the Gulf oil spill, the pending Justice Department lawsuit against the state of Arizona, Obamacare, cap-and-trade, closing Guantanamo, civilian trials for KSM and the 9/11 plotters, and really...everything that touches on the competence of this Administration.

The mid-terms will be all President Obama and the Obama Administration...all the time.

For once...all politics will NOT be local.

The mid-terms are a referendum.

We'll see whether the electorate gives a vote of confidence to the Administration.

We already have some clues, don't we?

Unfortunately the question is "What do you think is the top issue this midterm season?" and not What do I want the top issue to be this midterm season? I think it will be all about President Obama when I want it to be about the economy. How can you questions a someones leadership skill before the consequences of the decisions has been seen fully. The only reason people can look back and call other Presidents great leaders is because they are doing just that, looking back. Many people thought President Bush II was a great leader right after 9/11. If nothing else, that should tell us all not the jump the gun or rush to judge and unfinished performance.

And yet, Mixed Bag, Barack Obama was a midpack issue last month and he's a midpack issue again this month. No matter how many times someone screams "this election is a referendum on Barack Obama" the facts show that it's only the case among those who didn't vote for him in the first place and wouldn't vote for him or any other Democrat anyway. That hasn't changed. I'll vote against my Senator because he obstructs the agenda without providing any alternatives and he cares more about his friends in "the house on C street" more than he cares about his constituents. I'll vote to retain my Congressman because his opponent is running on a platform of idiocy, plain and simple.

I don't know Mix Bag. It seems what you are saying is that a President's ratings or popularity or grades on leadership drive the issues (and therefore the outcome of electiions) rather than vice versa. I'm not sure I agree. I tend to think that it is the issues even though they frequently change that drives a President's ratings and popularity, and election results. This is why many people are frustrated when answering poll questions. They are frustrated, upset and even mad about such issues as the economy, the oil spill, etc., but many still like Obama personally and are still willing to see what he can do. People also need to feel they have a good, solid and legitmate alternative if they were to reject the agenda of a particular President, and while there are those who are frustrated with Obama there are many in the same group who do not yet see a viable republican alternative. They may see it in a person in a local senatorial or congressional race, but they certainly don't see a viable republican alternative (to date) in the national Presidential race coming in 2012.

Let's for sure revist after all this is over. My take is that the republcians will gain seats in November (perhaps quite a few but not enough to gain the majority in congress), and Obama will be re-elected in 2012.

Actually, CA-

Like most Americans, I like and admire President Obama on a personal level. He's an extremely intelligent man, and a good husband and father. What he's achieved in his life is remarkable on many levels...astonishing even, given his humble beginnings.

But, for a long time now, there's been a growing divergence between the electorate's view of President Obama personally, and it's unease with the agenda and policy goals of his Administration.

And, familiarity with that agenda hasn't made the public's heart grow fonder, has it? I've outlined those issues repeatedly...I won't repeat them.

Many here can't seem to separate the two, but I believe the public can and will in November.

First Read is an echo chamber, CA...and the outcome of the mid-terms is likely to be much worse for President Obama and the Democratic Party than you imagine.

Why? Do you think a bunch of people are going to die in November or the earth is going to be struck by a meteor or something?

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC-

Ummm...

No, Michael.

That's not it.

Thanks for your input, though...

Hey, Mike...what do think of RGiles theory that the blog has been subjected to infiltration by Karl Rove types?

I think it's possible. There are quite a few paid bloggers floating around the internet these days. And there are more than enough people who:

1.) are out of their normal comfort zone here

2.) obviously do not like the regulars who post here at all

and

3.) are not trying to persuade anyone here of anything

that a rather obvious conclusion to draw is that they perhaps have some other incentive for posting here on a regular basis. Enough people exist in the world who are just asses for there to be several who would come onto a liberal slanted blog and personally attack the posters there for no other reason than they just like to cause strife. However, there are also enough drive-bys and posters with similar styles here for me to believe that a few of them might be drawing $10/hour or so to sit around their house and cause havoc for pay.

I have no evidence of it of course.

As far as the other thing is concerned, your warning was so dire that I immediately suspected that something of earthshattering importance was going to happen in November. I 'can imagine' much, much worse than being in the minority party again. After all, I was in the minority party only 4 years ago and the world was not exactly at an end.

Life will go on. People will continue to be asses to one another. Hopefully we can do a whole bunch of saying 'no' to you.

Ok Mix Bag.

You have my attention. Not necessarily my agreement but my attention.

You are to be given kudos as one who apparently is attempting to be rational.

So, let's look at this agenda you mention and that you say is damaging Obama. Lets try to evaluate and thereby judge the specifics.

I'll begin with three issues to be followed by more (add some as you see fit). You respond with as much detail as you can, I'll respond in kind with as much detail as I can, and we will see where we end up. If others wish to joiin in that is ok, but everyone must agree to keep the snarkiness out of it. If anyone from the right, middle or left cannot join in without making snarky remarks we (you and I) agree to ignore their comments and not to add them to the discussion.

Afghanistan - What decisions would a Republican President had made on Afghanistan that would have been different than those of Obama's to date, and how would a Republican President have handled Afghinistan differently than Obama and that would have made our current status in Afghanistan better than what it is today.

Job Creation - what would a Republican President (besides that of promising to create more jobs) have done differently to create more jobs then what Obama has done. And what would the unemployment rate figures look like today under a Republican Presdient, and if lower rates thahn wha tthey are now, how would that have been achieved (or do we need to agree up front that a President has little or limited control over that which drives unemployment figures).

Bailing Out Wall Street - Would a Republican president have bailed out wall street as did Bush followed by Obama. If not why not, and if not what would have been the impact on t he economy to date as a result of alowing all these firms, including the auto manufacturers to completely fail?

Ok, have at it.

OK, CA...here goes:

1) There's not an ounce of daylight between the goals that President Obama, Secretary Of State Clinton, and Defense Secretary Gates have outlined in Afghanistan, and my own.

2) I would argue that dividing President Obama's $800 billion stimulus package money equally between every working -class household in America would have led to the economy being in far better shape than it is now...and, I would have deducted 20% withholding from each check and urged that each recipient spend, not save or invest, the cash.

Actually, I would have INSISTED that recipients spend stimulus it, if I thought that enforcement of that stipulation was possible.

3) The TARP bail-out was, in my mind, reprehensible. We had everyone from President Bush to then-candidate Obama insisting that the economy would crash because credit would completely freeze up.

But look at the economy now, and it's prospects going forward. We have rewarded behavior in a free-market economy that should never have been tolerated...while at the same time skyrocketing the nation's debt.

Banks whose management managed them into the ground SHOULD fail...not be propped up by the taxpayers so they can be rewarded yet again for miserable, or even criminal mismanagement next time around. Bad businesses fail...and should fail. Period.

I'm certain that the economists here at First Read can explain why my suggestions are simply impossible, even ridiculous...but then, I'm NOT an economist and hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinions.

Dissent...right?

Not sure what you mean by deducting 20% withholding from each check. Are you saying that the government should have given only 80% of the true amount of each check and called the 20% they didn't give taxation?

If the government was giving away the money, then what would be the point? It's not like if you hand someone a $100 dollar bill and they give you a $20 back, then you just made $20. You just gave them $80. Why not just call it a $640 billion stimulus package and do away with the phantom income taxation rigamarole?

I have no problem with your idea in theory. I am just confused about what the point of this 20% withholding thing would be.

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC

I can assure you Michael, that I've been subjected to far more ad-hominem, personal attacks here at First Read than I've launched.

You have access to the data base at your fingertips...demonstrate how and why my assertion is inaccurate, if you wish.

Should you feel inclined to try, I'll do the same in rebuttal...do you have any idea what's been said about me here? I would urge you not to go down that road, but if you choose to do so...I'm ready.

And Michael, my views toward the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are far more nuanced than your simple, though undeniably heartfelt..."no".

No, Michael-

I was simply suggesting that recipients should regard the money as income for tax purposes...a meaningless exercise perhaps, but maybe stimulus for those working as tax-return preparers as well?

I'm going to consider this a serious query, and not nit-picking, Michael.

I think one of the main problems Obama has run into at the national level stems from his truly bi-partisian roots. By that I mean throughout his carrear he has been very astute when it comes to forging alliances with his opponents. For example, he became the editor of the Harvard Law Review in no small part because he befriended many on the political right. It was enough to put him over the top. Also, in Illinois state politics he was very inclusive and managed a pretty broad base of support.

I thought this would be refreshing on the national scene. Someone truly willing to work with both sides. However, since politics is so strikingly polarized at the national level I think he is finding it tough going. It is impossible to appease both the hard left and the hard right at the same time. As a centrist I give him credit for trying.

However, the far right seems to believe the best way to defeat him is to oppose anything and everything the president tries to do. I guess in a way it is payback for the "everything is Bush's fault" era. And as for the far left, many of their hopes have been dashed by political reality: politicians have to play ball with the big money boys- pharma, insurance, wall street etc. They sometimes seemingly have no choice but to comprise, especially since there own party members in the congress have their agendas and constituents to worry about. Not to mention dealing with the congressional egos.

I could not imagine taking the reins of this country under worse circumstances in recent times. A massive financial collapse, two "insurgency" wars droning on, and now this terrible oil leak. All seem almost endless. The right argues that he owns it all now and that he has failed. Especially with the financial disaster, I do not see any easy way out. Don't run huge deficits and just let everything go down the toilet, or run huge deficits and be criticized as a big spender. My only critisism: I wish he would have been better able to control where the stimulous money went. I think there were to many paybacks to political allies and too much spent propping up underfunded state governments. And I believe Obama was strong armed here by the congress - nothing to back it up just my opinion.

I voted for McCain, but I thought Obama's victory speach was one of the best I have ever heard and I was filled with hope for this country.

So here is my perscription for President Obama: 1) Get out in front of this BP disaster by doing everything you can to make sure government is part of the solution and not part of the problem - I don't care if you are walking the beaches - you need to have a right hand man or woman that can cut some of this red tape we keep hearing about - OSHA, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers - do not allow the government to look inept. Get the voluntears organized and in the picture. Mr. President, I think you waited too long to take your message on health care directly and forcefully to the people. Use that bully pulpit! Show as dramatically as you can the actions you are taking - forget the rhetoric. We would all like clean energy - but any realist knows you can't get it over night. The only way, in the short term to get more green energy is to vastly increase the cost of oil to make the alternatives more feasible. The people in those gulf states are worried about tomorrow - not future energy policies.

On this next point, I know many of the progressives will curse me, but I think you have to address the border issue. My 82 year mother has to take her shoes off her crippled up arthritic foot in security to fly here to visit her grandchildren while thousands stream across our border. When you have federally erected signs in border areas basically saying "We have no control here - enter at your own risk" that is not good. Let's get this resolved. And no, I am not buying the "terrorists are streaming in" argument, but it is possible. It just looks idiotic. I am all for imigrants. Many parts of the world are facing a shortage of young workers to support their aging population. We should not have the same problem. Deal with this issue as the wimps before you have not done so. You can wait till after the mid-term elections to do the whole deal.

Let's talk turkey on this immigration thing. The people on the border feel over-run. They feel they are losing their way of life. This is natural and not necessarily bigotted. If Paris was over-run with Americans, or Mexico city hit with huge influxes of "Gringos" would there not be a similar reaction? I have lived in the same neighborhood for 25 years. It changed from mostly Irish/Italian run businesses to mostly Middle Eastern run businesses. Do I hate the Middle Easterner's? Certainly not. But it is an adjustment when the signs are all in Aribic, manyh of the women are covered in berkas, and you can't understand the language. It is only natural to be a little ... homesick? But I believe most of these imigrants are legal. I'm not worried about being hit by an uninsured illegal Middle Eastern immigrant. I am not worried about drug smugglers or human smugglers. And our neighborhood has moved along quite nicely with the new wave of immigrants adding vitality to the area. So let's not jump to label those in Arizona or elsewhere as biggots.

We all have to look at things as objectively as we can and try to make some good decisions. I truly wish our president all the very best. And I think he is at his best when he takes his case directly to the people.

Come on Gang... let's give Mark Murray his first *green star* shall we?

Not sure exactly what you are in such a snit about. You asked me a question and I answered. I wasn't referring to you. The very fact that you are among the few right wing posters who I will talk to on a daily basis should be verification enough that I don't think you engage in that sort of activity.

I do not equate you with the racist thugs like Farley or the truculent asses like ITM.

However, like I said, there are enough drive-by posters whose names we never see again and people who post in similar jackass fashion to make me believe that it is possible that there are some of those $10/hour paid bloggers who frequent this site. Do I care? No. As long as they don't do stupid things like mass invade the board like they did last Friday. That sort of thing is damaging to the board because it drives regulars away. Day-to-day paid buffoons? Not so much. They can come or go and add to the conversation or not and their contributions, such as they are, will soon be ignored and forgotten.

As far as nuance goes, as I said the other night. I have, for months attempted to engage the right here in very specific ways regarding very specific issues and also for months I have advocated on a nearly daily basis for a reduction in the amount of partisan bickering. Virtually none of you listened. A few yes, but like I said yesterday, there comes a time when you've been punched in the face enough times that you reach the conclusion that the other person has no interest in anything other than punching you in the face.

So you disengage. And eventually you punch them back.

It is about as simple as that. If you and yours have no real interest in solving the problems that face us and prefer to regard this as an eternal war with me and mine, then I don't have any intention of fighting it to lose.

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC-

This is a small thing Michael, and make no mistake...I appreciate the substance of what you've said. (kumbaya chorus, anyone? Ahem...just kidding)

But, I don't see myself as a "right-winger"...I'm not even a Republican.

I'm a conservative. Specifically, a fiscal conservative and national defense conservative.

I'm not a social conservative, not a member of the "Christian right", nor even particularly religious at all, for that matter.

To me the "religious right" is best exemplified by the mullahs who would like to drive the modern world back into the 13th Century...not the 1950s.

The Islamic extremists are the "real" reactionaries, and they would never tolerate the exchange of views we see here at First Read. In fact...you First Read regulars would be rounded up in an Islamic republic long before they ever got around to me.

Anybody else here see the irony in that?

Feisty, my love-

I hear you!

I get sooooooo pumped when I get a "green star"...!

Really...Mark hasn't gotten one?

Wow, Feisty...you just KNOW that it's WAY harder for me to get a "green star" here at First Read, than it is for Mark Murray!

I might even vote for him myself, Feisty.

GO MARK!

Mixed Up,

You're simply irresistible when you talk that way... ;0)

Feisty Baby-

I'm getting to you and you know it.

If only my heart didn't belong to Anna Molly...

CA and Mixed, I hope you don't mind another opinion:

With regard to Afghanistan -

Obama did not develop and announce his strategy until December 2009, while the 4 deadliest months of the war (July, August, September, October 2009) occurred and the 2009 losses doubled the previous high for a year. The previous Republican, you will recall, was conducting operations in Afghanistan within 2 months of 9/11 and had essentially removed the Taliban from power and chased Al-Qaeda into Pakistan in less time than the present administration developed its plan. Circumstances are obviously different now, but focus and response/aggressiveness are an issue where a positive distinction could be made.

One policy that did change almost immediately under the present administration, however, were the ROE. Under the Bush administration the ROE were probably the most sensitive, or restrictive in history. The greatest loss in SEAL history and the single deadliest day of the war (at least thru 2008) was a result of these sensitivities, or restrictions. The current administration has expanded the ROE to such an absurd level that the war is almost untenable. These new ROE have resulted in many additional deaths and a dramatic negative effect on morale.

The last distinction is also the most important and many fear probably fatal difference. Never in American history has a president announced his strategy for winning a war with a timeline set. Obama's strategy appears to be less of a military calculation and more of political calculation, by appeasing the right/middle by ordering more troops and appeasing the left with the pull out deadline. It is one thing for Obama to have a deadline, to tell his generals there is deadline, but you don't tell the enemy. No real progress has been made since the announcement. The Taliban know they win in a year, every person in Afghanistan from the president to the poorest villager know the Taliban win in a year and the world (except progressives) knows it. Karzai is trying to make deals, our allies are pulling back (we are short 450 trainers right now), the American high command is fractured, on and on. Patraeus is a brillant choice and could win, but not with the deadline. Obama has just snatched sure defeat from possible victory with his announced steadfastness to the deadline today. A Republican would at least know the insanity of announcing the deadline.

Sorry, went on too much about Afghanistan, so I'll be very brief on the other two:

Job Creation - With HCR, cap and trade, debt, etc... with things so bad Obama doesn't even have the courage to put a budget together before the elections - how can business put together a budget when they don't even know what the real costs and additional taxes are going to be. Business is paralysed, banks are holding a trillion/not lending.... When you are at war with business, good things don't happen. Maybe a Republican would at least set a deadline to stop the war on business. Obama won't set that deadline.

Bail outs - Not much difference. Has to change.

Not at all, bob...

I welcome your input, and I hope CA does as well.

With regard to your concerns about the ROE in Afghanistan, I hope the President will realize that they conflict with his goals for the mission.

I'm hoping that General Petraeus can provide valuable advice and insight to the President, based on his experience in Iraq.

Since Petraeus and the President now sink or swim together in Afghanistan...I think President Obama will be receptive to Petraeus' counsel.

Mixed Bag and Michael,

While I've not been on the board today, I just finished reading your conversation. I've got nothing in particular to add, but I would like to commend both of you for the rather "unusual" conversation, and by unusual, I mean that it was both civil and thought provoking.

Michael,

I thought it was very telling that you have noticed that not only some on the right side of the aisle are somewhat nasty, and that you acknowledged several on the left as well have issues. You identified some of the right side, anyone on the left that you'd care to acknowledge? I've got a few, but they're my personal favorites, and I prefer to keep them that way.

Mixed,

I hate sounding cynical, especially on Afghanistan, we have to win. The Petraeus decision was brilliant, a home run. I had hoped that Obama would listen to him, first and foremost about the deadline. My first impression on Obama's announcement today about maintaining the deadline was that Obama could change in December. Then you realize that while that would work here in America (politically speaking), it won't work where it matters - Afghanistan. Fighting in Afghanistan is seasonal and if Obama waits till December, it is probably too late.

Que sera sera .....

bob-

Honestly, I believe that by selecting General Petraeus, President Obama deftly deflected all other questions about Afghanistan policy.

But, he also gave Petraeus enormous latitude in the methods employed to achieve the President's own goals there.

And Petraeus will have enormous input into the proper time to begin any withdrawal.

That's, in part, what choosing Petraeus cost Obama.

What it costs Petraeus depends on the outcome in Afghanistan.

But this is Obama's war now, ultimately...

He's given himself the best chance to win, in my opinion.

A little off-topic, but did anyone else hear Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen say that "debt" is the greatest threat to U.S. national security?

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me to send a nasty letter to Chuck Grassley. I've done that quite a bit lately. Someone reads them because the replies make reference to things I mentioned, but somehow his message always thanks me for supporting whatever boneheaded thing he's done lately...when I DON'T! The guy just doesn't even care what his constituents think anymore, which is probably why the polls show this potentially being the closest race of his career. An interesting development considering the "Republican wave" that we're supposed to experience in November.

W Bush,

I feel your frustration and anger. It really is a dilema. As a land lord that has tried to keep his properties in good condition and serve his tenants well I have seen all kinds. Those struggling to find and keep a decent job, being screwed by employers that could give a rats but. And those getting full tuition, books and transportation to schooling that drop out after a week to lay around in there filthy mess. Those working hard with the odds against them, and those strung out on crack that were just lost. In this case I think you are right and the unemployment extension is an excellant stimulous during unprecedented times, at least in our lifetime.

However, let's not go overboard. All Republicans are gready SOB's that care only for big bad corporations and all Democrats are ultruistic saints. They both take all the contributions they can get, for the most part. The Dems were with the Repubs on the Free Trade stuff - as were most economists. We are all better off when we don't get drunk on Rushbo or Hard Ball.

No veteran has a mouth like yours. I would like to see your DD214. I think you are just another obama loving hypocrite hack. Where do you get the mature names you are using for the people who are supporting you? Get a life. Your not a veteran at all, just another stupid frat house punk.

Another Jerk Off from the right. My DD214 is none of your business. At least I have one.

Me too, US Navy.

It was a spending bill, not an unemployment bill. The deficit is KILLING jobs. The interest will kill us.

But what you are really missing is what Barton and the judge who through out the idiotic drilling moratorium have in common -- Both were supporting THE RULE OF LAW.

tom the conservative: I am a fourth generation us marine veteran and i think exactly the way disabled navy vet does. I know many other marines who are sick of Republicans turning us into slaves. Guys like us are informed, well traveled and well read. How did you get to YOUR opinions? Jesus or Beck?

True liberal: The rule of law does not exist in the USA anymore.

Tom, those of us that have been in the military and been overseas have seen the destruction that greed and corruption can do to a nation, the Philippine Islands is one good example, under Marcos . With the disproportionate amounts of money going to the top 5% of this Country, and then NOT 'Trickling Down' is the major source of ALL of our major monetary problems, as well as poisoning the well of politics here by buying off the politicians from doing work for the people and making it easier for the Corporations and those with much, much more money than they can ever spend or use.

When you start putting down Veterans, or claiming that they are not Veterans, with no proof, just because they don't follow your ideologies then all you are doing is proving yourself to be an assinine troll intent on causing mischief and strife here on the board. You do a grave disservice to ANY and ALL persons who have EVER served this Nation's Military.

I do not care which side of the political fence you reside in, but by putting down Veterans, especially Disabled Veterans who put their lives on the line and paid a "Piece of the farm" for the Nation you happen to enjoy citizen status in, show that you are as UnAmerican as they come. Those people did something that you do not have anywhere near enough balls to do and to put them down makes you nothing more than an idiot that has a computer, no brains and a bankrupt morality account.

Thank You again US Navy, and I am sorry that you had to experience that slimeball!!

I know you are but what am I. Get serious people. Do you jerks actually think I would bust on one of own. I have a DD214 and a NGB22. So screw you. I forgot that libs act like they are god and they are better than everyone else. No one in the service would ever bash the country like I read on here. B. Honest with yourself. Can you actually tell me that this administration is doing right for our country? He is destroying it right in front of our eyes and you people are so self indulged with trying to be politically correct it is pathetic. I call it the way I see it. B. honest, what corporations are you talking about? I want names of companies. You call them out now answer. Those are the same corporations that are owned by rich people that employ your pathetic self. Look at the states that have high taxes and compare that number to unemployment. There I go again using facts not just propaganda talking points. Quick, call Gibbs to answer my questions.

1 year 6 months

1982 Reagan 45%

1994 Clinton 46%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx

Dennis. You got it.

and Baby Bush was skating on the fear he fostered and festered following the WTC attack.

Bush 2002 is inflated by the events of 9/11. Obama 2010 is probably a little deflated by the oil spill.

Well, to be fair, every president's snapshot at that particular point in his term is affected by any number of external events. The president's current numbers reflect widespread dissatisfaction by almost every segment of the population regarding life in general in 2010, just as Reagan's poll numbers reflected similar dissatisfaction with life in general in 1982, (the country was in the midst of a nasty recession and unemployment numbers, if I recall correctly, were very similar to the figures today).

President Bush, yes, got a bump, but if I recall, there really wasn't much that he did during 2001 prior to 9/11 that really ticked me off. He had the benefit, at the point in time, of appearing to be a relatively harmless, genial ex-owner of the Texas Rangers, who lucked into the presidency and who was a relatively inspirational figure during the crisis itself. If I recall, the only thing that really annoyed me about him then was that his administration had the same tendency that his father's had during Desert Storm to 'sloganize' the entire military effort, making the whole thing seem sort of like a massive video game instead of something where people's lives were really ending.

I freely admit that if I'd been polled in June, 2002, I probably would have said that the president was doing a good job.

I did not start to disapprove until the lies started to come out.

and, oops-when I referred to GHWBush, I meant to type 1990. He was elected in '88. Thanks for the pass, guys.

MSierra:

These should be issues. But unlike the republicans, the majority of dems as it relates to hammering home their opponent's negatives with the general public continue to be weak kneed blithering idiots. The republicans have the upper hand and know how when it comes to swaying public opinion using negative campaign tactics. The dems just seem to stand on the sidelines with their mouths hanging open staring dumbly as the republicans take them apart. It's not that the dems do not have the ammunition at times to do the same to the republicans, they just seem stuck in neutral all the time. I will admit however that in general the majority of Amercian people are conservative in nature and therefore this makes it easier for the republicans to move the majority of people a bit further right than it is for the dems to move people left.

They sure are. They (republicans / teabaggers) also referred to the unemployed as "Hobo's". The Republicans and teabaggers will do everything they can to stop President Obama. A 16 point majority vote in the Senate gets overridden. They are just going to stop anything the President does and will later claim that he did nothing. We have to keep reminding people who the real culprits are in this. I hope the bank reform goes through. I will believe it when it is signed, sealed and delivered. The repugs have a habit of promising one thing just to change their minds at the last minute (this is a planned strategy they used before).

They other side of the aisle is laying low hoping that we will forget. Let us not let that happen, keep up the pressure on ALL of them.

Republican'ts are some sick & twisted bastards now aren't they?

'Hobo's... Really? Just goes to show you how far behind they are of the times...

I believe 'bums' is the new PC term for the homeless.... But please do correct me if I'm wrong!

U.S. Navy:

I am chuckling here regarding the hobo remark. And this is how the republicans rule using this kind of rhetoric and campaigning.

They will refer to the unemployed as hobos as part of their rhetoric against extending benefits. Now you would think that a great number of people, those on unemployment, those nearing the unemployment lines, and those worried they may be headed to the unemployment line, would take exception to such comments and reject the same. But the majority don't, and the republicans know that the majority won't reject their positions or rhetoric. Why? Because all those who fall into the unemployment categories or potential unemployment categories that I listed above do not think the republicans are talking about them. They think the republicans are talking about that guy just one level below them. It could be the same guy that is standing next to you in the unemployment line but he is somehow different. He is the guy the republicans are talking about, not me. He is not like me. He is lazy, never looks for work, does not want to work and only wants to take advantage of everyone else. Why should the government extend benefits to help folks like "that guy" . As for me on the other hand, I may be in the unemployment line but I'm not like that guy over there. The republicans are not talking about me, they are talking about people like that guy.

And you know what U.S. Navy? That guy over there is standing in the unemployment line and is thinking the very same thing about me. The republicans are not talking about me, they are talking about that guy over there.

So you see the republicians are very good at twisting people's logic or using divisive tactisc that pit people against one anther. A person may be on unemployment but they do not wish to admit that they are like the thousands upon thousands of hobo's also on unemployment that the republicans are talking about. They are somehow different. They are one step better and above such people. So they agree with the republicans without realinzing that the republicans are in fact talking about them too.

It is a sad but very interesting and successful tactic the republicans use all the time, and unfortunately these people buy into the republicans suggestions that they need to be against somebody whether hobos, terrorists, gays, etc., even though the republicans at the top of the chain are referring to just about everyone in this country who are not on the same step of the economic ladder as they are. They seek these people's support, persuade them to be against one group or another group and then while quietly walking away in their tightly nit group they refer to those they just influenced to support them as those damn hobos.

Great follow up. This gets a vote. I never would have thought of your logic. Thanks you the enlightenment, I will be on guard now. This makes them even more dangerous.

Oh Feisty, I do not not which is PC correct these days. Bums or Hobo's. Maybe somebody can help us out on that one.

My son, would love to put his freshly-earned Chemical Engineering degree to work anywhere--INCLUDING Taco Bell. He's living with his fiancee in the Bethlehem, PA area since she was offered a job there. I'm so disappointed that I first looked for work as an adult during the Reagan Recession, now my son is coming of age just as the Laissez-Faire economics of the GOP wreak havoc on the middle class once again. He deserves better. We all deserve better. Republican economic policies based on deregulation and Monetarism are a failure. It's time to say goodbye to them. Instead we appear to be on the brink of reliving 1937, when a recovering economy was plunged back into the pit by Republican insistence on a balanced budget.

I, too, love the "hobo" references. The solution to the economic mess; riding the rails and mulligan stew!

Seems they are just blind. President Bush sent the money to PetroBras but hey do not let the facts get in the way of the truth. How can anybody believe anyhing that comes out of the mouths of these people. Stretching the truth is one thing, but an out and out lie displays an different character flaw.

But why oh why doesn't a Democrat get up on the floor and yell you are a liar!!! That's what the Dems have not caught on to at all. Just talk as much as you can, say ANYTHING you want, true or not true, just spew it out there and somebody will believe it. So, where are the Democratic congressmen. On the news where are the Dems? Repubs just say what they want, no one corrects it, and the lie stands.

Cathy-you can't call people liars when they are telling the truth. It was not Bush who approved the loan guarantees for Petrobras, it was Obama. And Soros DID strengthen his position in the company-he divested shares of voting stock, in favor of preferred stock. Preferred stock may not vote, but it reaps many more rewards than voting stock, (that is why it is called 'preferred').

Just because you don't like the fact that Obama is corrupt, does NOT make it okay to falsely blame the other guy for his failings.

By the way, your paper route money did not get him elected-the huge contributions from companies like BP did.

Cathy,

You make some great points. If there is one thing that bothers me the most about my party (DEMS), is that they still do not play the game like the repubs do. They need to get in there are really hammer those lies. If it is true that the more times we say something the greater the chance people will believe it, then we need to be telling the people the truth 24/7 and exposing the crap that is out there. Great post I gave you a vote.

I don't know jomama. Much will depend on turn out. Much will depend on whether Obama can help to incite those supporting the dems agenda, and him ,to turn out to vote. I do think there is a huge number of people in this country who while frustrated with many things going on, especially the economic issue, and who are still holding out final judgment as to Obama's leadership on this issue and others, the republicans and those who have taken even stronger positions to the right scare them. I think that many of these people's votes are up for grabs. But the dems have got to learn to hammer home the chicken for medical services crap, expand the hobo remark so people know the republicans are talking about more people than many believe, the republicans lack of alternative plans or proposals on numerous issues, the divisive tactics the republicans use to pit people against one another in order to gain power, etc, etc. If the dems can do this and get the vote out I think the midterms will end up being a wash for both sides as it relates to any major change in who ends up in power.

jomama, I'll be very surprised if the Dems pick up seats, but I do expect losses to be in the normal range for the party in power in a midterm election.

Real Clear Politics has a loss of 6 senate seats. Larry Sabato's crystal ball has a loss of 7 senate seats and 32 house seats. That 32 is up from 27; if that trend continues, the Democratic house majority may be in jeopardy. Film at 11!

I expect to lose the house and retain the senate. The right has too many out and out lunatic senatorial candidates to pick up the senate.

Michael's forecast is likely the correct one.

Republicans need to gain 39 seats to flip the House. Last week Charlie Cook (The Cook Political Report), and Amy Walter of NPR discussed the recent NPR Poll on the mid-terms with Chris Matthews. NPR considers 60 House seats to be good candidates to change their current party affiliation; 50 of those seats are now held by Democrats.

Cook suggested that the floor for Democratic House losses was 32 seats; Walter suggested losses in the 45-50 seat range.

For the Senate to flip Republican, 10 seats would have to change hands. While this is technically possible, it's not likely. Republicans would essentially have to hold all of their at-risk seats, while taking all the Democratic at-risk seats...run the table, if you will. That probably isn't going to happen.

I won't speculate as to the number of lunatics each party has running for office in this election cycle.

Hey, Eric, whining lefty from Salinas, where are the jobs, indeed?! Nobama has been in for over a year and a half now and still no improvement in the economy! Guess that stimulus didn't work, huh? You Dimocraps still run the show (at least until November) and your stooly on Pennsylvania ave still cant get anything done! Guess he's too busy vistiting those 57 states, eh? Better blame Bush for that one, too!

Your teleprompter president's a one-term disaster! Your miserable excuse for a political party, gone in November! The people have awoken! They see him (and your kind) for what they really are- tax and spend neo-marxists who want to destroy the private sector and have government run everything (and everyone)

I'm proud to be in the party of "no" NO socialism. NO marxism. NO government ruining this nation and stripping away our freedoms. NO apologizing to world leaders for our success! NO 57 states. NObama!

proud to be ignorant it sounds like. The democratic socialist countries of northern europe and canada are apparently producing the happiest citizens on earth. (the top ten are all social democratic) Their economies are doing way better than ours, unemployment is only around 6%, their defecits are manageable and soon will be gone, they get free university and healthcare, five week vacations, 37 hour work weeks and earlier retirement by 5 years. Oh yeah their cities are beautiful, not trashed and they live longer. Maybe, just maybe they are onto something, eh?

"tax cuts for the rich creates jobs, it created 750,000 jobs a month in China"

Best line I've seen on here today. Thanks for that.

Forrest Grump

Apt name.....

You better pray that you are never in that situation where you cannot support your family through no fault of your own. Because if you are..... this statement that you have made here will be remembered.

How do you know that the Dads of the little girls in Iraq are not lazy. Or were you just being facetious ?

Thank You

I can't believe that at the beginning of GWB's term after 911, for the briefest of moments the citizens, and the world were united behind the USA. We come out of that 8 years at war and with every republican senator to a man, (and screw Ben Nelson ) calling the victims of their policies and agenda lazy, hobos, and spoiled who do these people think they are talking to. Anybody that works for a living and votes republican is suicidal take a good look at what they are doing for these people and remember but for the grace of God it could be you.

MsMatte I am being completely sarcastic we spends billions on everybody in the world and can't find in our hearts and minds to pass the jobs bill for our citizens.

In the world of crime, silence is consent. I am not crazy and I won't say President Reagan did any such thing. I will say the government had an oppurtunity to stop the drug flow and demand in the begining. Why it was not stopped I don't know but the only people that can be blamed for a communities down fall is the people who make up the community. Let's not just assume everyone was forced to shove a needle in their arm or powder up their nose. Horrible choices were made everyday in many of those communities. On a side note, have you ever noticed how Rush Limbaugh now sounds just like Jeremiah Wright did when there was a white President? I wonder what trait or o they have in common......

The great thing about blaming the victim is that you don't have to solve any problems.

Your biggotted BS hate is showing!

Don't forget to mention the PRESIDENTS middle name to remind everyone that he's really a Muslim in disguise.

Oh and I love the way you are sooooo arrogantly proud of your obvious ignorance there Tom the Con.

He's a Havard Law School grad and was the Editor of the Law Review and you call HIM a loser, which you misspelled by the way.

Oh and he saved those companies and those workers jobs, What have you accomplished this year.

I hope your fuzzy little head explodes when this President gets re-elected

Wrong. They hate politicians in general. Try listening to someone other than Glenn Beck and you'll realize quickly that there will be no republican sweep of anything this fall.

hey Jim, if you don't like getting paid social security after years of conributions then vote dem....they are going to spend us out of existence.

Obviously you have forgotten the last ten years of nonstop Republican spending while deregulating our industries and letting them leave for other countries while allowing vast numbers of illegals into the US to lower wages? What? You can't rememeber that already?? No wonder politicians and guys like Beck laugh at americans...

rock, I haven't forgotten anything, you probably forgot the dems took over congress during the Bush Admin, If you beleive the repubs were the cause of spending then why do the dems continue the runaway spending, phony social change, not managing the borders, etc. These are all dem vote garnering schemes. They'll gut your parents medicare while they attempt to legalize illegal aliens and offer them healthcare just for those votes. Wake up man, your party wants to turn your world into the 3rd world.

Deregulation has nothing to do with outsourcing jobs overseas. That is a direct result of the cost of labor and the growth of emerging economies. The federal govt has no control over that. And if you are referring to bank dereg what you haven't realized is that the schemes the banks came up with were dreamed up to get around existing law. Now congress pretends to come up with new "sweeping" regulations that will just force the banks to rethink the marketing. The dems have done nothing for the small business people since the admin of change has taken over. The mere pitance of a bill for lending to the small businesses is a joke. The threat of new taxes and regulations has big business sitting on thier cash. That's where your jobs are and it is the dems fault.

you're talking the party line Ed. These are the primaries...I hope the dems run all thier incumbents in Nov. That's the election that counts on getting rid of the incumbents. And we are getting rid of a lot of them.....as the people in Arizona say, hasta la vista, baby

every congressman gets 1.5 million a year just for staff...everything about the two party system is designed to keep those two parties in power to the exclusion of any new ideas. It really might take a revolution instead of the ballot box for change.