The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: bijou on January 26, 2009, 03:16:42 AM
-
Barack Obama might have been in office for less than a week, but the euphoria is beginning to wane.
The new President's approval ratings have fallen from a stratospheric 83 per cent to a more modest - although still impressive - 68 per cent.
Washington analysts said the scale of the drop in the Gallup poll underlines the immense challenges Mr Obama faces in trying to turn round the U.S.'s battered fortunes. ... The President's new focus in the war on terror is also causing controversy.
While he plans to shift all combat troops out of Iraq over the next 16 months, many soldiers will find themselves in the thick of a new battle in Afghanistan.
Vice President Joe Biden warned that Americans should expect casualties as up to 30,000 more U.S. troops are sent there to fight the resurgent Taliban.
In a TV interview yesterday, he said the additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be engaging the enemy more.
Asked if that means the public should expect more deaths, he said: 'I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick.'
link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1127427/After-week-office-Barack-Obamas-approval-rating-plunges-shocking-15-points.html)
Normal service will be resumed.
-
In a TV interview yesterday, he said the additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be engaging the enemy more.
Oil for blood has now turned to the Democratic Crusades, a more holy war.
:whatever:
-
What makes me sick is their playing politics with our troops in Afghanistan. Their timing that 30,000 to get there right when the spring offensive begins. Afghanistan always flares up in the spring when the taliban crawls out of their caves. So there will be an "increase" in violence for them to justify this crap, while the American public doesn't really know that there has ALWAYS been an increase of violence that time of year.
-
these things are artificial. he hasn't done anything yet, so what is there to approve or disapprove of?
george HW bush had 92% approval ratings, and 8 months later he was unemployed.
-
these things are artificial.
Agreed. But, FWIW, he and his ace advisory team are now getting taste of how their glow can fade--and how quickly.
After he abandons Iraq and there's more flare-up there, and then after the buildup in Afghanistan and its casualties, he'll start to see some of the bottom that the man he and the Deomcrats, liberals and leftists criticizes so, saw.
Ditto for what'll happen when the public awakens to how this man's economic stimulus plan turns out to be yet another massive entitlement program with essentially nothing in it for true stimulus to Americans who could use work and would do, if it was created.
-
What I'd like to know is, can there really be as many as 68% who still approve of His Holiness? What kind of sheeple are these people? Can there really be so many idiots in this nation?
-
What I'd like to know is, can there really be as many as 68% who still approve of His Holiness? What kind of sheeple are these people? Can there really be so many idiots in this nation?
Basically they are the people he hasn't yet pissed off (or on) directly. That will change shortly.
-
And I'm sure that approval rating is among the people they LIKE to poll. Dimocrats.
Great point. Which could mean that his most-current approval would be much lower.
Imagine that: So soon in office and the people begin to see that the emporer truly has no clothes.
-
The more reputable polls like Gallup are generally statistically valid since they use the appropriate protocols/conventions. Their samples have to be random and large enough to support the overall population. Their margins of error are somewhere between +/-2 to 5 percentage points.
I would highly doubt that this particular poll would've been stacked with Dems sufficient to skew the results.
-
And I'm sure that approval rating is among the people they LIKE to poll. Dimocrats.
And that itself says a lot too. If only 68% of what would supposedly be his followers approve... it is very telling.
-
What makes me sick is their playing politics with our troops in Afghanistan. Their timing that 30,000 to get there right when the spring offensive begins. Afghanistan always flares up in the spring when the taliban crawls out of their caves. So there will be an "increase" in violence for them to justify this crap, while the American public doesn't really know that there has ALWAYS been an increase of violence that time of year.
I don't think it's playing politics in this case.
They needed the surge in Iraq to get on top of things and they did and it is down to a dull roar there now.
Michael Yon has been in Afghanistan for a couple of years and he is a very unbiased military writer who has been saying for the last three years that we needed a surge over there because we were frankly slowly losing on the ground to the Taliban.
A surge has been in the works for awhile. Bush never discusssed these things too much publically, but Obama and others knew it was in the works and I think just hopped on the coat tails with the campaign talking point involving more troops in Afghanistan.
I agree with Yon's analysis that it is long overdue.
Unfortunatly I don't think you can "win" over there without killing every man woman and child and repopulating. Personal opinion. Hope to Christ I'm wrong, but they DO need more boots on the ground to try to give the locals a leg up against the Mudj.
-
I don't think it's playing politics in this case.
They needed the surge in Iraq to get on top of things and they did and it is down to a dull roar there now.
Michael Yon has been in Afghanistan for a couple of years and he is a very unbiased military writer who has been saying for the last three years that we needed a surge over there because we were frankly slowly losing on the ground to the Taliban.
A surge has been in the works for awhile. Bush never discusssed these things too much publically, but Obama and others knew it was in the works and I think just hopped on the coat tails with the campaign talking point involving more troops in Afghanistan.
I agree with Yon's analysis that it is long overdue.
Unfortunatly I don't think you can "win" over there without killing every man woman and child and repopulating. Personal opinion. Hope to Christ I'm wrong, but they DO need more boots on the ground to try to give the locals a leg up against the Mudj.
while the surge worked wonderfully in iraq, i don't think it will succeed in afghanistan. they are vastly different countries. while one is a relatively modern country that has always had a functional central government, afghanistan is a pile of rocks that would have to be bombed up to the stone age.
if the surge was a winning strategy, the soviets would have won back in the 80s.
-
while the surge worked wonderfully in iraq, i don't think it will succeed in afghanistan. they are vastly different countries. while one is a relatively modern country that has always had a functional central government, afghanistan is a pile of rocks that would have to be bombed up to the stone age.
if the surge was a winning strategy, the soviets would have won back in the 80s.
My only quibble with that would be that the Soviet military frankly sucked when they went in there. They were fielding draftees and highly unmotivated regular army troops. The only effective things they had going were the Spetznaz and their aviation. Once the Stinger missiles went in the air stopped being effective and the Mudj started kicking the snot out of them.
Pound for pound we have probably the best light infantry and combined arms forces in the world.
-
Unfortunatly I don't think you can "win" over there without killing every man woman and child and repopulating. Personal opinion. Hope to Christ I'm wrong, but they DO need more boots on the ground to try to give the locals a leg up against the Mudj.
Agree. My only worry is that Barry will send in our troops with one hand tied behind their backs. I'm all for the A-stan surge if they will turn them loose and let them do their job. But we can't go in there with an effective surge and be politically correct at the same time. Our kinder gentler CIA tactics scare me.
-
Agree. My only worry is that Barry will send in our troops with one hand tied behind their backs. I'm all for the A-stan surge if they will turn them loose and let them do their job. But we can't go in there with an effective surge and be politically correct at the same time. Our kinder gentler CIA tactics scare me.
It's a recipe for another Somalia.
-
My only quibble with that would be that the Soviet military frankly sucked when they went in there. They were fielding draftees and highly unmotivated regular army troops. The only effective things they had going were the Spetznaz and their aviation. Once the Stinger missiles went in the air stopped being effective and the Mudj started kicking the snot out of them.
Pound for pound we have probably the best light infantry and combined arms forces in the world.
I certainly wasn't criticizing our armed forces. I would have to time myself out. :-)
I just think it is a vastly different situation than iraq. and I don't believe that BHO believes that a surge would work in afghanistan; I think he created it out of thin air just so he could have a wedge issue. he was against the iraq war, so he had to find a war that he wasn't opposed to, lest he be accused of being easy meat for the terrorists.
-
I knew the euphoria would wane. Kennedy had high approval ratings, yet he was considered not really popular and was worried about the 1964 election. Approval ratings do not always mean good Presidents.
-
No matter what Obama does, no matter how big of a screw up he makes, his approval ratings will never drop below 35%. 12% of the population is black and the other 23% needed will be made up of Obam-knee-axes.
-
I'll bet 10,000 quatloos that the Big Zero's ratings will hit 40% by April .
-
I'll bet 10,000 quatloos that the Big Zero's ratings will hit 40% by April .
I'll see your 10K quatloos and raise you 40 cubits.