Just To Brighten Your Day: Romney Has Overtaken Obama In The Polls Even As Obama’s Approval Has Plummeted

Nice to see articles like this from the Washington Times:

LAMBRO: Romney polls overtake Obama
President’s approval plummeting
By Donald Lambro – The Washington Times
Thursday, August 16, 2012

Let’s get a few things straight about the presidential race between President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. It’s not a dead heat anymore.

Everyone knew this was going to be a close race, but as of this week, Mr. Romney moved slightly ahead of President Obama. Not by much, maybe a couple of points, but he clearly has begun to move into the lead.

Heading into July, the race clearly was a tie, with the Gallup Poll showing each candidate at 46 percent in its head-to-head daily surveys. But something happened this week that appears to have changed the political equation.

Perhaps it was Mr. Romney’s choice of veteran Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the powerful House Budget Committee. Or more evidence of the Obama economy’s persistent weakness and soaring gasoline prices. Or the tough TV ads Mr. Romney’s campaign has begun running after months of being punched around by an avalanche of negative ads in the battleground states.

Whatever the reason, the numbers began slowly but clearly to edge Mr. Romney’s way, and Mr. Obama’s numbers took a nose dive on his job-approval ratings.

The first indication that Mr. Obama’s shaky presidency was taking a tumble came Monday, when the Gallup Poll’s daily tracking survey showed his job-approval numbers plunging to 43 percent and his disapproval climbing to 50 percent.

Then, on Wednesday, Gallup’s candidate matchup suddenly was leaning in Mr. Romney’s direction, 47 percent to the president’s 45 percent. That’s where things stood heading into Friday.

While a number of factors are contributing to Mr. Obama’s slight decline and Mr. Romney’s rise in the national polls, there is no doubt the economy and jobs are the biggest factors driving this race.

Gallup proved that Thursday when it released new poll numbers showing voters were giving Mr. Obama some of the worst scores of his failed presidency on the economy, job creation and four years of $1 trillion-plus deficits that most trouble the American people.

White House morale, which reportedly is declining fast, must have sunk even further when staffers looked at Mr. Obama’s bleak approval-disapproval numbers on these issues:

Creating jobs: 37 percent approval and 58 percent disapproval.

The economy: 36 percent approval and 60 percent disapproval.

The federal budget deficits: 30 percent approval and 64 percent disapproval.

These aren’t just disastrous job-approval scores, they are among the worst in recent presidencies, including the one Mr. Obama followed in 2009.

“Obama’s ratings on the economy are significantly worse than all three prior successful presidential incumbents at this same point in their first term,” Gallup reported Thursday.

“His 36 percent approval rating on the economy is well below George W. Bush’s rating in August 2004 (46 percent), Bill Clinton’s in August 1996 (54 percent), and Ronald Reagan’s in July 1984 (50 percent),” Gallup said.

It’s worth noting that in Reagan’s case, the 1984 election was all about Reagan’s tax-cut-driven recovery versus tax increases proposed by Democratic nominee Walter Mondale. Reagan won in a landslide, carrying 49 states.

In many ways, the central election issues in 1984 were the same ones we are fighting over today. Tax cuts get the economy back on its feet, stimulate capital investment, create more jobs and produce more revenue to boot.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are embracing lower taxes, just as John F. Kennedy, Reagan and, eventually, even Bill Clinton did, to build the economy, while Mr. Obama and the Democrats are running on raising taxes to grow the government and increase spending.

Mr. Obama and his party charge that lowering taxes will worsen the deficit, when one of the chief culprits driving the Obama deficits, besides his spending binge, is slower 1.5 percent economic growth and an 8.3 percent jobless rate. People who don’t have jobs don’t pay income taxes.

Meantime, another issue is emerging in the campaign that is hurting Mr. Obama’s quest for a second term, and that is his directive to rewrite the welfare reform law of 1996.

That directive will grant waivers to the states to override the welfare reform law, according to a study written by two top analysts at the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley.

“The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama administration clearly guts the law and seeks to impose its own policy choices — a pattern that has become all too common in this administration,” they wrote.

In a nutshell, Mr. Obama’s directive says the “traditional TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) work requirements can be waived or overridden by a legal device called the Section 1115 waiver authority,” they said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a separate study of that section, “Effectively, there are no TANF waivers.”

The Romney campaign has been hitting the airwaves with an ad lambasting the administration for its backdoor attempt to undermine the welfare reforms. The Obama campaign has counterattacked, charging the ad is a lie and that Mr. Romney sought the same kind of waiver authority as governor.

Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler, while criticizing the Romney ad, said “There is something fishy about the administration’s process on this memorandum.” He gave the Obama camp “a solid three Pinocchios” for its shaky waiver claim against Mr. Romney, saying “there is little evidence that is the case.”

Increasingly, as Mr. Obama’s disapproval numbers have been getting worse, his campaign has been making up things that aren’t true. A sense of desperation and hysteria is creeping into its bipolar rhetoric, with Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. warning voters (guess who?) that Mr. Romney will “put y’all back in chains.”

Historically, Gallup says, presidents who won a second term had near 50 percent job-approval ratings. But with Mr. Obama’s ratings stuck in the mid to low 40s, it looks as if the end is near.

Donald Lambro is a syndicated columnist and former chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

If that doesn’t make you happy, then consider the Purple Poll which examines the dozen swing states that will decide the presidency.  Romney is now leading in Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

What is most promising of all is that Obama has enormously outspent Romney the last several months – even as Romney has actually outraised Obama during those months – due to the campaign laws that prevent Romney from spending money he has raised for the general election until he is the official nominee of his party.  After the GOP convention near the end of August, it will suddenly be ROMNEY who has the huge money edge over Obama.  Obama has spent hundreds of millions lying and slandering and demonizing – and it basically hasn’t done him any good.  And in less than three weeks it will be Romney on serve.

The race is close.  But it is very possible that Romney is beginning to break through.

Pray.  Contribute/donate.  Volunteer.  And vote.  For the love of God and the love of America.

Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Sixty Days To Get Congress To Approve Of Libya Adventure Now Past

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before both his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

Do you remember how the left unrelentingly mocked and attacked Bush for “looking into Putin’s eyes” and thinking he saw someone he could work with?  I don’t know about you, but I see an awful lot of eye contact going on between Obama and Gaddafi.  But the mainstream media would never DREAM hold Obama accountable to the same unrelentingly negative standard they attacked George Bush with.

I always laugh how nobody is more blatantly unfair than the same left that constantly self-righteously lectures the right about “fairness.”

And the Obama administration is advancing the same meandering gibberish throughout the rest of the Middle East (and the world) as well, of course.  Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called brutal Syrian thug Bashar al-Assad a “reformer” because these liberals are naive clueless idiots.  John Kerry – who thought he was just so much smarter than George Bush – was unsurprisingly every iota as stupid as Obama and Clinton.  But at least after watching Assad murder at least 850 of his own people, even Kerry could “discover” that Assad was certainly “no reformer.”

So what about the president who said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack” until he himself unilaterally authorized a military attack without even bothering to talk to Congress about said unilateral military attack?

Well, we find that our Fascist-in-Chief is basically above the law:

Congress Presses Obama On Libya, As 60-Day War Powers Deadline Arrives
by Eyder Peralta

Today marks the 60th day since President Barack Obama formally told Congress about the U.S. intervention in Libya. It matters, because Congress hasn’t authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn’t attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told Fox News that the House was working on a resolution for Monday that “would either get Congress to sign off on intervention in Libya or cut off the operation.”

And on Wednesday, Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John Cornyn (Texas) sent a letter to Obama asking whether he intended to comply with Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

“As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely,” they wrote in the letter. “Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response.”

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration was committed to complying with the War Powers Act, but that it was also looking for ways to lawfully continue the military intervention without asking Congress to authorize it:

One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.

Over recent weeks, the Predators have been the only American weapon actually firing on ground targets, although many aircraft are assisting in refueling, intelligence gathering and electronic jamming.

By ending all strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.

Another option, reports the Times, is to order a complete stop to military efforts and restart them shortly, which lawyers say would buy them 60 more days.

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, professors of law and political science at Yale, argue that Obama is charting new territory here:

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations

Do you see how fundamentally and profoundly fascist our Führer is?  Do you not see how this creep is constantly trying to wiggle out of constitutional responsibilities and wriggle out of his responsibilities to Congress after  he personally, repeatedly and  hypocritically demonized George Bush for doing far, far LESS?

I think of Obama demonizing Bush over the debt ceiling only to now say, “Please say ‘Ja wohl, mein Führer!’  After all, am I not your Messiah?” Because, after all –

Can I get a Ja wohl I mean an Amen, from you liberals???

Libya is a mess.  But don’t expect the mainstream media to put their beloved Führer to the task and hold him accountable to the questions they should have held him accountable to months ago.  Becuse the only thing worse than having a führer for a president is having a führer for a president along with a bunch of little Reich Ministers of Propaganda for “journalists.”

Obama And Libya: Liberals Show The Hypocrisy That Defines Them

Liberals are hypocrites.  Obama is a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy is the quintessential defining essence of liberalism.

Don’t like that claim?  Tough.  It’s the truth.

Where’s all the criticism for Obama that Democrats, liberals and the unhinged leftwing media constantly threw at George Bush???

Here’s a good brief collection of ways the left demonized Bush over Iraq that are very conveniently being forgotten by the left and by the press which are the left’s useful idiots:

John Hawkins
7 Questions For Liberals About Obama’s Libyan War

It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an “imperialist warmonger” in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised “hope” and “change” instead. It’s funny how that worked out, isn’t it? We still have troops in Iraq, we’ve escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we’re bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush’s footsteps.

So, the obvious question is, “Did you lefties believe ANY of the crap you were spewing about the war on terrorism before Obama got into office?” If so, maybe you could answer a few questions prompted by the things liberals were saying during the Bush years.

1) Isn’t this a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a “rush to war.” Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him? Liberals claimed George Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father. Using that same line of thinking, could the notoriously thin-skinned Obama be bombing Libya because he’s still angry that Gaddafi once said this about him?

We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. This will be a tragedy. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him because if he sticks to this inferiority complex he will have a worse foreign policy than the whites had in the past.

Obama doesn’t have much use for anyone who criticizes him. Even his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright learned all about what the underside of a bus looks like after he dared to criticize Obama. Is that Obama’s real motivation? Hmmmmmmm, liberals?

3) Is this a war for oil? What was it liberals kept saying over and over about Iraq? Oh yeah, it was “No blood for oil!” What was the rationale for claiming the war in Iraq was about oil? Iraq had oil; we were going to war there; so obviously it just MUST be about oil. That was it. So, Libya has oil and unlike Hussein, Gaddafi has been cooperative of late; so there’s no compelling reason for America to invade….except perhaps, to safeguard all that Texas T. flowing beneath the sand. So, when do we have liberals in the streets shouting “No blood for oil?”

4) Where are the massive protests? Can’t you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn’t that be fun? I mean personally, I’ve been waiting for years to wear a “No Blood For Oil” sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let’s do this thing!

5) Shouldn’t we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead? I thought that the Muslim world loves and respects America since Barack Obama became President? So, why not try to talk it out with Gaddafi? Perhaps Obama should have been humble, realized he didn’t have all the answers, and then he could have had a conversation with Gaddafi instead of threatening him? Maybe he should have considered the possibility that Libya’s culture is a little different than ours. Had he perhaps met with Gaddafi and bowed to him to show his respect, this could have probably been worked out without violence. Oh, why, why must we be so arrogant and so ignorant of other nations’ rich cultural traditions, which in Libya apparently consist of murdering everyone who opposes you?

6) Aren’t we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya? You know what they say, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!” We drop bombs on them, they get angry, and next thing you know, they turn into terrorists to get us back! That was what we heard from the Left over and over during the Bush years, wasn’t it? That we were creating terrorists?

That’s why liberals like Richard Gere suggested brilliant strategies like this to deal with Al-Qaeda:

In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who’s suffering. (But we must also think about) the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It’s all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see (the terrorists) as a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There’s nothing better.

Maybe instead of bombing Libya, Obama needs to engage in a little more love and compassion by hugging Gaddafi into submission!

7) Isn’t Barack Obama a chickenhawk? Barack Obama has never served in the military; yet he just decided to engage in a “war of choice” in Libya. Even if you chalk up Iraq and Afghanistan to Obama cleaning up after Bush, this one is all on him. If American soliders die, it’s because Obama chose to put them in harm’s way. If Libyan civilians are killed by American weapons, it’s because Barack Obama gave the order to attack. So, can we all agree that Barack Obama is a squawking, yellow bellied chickenhawk?

I had a slightly different project last week in an article I titled, “Obama Adds Stupid And Hypocritical To Weak In His Libya No-Fly Policy.”  In that, I added factoids, such as how Obama went from demonizing the war in Iraq to claiming credit for it; how Obama’s people claimed his wonderful Cairo speech was responsible for the desire for freedom, when really it was his terrible economic policies that have undermined economies throughout the world; how Obama attacked Bush for not having enough troops in Afghanistan and subsequently “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” to refusing to have any troops at all while we do nothing BUT air-raiding villages in Libya.  That sort of thing.

But it turns out there is so much hypocrisy oozing out of Obama like toxic contaminents that it is hard to contain them all in any one article.  There’s what Obama said when he claimed Bush didn’t have the right to go to war in Iraq –

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

– with what the hypocrite is doing RIGHT NOW.

Obama literally ought to be impeached by his own standard.

Then there’s the fact that Obama is an abject LIAR about what he is saying about Bush:

[T]he President declared: “In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

First of all, there’s this:

On Saturday, President Obama while visiting Brazil launched a United Nations war without obtaining Congressional approval. We all must remember how the left crucified President George W. Bush over a nine-month debate concerning war with Iraq. This debate included multiple UN Resolutions and a Multi-National Force composed of dozens of nations. Many refer to this time of debate as a “rush to war.” Yesterday however, President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war. This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before.

Then there is this fact:

As the folks at Fox quickly pointed out, Bush actually had twice as many international allies for the invasion of Iraq as Obama has put together for his adventure in Libya.  They even put together a list.

Then add to that insult the fact that Obama never bothered to get any kind of approval from Congress, whereas Bush had Congress’ approval for both Afghanistan AND Iraq.  In Iraq, the war liberals always demonize him over, Congress granted Bush the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq” in October 2002.

Not only did Obama not have any such authority, but he literally started his unlateral war in Libya while he was on vacation in Brazil!!!

Dennis Kucinich is about the only Democrat who actually has the integrity to demand Obama answer for his impeachable offense which his fellow Democrats deceitfully and falsely tried to claim that Bush had committed.

Where are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in demanding that chicken hawk war criminal Obama be impeached for abandoning the Constitution?

Iraq was – and damn, IT CONTINUES TO BE – depicted by the left as some kind of massive failure (except when it benefits them to falsely take credit for it).  But Saddam Hussein’s head is hanging on Bush’s wall.  And what about Muammar Gaddafi’s head?

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has admitted that a stalemate could allow Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to remain in power despite facing intenational military action gainst his forces.He said that the outcome of military action from the air was “very uncertain” and made it clear that the US did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power, The Telegraph reports.

If Gaddafi stays in Libya, it will be a massive failure.  And Gaddafi is going to stay in power.

Even the New York Times acknowledges that this will be a massive failure:

If Colonel Qaddafi manages to remain in power, that will leave the United States and the United Nations-backed mission looking like a failure, foreign policy experts from all sides of the political spectrum said. “Barack Obama told Qaddafi to go; if Qaddafi doesn’t go, America will look diminished in the eyes of the world,” said Steven Clemons, senior fellow at the New American Foundation.

Stephen J. Hadley, a former national security adviser to President George W. Bush and an architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion, said at a forum in San Francisco on Saturday that he feared the limited approach “could set us up for failure.”

“I don’t quite see what is behind the strategy in Libya,” Mr. Hadley said, speaking while a small clutch of protesters — mostly yelling chants about Iraq — were on the streets below. “We are now in a situation where we have a mismatch of what the president said we want to do as a nation, what the U.N. Security Council authorizes, and what we are actually ready to commit in resources.”

As an example of still more failure, Obama’s coalition is falling apart in front of the world while Obama continues to party in South America.

The fact of the matter is that I pointed out two weeks ago that Libyans were missing George Bush.  Why?  Because Obama is a failure, and Bush was a guy who got things done, that’s why.

I also pointed out nearly a week ago what the people who knew what they were talking about were saying DAYS before Obama finally bothered to do too little and too late to change the situation:

Obama pontificated, made some bold statements, and then did nothing.  Now a no-fly zone would probably come to late.

Liberals and Democrats are hypocrites.  They have been hypocrites for my entire lifetime.

But this display of sheer, galling incompetence and stupidity is new, even for them.

Obama Tries To Fit Japan Crisis, Two Wars And Shocking Oil Prices In Between Golfing And NCAA Brackets

Obama is at a -22 approval, according to a just-breaking story:

Obama Approval Index: -22 Strongly Approve 20% Strongly Disapprove 42% Total Approval 43%

Here’s Obama’s trend for the past 8 days:

-10
-15
-16
-16
-15
-18
-20
-22

Does he deserve even that much credit?

Japan suffered a quake that has been upgraded to a 9.0 on the scale.  It is the fourth largest earthquake ever recorded in human history.  That quake resulted in a tsunami that did terrible damage.  And as a result of all that damage Japan is watching in horror as one nuclear power plant after another melts down.

Yet “no drama” Obama just doesn’t seem to care.  He didn’t even bother to mention Japan or it’s earthquake or its tsunami or its nuclear meltdown in his address the day after the disaster.  And just to demonstrate that he truly truly, truly didn’t give a damn, he played 18 holes of golf.

See the photos of Obama’s golf outing from Sadhill.

Then there’s the unfortunate fact that this disaster has coincided with the far more important NCAA basketball tournament.  A president has to choose his priorities, and clearly the basketball brackets won out.  It takes a lot of research and study to go out there and pick the winning teams.  And President Obama is clearly prepared to put in the time to make sure his picks are good ones.

Oh, yes, there’s one another thing that is keeping Obama busy: Democrat fundraisers at luxury hotels.  Obama had his second this week and his fourth such event this month.

American servicemen are facing radiation exposure.  Obama is facing ESPN sports reporters.  And which situation is more toxic?

Earlier, Obama’s excuse for failing to talk about Libya even as the protestors were being killed from far above by Gaddafi’s jets was becasue he had a “scheduling conflict.”  Now you know what his “conflicts” were.

It’s not just Japan or Libya, of course.  It’s not just the fact that radiation leaks have made over a hundred thousand people prisoners in their own homes.  It’s not the fact that Japan’s market has lost more than 16% of its value in just two days.  And it’s not just the terrible impact that a devasted Japan (which is the 2nd largest purchaser of U.S. debt) will have on America.  It’s not just the shocking increases in the price of oil and gasoline.  It’s not the collapse of one government after another across the Arab world.  It’s not that Bahrain is declaring a state of emergency after the protests and rioting has overtaken that kingdom.  It’s not that Obama made it American policy that Gaddafi fall, and then did nothing to make that happen as Gaddafi’s forces begin to rout the unsupported rebels who are screaming for George Bush and for a no-fly zone.

It’s the fact that the world is burning, and we have a pathetic weakling appeasing president who cannot lead because he was never more than a community agitator.

The Obama Administration’s Clueless Response To The Egypt Crisis

If you look at Obama’s frankly miserable polls, you find that Obama is doing better on the Egypt crisis than any other issue:

February 9, 2011
Obama’s Approval Rating on Deficit Sinks to New Low
Egypt ranks among issues on which Obama is best rated
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — President Barack Obama’s approval rating for handling the federal budget deficit has gone from bad to worse in recent months, even as his ratings on all other major national issues have generally held steady. Currently, 27% of Americans approve of Obama on the deficit, down from 32% in November, while 68% disapprove.

Overall, Obama is doing much better on international issues than domestic ones. Among eight issues on which Obama was rated in the new poll, Americans give the president the highest approval ratings on foreign affairs and the situations in Egypt and Afghanistan. The deficit, the economy, and taxes rank among his lowest ratings, alongside healthcare policy.

And you find that 47% of those surveyed approved of Obama’s handling of Egypt.  Versus the 27% who approve of his handling of the deficit and the 37% who approve of his handling of the economy.

What is amazing is just what a remarkably incompetent job Obama has done in even his best rated issue.

Obama’s foolish mishandling of Egypt began before most of the rest of the nation knew anything about it.  The CIA said, “We warned of instability.”  And they warned Obama that the Mubarak regime could fall last year.  And like the kid who didn’t bother to start his term paper until the day after it was due, Obama did nothing.

Obama wasn’t “ahead” of the crisis in Egypt; he was so woefully behind and so hostile to actual positive reform it is almost funny.

After the crisis erupted with hundreds of thousands of Egyptians protesting in the streets, the Obama administration offered this pearl of ethical insight:

When asked if Mubarak was a dictator, Biden responded … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

Said Obama administration observation came out the same day that dictator Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt.

Then there was this penetrating analysis of the stability of the Mubarak regime by Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

The language coming out of the Obama Administration has verged on the bizarre as Egypt lurched into another political showdown in the streets on Friday…

“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” Secretary Clinton said earlier this week…

And as Dr. Phil often asks delusional morons, “How’s that working out for you?”

Then you have Obama’s director of National Intelligence with this unbelievably stupid misrepresentation of reality:

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

The Brotherhood uses the slogan, “Islam is the answer,” and generally advocates for government in accordance with Islamic principles. The movement has as a broad goal unifying what it perceives as Muslim lands, from Spain to Indonesia, as a “caliphate.”

James Clapper has simply got to go.  Clearly someone “clapped” his little light bulf off, and no one thought to clap it back on again.

What was the motto of this “largely secular” organization again?

“Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur’an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

I’m sure that sounds “largely secular” to any drooling imbecile you might happen to ask.

That said, if we put drooling imbecile’s in charge of our mainstream media, we’d probably see an improvement.  A lot of the media have depicted the Muslim Brotherhood as though it were the Salvation Army.

What does the FBI have to say about the Muslim Brotherhood?

Muslim Brotherhood, the banned opposition political outfit in Egypt, supports terrorism according to FBI Director Robert Muller. Muller made the statement during a Congressional hearing on Thursday where lawmakers said that the group is using peaceful protests in Egypt to grab power.

 “Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood here and overseas have supported terrorism,” Muller said in response to a question at a hearing on “Worldwide Threats” by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Muller, who refrained to give any further information in an open session, said that the United States has no relationship with Muslim Brotherhood.

What else can we know about the Muslim Brotherhood?

the Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan Al Muslimun in Arabic, is frequently mentioned in relation to groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda. And, although today they may be best known as the largest independent bloc in the Egyptian parliament, they are nearly always invoked as the origins for extremist visions of Islam that root today’s jihadist movements.

The Muslim Brotherhood were the prototypical terrorist organization, in the same way that the Italian Mafia was the prototypical criminal gang organization.  I would submit that it has become rather like the Sinn Féin to the Irish Republican Army.  It is the political and propaganda wing of the armed terrorist movement.

Many of today’s top terrorist leaders, such as #2 overall al Qaeda leader Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, came out of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But that’s nothing, because the #1 overall leader of al Qaeda – Osama bin Laden – came out of it too.

And then there are the words of the current Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Badie:

“Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States. “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.”

DNI James Clapper came by his genuine moral idiocy honestly; he caught it from his commander-in-chief.

For the record, one of Obama’s invited guests for his 2009 Cairo speech was the Muslim Brotherhood.  Apparently, Obama wanted them to pursue “democracy” and take over the country.

Since the violence erupted and the Egyptian government began to melt down, Obama has made public statements that the Egyptian foreign ministry said “inflame the internal situation in Egypt.”  Which of course means more riots and more violence.  But that shouldn’t be too surprising, given the fact that we find from the Wikileaks documents that the Obama administration has been backing rebels in Egypt practially since George Bush started moving his furniture out of the White House.

Obama has – incredibly – welcomed a role for the Muslim Brotherhood and that organization’s seventy-year-long push for sharia law as the law of the land in Egypt.

That’s the craziest, most clueless and most incompetent thing of all about this story.

Mind you, Obama hasn’t given a damn that the Coptic Christians are excluded from participating in their government while he pushes for a role for the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.  All that matters is that the beloved Muslim Brotherhood be included.  This is similar to Obama calling for a brand new mosque to be built near Ground Zero, while doing nothing to help rebuild an existing Greek Orthodox Christian church that got destroyed.  Why doesn’t Obama’s inclusiveness always have a way of excluding Christianity and including Islam?

There’s talk of democracy in Egypt.  It certainly could happen; but it’s totally theoretical at this point.  Right now the only democracy in the Middle East is Israel.  And this is how Israel feels about the situation on their western border:

(Reuters) – If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Obama can either pat himself on the back or walk away from Egypt.  As things go well, Obama was absolutely central to everything (e.g., Chris Matthews having another tingle go up his leg: “it took Obama to have this happen“); as things go poorly, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Meanwhile, Israel has to live next door to whatever happens.  And they’re bitter over Obama’s betrayal of both a historic ally (and just what is the point of being a U.S. ally when Backstabber Hussein Obama will throw you under the bus the nanosecond it’s convenient for him to do so???) and of Israel itself.

The funniest thing of all – after listening to Obama’s speech on the situation in Egypt, in which he inserted himself by using his “this is the moment, this is the time” refrain – was this from ABC’s Jake Tapper:

“Also worth keeping in mind: cant find anyone in O admin who thinks whatever comes next will be better for U.S. interests than Mubarak was”

While I believe that Egypt will not ultimately fall into the terrorist faction of the growing list of rogue Islamist regimes, I can assure you my belief has nothing to do with Barack Obama.

Rather, I would argue that if this is what Obama has done best, then it truly testifies to just how incredibly incompetent and contemptible Barack Obama truly is.

The Hindenburg Omen: How Long Before Americans Cry, ‘Oh, The Humanity!’ As Obama Policies Fail?

A cartoonist used the image of the Hindenburg to describe the ideologically-biased mainstream media’s horrified reaction to Obama’s plummeting poll numbers back in July 2009:

But now there is another, far more frightening connection between Barack Obama and the infamous Hindenburg explosion.

Obama aint going down quietly: he’s taking the entire American economy with him:

The Hindenburg Omen IS Scary, but So Are the Fundamentals
Posted Aug 25, 2010 01:37pm EDT by Aaron Task in Investing

After tumbling below 10,000 yet again Wednesday morning, the Dow rebounded to close above that psychologically important level and was slightly higher early Thursday. Still, fear in the market is being expressed by the continued rally in Treasuries and widespread chatter about an ominous sounding technical indicator: The Hindenburg Omen.

The Hindenburg Omen has a roughly 25% accuracy rate in predicting big market upheaval since 1987, meaning it’s far from infallible but isn’t inconsequential either. The indicator’s creator, mathematician Jim Miekka, compares the Hindenburg Omen to a funnel cloud that precedes a tornado in a recent interview with The WSJ. “It doesn’t mean [the market’s] going to crash, but it’s a high probability,” he said.

Complex and esoteric even in the world of technical indicators, the Hindenburg Omen is triggered when the following occurs, Zero Hedge reports:

• — The daily number of NYSE new 52-week highs and the daily number of new 52-week lows must both be greater than 2.2% of total NYSE issues traded that day.
• — The NYSE’s 10-week moving average is rising.
• — The McClellan Oscillator (a technical measure of “overbought” vs. “oversold” conditions) is negative on that same day.
• — New 52-week highs cannot be more than twice the new 52-week lows. This condition is absolutely mandatory.

These criteria have been hit twice since Aug. 12, prompting Miekka to get out of the market entirely, The WSJ reports. Judging by the recent market action, many others are following suit — or at least moving in the same direction.

Worry List Lengthens

As Henry and I discuss in the accompanying clip, there are a lot of reasons to be worried right now that having nothing to with The Hindenburg Omen, the “Death Cross”, Mercury being in retrograde or myriad other indicators cited by market pundits of various stripes.

More fundamental reasons to be concerned include:

It’s the Economy, Stupid: This week’s weak durable goods and home sales reports are just the latest in a string of desultory data. In sum, the macroeconomic data strongly suggest the job market isn’t going to improve anytime soon. And if the job market doesn’t improve, there’s really not much hope for a turnaround in housing, consumer sales or anything else really. Oh, and the stock market is still expensive on a cyclically adjusted P/E basis, making it more vulnerable to an economic slowdown.

Unusual Uncertainty: On July 21, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke testified on Capitol Hill that the Fed’s forecast called for real GDP growth of 3%-3.5% for 2010 and 3.5%-4.5% in 2011 and 2012. Less than a month later, the Fed announced plans to buy Treasuries again (a.k.a. “QE2”) and, as The WSJ reported this week, there’s a tremendous amount of dissention within the Fed about the ‘right’ policy prescription.

Financial Follies: Whether it’s renewed concerns about Europe’s sovereign debt crisis, more U.S. bank closures or reports of commercial developers walking away from properties, it’s clear the problems in the financial system were not resolved by various and sundry bailouts and government stimulus … not by a long shot.

Good Politics vs. Good Economics: S&P’s downgrade of Ireland’s debt and Greece’s revenue shortfall show the short-term perils of the austerity measures that have swept Europe. But promising to cut government spending and slash deficits appears to be a winning political strategy in America right now. Certainly, it’s a key message of Republican and Tea Party candidates, who appear to have the momentum heading into the November mid-term elections. But if Europe’s ‘PIIGS’ are any example, gridlock might not be so “good” for the economy this time around, much less the financial markets.

Of course, the “good” news here is that there’s so much to worry about and the markets typically are darkest just before dawn.

CEOs of large corporations see a mess created by Obama to blame for the malaise that we haven’t seen since Obama’s long-lost twin Jimmy Carter was president:

This week, Intel CEO Paul Otellini and Jim Tisch, CEO of Loews Corp. both blamed the President’s policies for creating an environment of “uncertainty” that is crippling America’s economy.

The Obama administration is “flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working,” Otellini said Monday in a speech in Aspen.

Higher taxes and more regulation add an additional $1 billion to building a semiconductor manufacturing plant in the U.S. vs. overseas, the CEO said.

As a result, “the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here,” Otellini said, warning of “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we’re seeing today in Europe…this is the bitter truth.”

Loews’ Tisch made similarly themed comments in a Bloomberg interview on Wednesday. “Part of the problem is that business has very little confidence in what’s been going on and very little visibility,” he said.

But is it just CEOs?  Is it just big business?  Surely Obama’s anti-business policies are making things easier for the little guy, right?

Wrong:

For America’s Middle Class, the Hits Just Keep on Coming
Posted Aug 25, 2010 07:50am EDT by Aaron Task

A lot of ink and pixels have been spilled this week over the ICI’s report that equity mutual funds suffered net withdrawals totaling over $33 billion in the first seven months of 2010. Myriad reasons were cited for the trend, including a mistrust of stocks, the flash crash and an aging population. (See: The Next Bubble? Investors Flee Stocks in Droves In Favor of Bonds.)

Perhaps the biggest reason of all hasn’t gotten enough attention: Americans are making due with less and don’t have the money to put into stock funds, and many are taking money out of their investments to pay for basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter.

With wages stagnant for those who still have a job “a lot of people are having to tap into their nest egg to keep their living standards going,” says Damien Hoffman, co-founder of WallStCheatSheet. “A lot of people are living out of principal. There’s no other way to get around that.”

Fidelity’s recent report of a sharp increase in the number of 401(k) participants seeking loans or hardship withdrawals in the second quarter is further evidence of the disappearing middle class. “These are basically emergency ways to fund yourself. We think it’s a scary statistic,” Hoffman says. “Where is the middle class going to be if they draw down their 401(k)s drastically over course of next few years?”

Obama’s anti-business and profoundly socialist policies seek to punish business in every way he can.

A lot of Americans were probably happy with that in November of ’08.

But that was before they began to realize the truth that either all boats rise, or all boats sink.  Nancy Pelosi never drained the political swamp, as she falsely promised, but Barack Obama has certainly drained the ocean of economic opportunity (and very likely poisoned the bluebird of happiness, but that’s a crime for another day).  We need the rich, and the big businesses, in order to have jobs.  When they profit, the rest of us do.  And when they are demonized and attacked and regulated to death, the rest of us suffer, too.

Because name the last time a poor person hired you and gave you a good paying position.  If you’re a liberal, let me add, “It was never, wasn’t it, dumbass?”

It’s not really accurate to say that Obama is “anti-business”; he’s the MOST anti-business president ever.

A glance at Obama’s appointments and their actual world business experience should suffice to reveal how important business was to Obama.

Obama filled his administration with radicals out to “fundamentally transform America.”  And being the kind of man or woman who was oriented toward meeting payrolls and expanding businesses really didn’t need to apply.

And these eggheaded Marxists are seizing money from the private sector – and even from the future – and making terrible decisions about how to invest it.  We get turtle tunnels and monkey cocaine studies rather than infrastructure investment.  Had it been up to businesses as to how to invest the trillions of dollars that Obama pissed away, things would have been a lot better now.

I love the title from a US News & World Report article: “Obama’s Anti-Business Policies Are Our Economic Katrina.”  It’s written by Mortimer Zuckerman, who used to be a huge supporter of Barry Hussein, until he finally realized that “the One” was nothing more than a great big fart in the wind.

And even Obama’s own Democrat Party is now finally beginning to realize what a great big fart in the wind Obama truly is.  They hitched themselves to the Obama bandwagon; and now the wagon is burnt to ashes.

On November 4, 2008, the voters of the United States of America voted for national extinction.  And yet many are surprised that we’re now following in the footsteps of the Dodo bird.

Americans Recognize Obama A ZERO On Economy

What does a president do when his country recognizes he is an abject failure?

July 23, 2010
CNN Poll: Obama’s approval on economy drops to new low
Posted: July 23rd, 2010 12:30 PM ET

Washington (CNN) – Americans approval of how President Barack Obama is handling the nation’s economy has dropped to its lowest level of his presidency, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicates that 42 percent of the public approves of how Obama’s dealing with the economy, down 2 points from March, with 57 percent disapproving of his performance on the economy, up 2 points from March. The survey’s Friday release comes as the president made comments at the White House on what he termed the progress made this week on the economy and job recovery.

Full results [pdf]

The poll suggests a wide partisan divide on the issue, with nearly eight in 10 Democrats giving the president a thumbs up and nearly nine in 10 Republicans disapproving of Obama’s job on the economy. According to the survey, two-thirds of independents disapprove of the president’s economic performance.

“The public hasn’t given Obama good marks on the economy since last September, and his approval rating on the economy, now at 42 percent, has been stuck in the mid-to-low 40s throughout this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Part of the reason for that is that Americans haven’t seen much to cheer about on the economic front. Nearly eight in ten say that economic conditions are somewhat poor or very poor.”

While there were some vague signs of optimism in poll results earlier this year – when the number of Americans who said that the economy was in “very poor” shape had been slowly but steadily declining – that seems to have fizzled. Thirty-seven percent said things were in poor shape in our May poll; the same number feel that way now.

So what can Barry Hussein do?  Lying about his bogus “summer of recovery” isn’t working.

And he can’t agree with other Democrats that we should keep the Bush tax cuts in place in order to prevent damaging the economy even more.  He’s too much of an ideologue for that.

Dems may keep Bush tax cuts
By Alexander Bolton – 07/22/10 06:00 AM ET

Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear getting crushed in November’s election.

It could mean a big reprieve for families earning $250,000 and above annually.

President George W. Bush’s tax cuts will expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts to delay their sunset.

Some Democrats are now arguing forcefully that a delay is a win-win plan that would help the federal budget without hurting the economy.

Wealthy families would not have an incentive to cut back on spending and budget writers could assume an inflow of tax funds in future years, making five- and 10-year budget projections look less scary.

How long have the Democrats been demonizing the Bush tax cuts?  Seven long years?  And now more and more of them are arguing – likely out of fear for their own political skins – that they were misrepresenting the truth all along, and the Bush tax cuts maybe didn’t actually cause the Dark Ages after all.

But Obama is way too much of an ideologue for that kind of rubbish.  That kind of acknowledgment is about as likely as a bomb-vest-wearing terrorist acknowledging that maybe Allah ISN’T so great, after all.

So what’s Obama to do?

Only one option remaining: keep blaming Bush and Republicans.  No matter how obviously asinine it is, never quit blaming, never quit trying to divert attention for his failures to some GOP straw man.

The last time Republicans ran Congress in January 2007, unemployment was at 4.6%.

Failure-in-Chief Obama Plunges To All-Time Low According To NBC/WSJ Poll

Maybe Americans don’t like hopey changey so much after all.

Have you ever had somebody say you can hope into one hand, and defecate into the other hand, and then see which hand gets full first?  Well, we took the “hopey-crappy challenge,” and now we’ve got a giant load of crap sitting in our White House, taking the place of an actual president who can truly lead and effectively govern, ought to be.

New poll shows Obama approval at all-time low
Thu Jun 24, 2:28 pm ET

The White House has been fond of citing turning points lately, most recently when describing the administration’s handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Now President Obama faces a turning point of his own — and not for the better.

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Obama’s approval rating to be the lowest it’s been since he took office 18 months ago. According to the poll, only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. And the numbers only get worse from there: Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track — the highest number recorded since just before Election Day in 2008 — and just one-third believe things are going to get better, a 7-point drop since a month ago and the lowest such number in the Obama presidency.

The fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill appears to be the biggest drag on Obama’s numbers. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of the crisis — including one in four Democrats.  But generally, the poll finds increasing doubts about Obama as a leader. Just 49 percent of those polled give Obama positive ratings when asked if he has “strong leadership qualities” — that’s a decline of 8 points since January and nearly 20 points from when he first took office. Less than half rate him positively when asked if he’s “honest and straightforward.” In January ’09, 63 percent gave him positive marks for “being firm and decisive in decision-making.” That number is now at 44 percent. Asked about his “ability to handle a crisis,” only 40 percent rate him positively, an 11-point drop since January. You can read the full poll results here.

Obama’s biggest problem: He’s lost the middle — the so-called independent and moderate voters who are generally given the most credit for his win back in 2008. According to the poll, 52 percent of self-described independent voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing. He’s even losing parts of his base. The poll finds Obama with 17 percent disapproval among Democrats — the highest number of his presidency.

None of this is good news for Democrats up for re-election this fall. Beleaguered Democrats had been counting on Obama’s coattails to help them, as polls have also showed a historic trend away from the Democratic Party. According to this new poll, the GOP has a 2-point edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot — but among voters who describe themselves as most interested in the 2010 midterms, the GOP jumps to a 21-point lead over Democrats.

— Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News.

Did you catch that red emboldened part about the Republicans currently having a 21-point lead over Democrats when you count the people who are actually going to vote?

Democrats had a 60 vote supermajority in the United States Senate.  They could pass ANYTHING.  And they used their power to pass shockingly terrible legislation that will haunt Americans for decades to come.  The American people corrected that disastrous mistake the first chance they had, but Democrats STILL have an overwhelming majority of 59 votes.  And they have a gigantic majority in the House of Representatives.  And yet they are such disastrous failures, and are in such total and complete disarray, that they can’t even pass a budget.  Which allows Democrats to continue their insane, destructive spending divorced from any checks or balances until the people finally get to hold them accountable in November.

Democrats have blamed Bush every step of the way.  They have acted like a child who comes to school every single day for a year and a half and tells the teacher that the dog ate his homework.

Well, eventually such bratty, irresponsible kids flunk out.

Democrats’ Bizarro World: Doctor Reimbursements NOT Part Of Health Care, But Takeover Of Student Loans IS

Isn’t it amazing that, as far as Democrats are concerned in their way-too-finite wisdom, doctor’s Medicare reimbursements have absolutely nothing to do with health care, but a government student loan takeover suddenly has everything to do with health care?

The $300 billion “doctor fix” has nothing to do with health care because it would explode the totally bogus myth that the Democrats’ health plan is somehow “deficit neutral.”  But now the Democrats are throwing in their student loan takeover to try to sweeten the pot for hesitant Democrats in the House.

Mitch McConnell put what is going on into proper perspective:

“It’s a very bad idea.  We now have the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, and now [the Democrats] want to take over the student loan business.  I’m not sure the public thinks the current debate is about that issue, and it would show again the lengths they are willing to go to have the government expand its tentacles into absolutely everything.”

So why don’t we go ahead and rename the Democrats “health care” boondoggle for what it really is: the Government Tentacle Expansion Act.

Bill Kristol had this to say when asked about this latest new wrinkle in ObamaCare:

BRETT BAIER: Bill, now Speaker Pelosi has talked about putting in student loans, a change to the student loan program in the vote for health care reform.

What about that? This is the student loan legislation that would end private lender’s involvement in the original student loans and the Department of Education would essentially take over?

BILL KRISTOL: Yes, the government would be the direct loaner to the students. Well that passed the House by a larger margin last year. So they are adding something that they think is more attractive to try to bring home few extra members to the bill.

It shows how unpopular this bill is. It is jaw dropping to step back from the day-to-day thing. A year into president’s top agenda health care is the Democrats favorite issue. They have had 30 point margins on it in polls over the Republicans for the last 15 years basically.

And as this debate has gone along this bill has become so unpopular and toxic that they now can’t pass it through a normal conference committee. They can’t have a normal situation where each house passes its own bill and get together and have a compromise. They have to pass the Senate bill or nothing because they’re terrified to go to conference.

They are now terrified to let the members go home for Easter recess before a vote, so they are going to — the president is delaying his trip so they can jam the vote in at the end of next week, they hope by one or two vote margin. It’s really stunning.

Bottom line: the people – who are now opposed to ObamaCare by a 3-1 margin – don’t want the government to take over our health care system.  And the Democrat leadership is literally afraid to let the Congress go home for Easter recess and hear what their constituents have to say before a vote, lest they respect the will of the people and vote against this monstrosity.  And so, as Obama postpones his foreign trip, the leadership is trying to overcome opposition to ObamaCare by offering as an inducement yet ANOTHER Democrat big government takeover, this time of the student loan system.

President Obama’s approval has sank to an all time low of 46% in the Gallup poll as he has determined to impose his health care boondoggle on the American people who do not want it.  The Hill points out that this “demonstrates that the healthcare debate has taken a toll on Obama’s approval numbers.”

A new poll released by the Associated Press finds that the American people overwhelmingly want the Republicans involved with any health care overhaul, rather than having an ideological Democrat boondoggle rammed down their throats:

More than four in five Americans say it’s important that any health care plan have support from both parties. And 68 percent say the president and congressional Democrats should keep trying to cut a deal with Republicans rather than pass a bill with no GOP support.

And only 27 percent of voters want to see ObamaCare rammed down the nation’s collective throat.

And as for what the Democrats are trying to impose:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters say the health care reform plan now working its way through Congress will hurt the U.S. economy.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% think the plan will help the economy. But only seven percent (7%) say it will have no impact. Twelve percent (12%) aren’t sure.

Two-out-of-three voters (66%) also believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the federal deficit. That’s up six points from late November and comparable to findings just after the contentious August congressional recess. Ten percent (10%) say the plan is more likely to reduce the deficit and 14% say it will have no impact on the deficit.

Underlying this concern is a lack of trust in the government numbers. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates. That number includes 66% who say it is very likely that the official projections understate the true cost of the plan.

Just 10% have confidence in the official estimates and say the actual costs are unlikely to be higher.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) also believe it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform. This includes 65% who say middle-class tax hikes are very likely, a six-point increase from late November.

And yes, ObamaCare will raise taxes.  In fact, for every one family who gets a subsidy to pay for the Democrats’ health care plan – which will cost $2.5 trillion – three middle class families will be taxed more to provide that subsidy.

Meanwhile, Barry Hussein has just broken his own record for the worst deficit in human history.

A few quotations from Ronald Reagan are in order here:

• “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
• “The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.”
• “Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself.”
• “As government expands, liberty contracts.”
• “Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”
• “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.”
• “Are you entitled to the fruits of your labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?”
• “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

The American people have overwhelmingly shouted – and there have been three big statewide elections in states that voted big for Obama to prove that the polls are correct – that they don’t want a government takeover.  And how do Democrats respond?  By offering another government takeover (of the student loan system) as an inducement for Democrats to vote for the government takeover of health care.

Looks Like Obama Needs His Own ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ To ‘Hide The Decline” In Approval

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” — Phil Jones, junk scientist.

Looks like Barack Obama needs his own equivalent of Phil Jones and Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline of his dwindling support.

December 11th, 2009
Can’t Hide the Decline: Obama Hits New Polling Lows
Posted by Tom Bevan

Excluding the Rasmussen and Gallup overnight tracking polls, there have been seven major national surveys released this week. President Obama has recorded an all-time low job approval rating in six of the seven:

Quinnipiac 46%
Marist 46%
CNN/Opinion Research 48%
Ipsos/McClatchy 49%
CBS News/NY Times 50%
Bloomberg* 54%

Only one poll – FOX News/Opinion Dynamics – showed in increase in President Obama’s job approval rating over the last month. In the current survey, FOX has Obama at 50% approval, up from his all-time low of 46% recorded in last month’s poll.

The net result, of course, is that Obama has also reached an all-time low approval rating in the RCP National Average at 48.9%. Obama initially dropped under the 50% for the first time over Thanksgiving – he spent three days at 49.9% between November 25 and November 28.  After ticking up back over 50% right after the holiday break, Obama went under 50% again on December 4th and has remained there for seven straight days:

I don’t know why Real Clear Politics would exclude Rasmussen and Gallup.  They both say the same thing.  Rasmussen has Obama’s approval at 47% as of December 11.  As does Gallup.

When a president sinks below 50% in the polls, he is no longer speaking for the people.  He loses influence, loses relevance, and loses the ability to lead.  Not that Barry Hussein ever actually had the ability to lead to begin with.

As Dennis Miller put it, Obama has “smaller coattails than a naked midget.”

Obama – the Messiah of the whole wide world – is officially the lowest rated first-year president in American history, according that latest poll by Gallup.

Obama is probably so popular amongst the socialist-redistributionists of the world because they think that Obama will break his nation’s back by agreeing to pay “America’s share” of the $10 trillion wealth redistribution handout to the countries that hate us most in the name of “climate change.”

We already know that the man who said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” is yearning to impose an additional $200 billion per year tax on the American economy, and an additional $1,761 a year tax on American families.

More and more Americans are waking up and realizing that Obama’s hoax and chains actually means freezing in the dark.

They are realizing that the president of “God damn America” wasn’t just speaking in exalted metaphors when he said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”  He truly wants to undermine our lifestyle while he “fundamentally transforms” America.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare just keeps getting worse and worse.  The health care “reform” that was supposed to lower the cost of health care and save the system is going to cost $234 billion more (even in the first ten years, when we tax for ten years, and pay benefits in only six) and will literally cause 1 in 5 hospitals to go broke.

Everywhere you look, Obama and the Democrats are failing.  They are making things worse.  And I mean “Depression” worse.

I’m reminded of something I wrote just before the 2008 election:

Right or wrong, this is how I feel: I actually hope that if Obama wins, Republicans lose HUGE.  You know how, when you realize that your professional sports team won’t make it to the playoffs, you come to start hoping they lose so many games that they’ll receive a high draft pick?  I’m kind of there in my politics, given an Obama win.  The fewer Republicans there are to blame for the disaster that is going to overtake this country, the better.  The whole charade that has led to such anti-Republicanism has been due to the demonization by Democrats and by the overwhelmingly biased liberal media.  Let Republicans be so utterly rejected that liberals have no one – and I mean absolutely no one – to blame but themselves so that their ideas and their candidates can be vilified for the next fifty years or so.

And the American people are regretting their choice.  Last year, George Bush was reviled as the worst president in history.  But now, only 50% would rather have Obama as president than Bush, and 44% would prefer Bush to Obama.

Which is to say that George Bush is looking better and better (at least compared to Obama), and Barack Obama is looking worse and worse (even when compared to Bush).

Maybe Obama can get global warming scientists to say that the president’s approval is a matter of settled science, and the debate is over.