If we are looking at whether many people have changed their opinions of him based on his job performance, then, yes. If he'd entered with, say, a 52% job approval rating and was sitting at 46 or 50, then it would be basically unchanged. The guy, though, has seen a dip of about 20 points since he started. (Along with an increase in 32% of disapproval rating, although that's not what I'm interested in here.) I don't understand why this is relevant to voters changing their mind about how they voted for a candidate the first time. Ed O.
so what are you saying obamas approval rating was when he took office? just want to make sure we are using the same numbers
His approval rating is incredible considering what a failure his presidency has been. Even after four years of evidence to the contrary, people still want to believe in him. It's one of the things that disappoints me most about him. All he does is bitch about what a bad hand he was dealt. Are you kidding me? Has there ever been a President who has been elected with more goodwill? With more people wanting him to succeed? He could have been the most unifying president in this Nation's history. Instead, he squandered the embarrassment of riches he was given.
I think your recovery was a wonderful thing. While I'm happy you didn't have to pay much for your medical issue, I'm more concerned that there is a healthcare system that can provide others with the care you received. Obamacare provides incentives that will make our healthcare system worse, less efficient and more expensive.
Which one? This one? [video=youtube;NDq36YD1ESM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDq36YD1ESM[/video] Or this one? [video=youtube;ErZlGWDEtUE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErZlGWDEtUE[/video] or maybe this one? [video=youtube;rDDm5ES5qIM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDDm5ES5qIM[/video] or? [video=youtube;T-7gDQH2V2Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-7gDQH2V2Q[/video] or? [video=youtube;W4-IZTZkTY8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4-IZTZkTY8[/video] or? [video=youtube;e0TInLOJuUM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0TInLOJuUM[/video] side note, that last song was my moms favorite song when I was a kid. played at her funeral.
The difference in the case of the surge is that it was hugely unpopular when Bush supported ite. It was his policy that finally broke the back of the opposition in Iraq. Obama simply carried out a withdrawal plan that was in line with what Bush was proposing. Getting Bin Laden is something that our government, intelligence operatives, and armed services have had as a primary goal since 911. All of that came to fruition under Obama's watch and I give him credit for having the nerve to pull the trigger on an operation that could have blown up in his face. That said, as badly as we wanted him and as actionable as the intelligence was, I think any president worth his salt would have done the same thing.
Exactly. While it's great for Mick that it worked out to his advantage, I have little hope that there won't be more losers than winners under this system.
I am also happy for you. On all levels, health wise and financialy. You were able to benifit from a program that has zero to do with obummer care. You were able to use your union health care and what ever secondary plan you had available to you. It had nothing to do with the mess that will come into play in 2014, sure, you have union benifits. Most do not. The latest figure that I have seen is that the 6 million est whowill be subject to the tax has gone to 8 million, whoooo hoooo, and we arestill over a year away in an election year, what will the true figure be? 10? 15? wait and see.
I think we knew for some time that he was in Pakistan, just not his exact location. Sending troops to rummage through the countryside in a hostile country looking blindly for someone is a pretty good way to start a war. Obama had the benefit of specific intelligence as to bin Laden's location.
yeah the Doctor who gave us the information was later jailed by the Pakis, and Your president said and did nothing to come to his aid..woot
I have a question about the raid to get Osama Bin Laden. Let's say the raid went badly, we didn't get him and SEALs died. In everyone's opinion, would President Obama have taken a hit? I wouldn't have begrudged him a bit. He took action. We all wanted that f**k. Sucessful or not, just going after him was enough for me. Then again, I didn't begrudge Carter for Operation Eagle Claw. As a result, I don't think it was a "gutsy call" in the least. Any CinC should have made the same decision.
This is worth a good chuckle. http://washingtonexaminer.com/senat...-accomplishments/article/2509205#.UGUEBqTyZMg Senate Democrats have officially taken credit for Osama bin Laden’s death in a memo listing the “accomplishments” of the 112th Congress. “With Senate Democrats’ support, President Obama made finding and killing bin Laden a top priority for U.S. national security and executed a focused, sustained effort that succeeded in killing the world’s most wanted terrorist. Senate Democrats supported and amplified President Obama’s counterterrorism strategy by investing more in intelligence efforts and providing funding to expand the role of Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan,” states a memo from the Democratic Policy and Communications Center obtained by The Washington Examiner. The header for this alleged Senate accomplishment, “Osama bin Laden brought to justice,” appears alongside other accomplishments such as “Responsible Contracting,” “Violence Against Women Act,” and “Servicemembers cost-of-living adjustment.”
They're predisposed to dislike him already, but the current and ex-special forces people I know don't have a very high opinion of him. The "spiking the football" he's been doing for the past year and the leaks his Administration has given haven't made them very happy.
