Gallup just released their first job approval number for President Obama and it's at 68%. This is substantially better than the initial job approval numbers for the last four incoming Presidents, including Ronald Reagan who got only 51% initial approval in 1981. I find that interesting because there's this myth that Reagan was always some super popular President but he wasn't really. Not at the beginning and also not at the end. The fact that his VP, George HW Bush came in with just a 51% approval rating in 1989 really shows that clearly. I think it's a very good thing that Obama has this popularity because it should allow him to push his agenda forward faster. It's definitely time for America to leave the small minded ideas of the Republicans far behind us. It's time to move forward in a real way.
This is because Obama has charisma...he's genuinely likable man with an air of intelligence and determination. Reagan merely had stage presence, and was at heart a hateful bigot. Obama comes off as sincere, and I confess that I have a hard time watching him without getting choked up. He doesn't represent my values perfectly, but unlike his predecessor, I believe him to be the authentic choice of the people, and he was certainly my choice by election day. I keep wavering on his foreign policy...it seems full of inconsistencies. I am extremely concerned about the presence of Rahm Emanuel and signs that the Obama administration plans to move the War of Terror east to Pak and Afghanistan, rather than seizing the opportunity to bring radical factions to the negotiating table. On the other hand, his nuclear disarmament plan is a bold step, and he seems eager to get the US out of the business of torture. He has a slow hand, and I think we'll get frustrated waiting for the end of Iraq and justice for G-mo detainees. But Obama has been full of surprises. He still has my support. But like most Americans, I'm still willing to see how he plays out these situations, and call him to the carpet when it is clear he is straying from the will of the people. I think he has the potential to be a great leader of historic proportions. He will be just another Clinton, however, if he just puts a liberal face on imperialist policies.
I dig what you are saying. I'm not trying to make the case that he's perfect or that he will change the world with the wave of his hand. But I am pleased he is popular because I think that means people are at least being open minded and giving him a chance, and that's important. People talk about "just words" and how he "just" makes "inspiring speeches." And I just think uh... that's kind of a big deal actually. It's a big part of being a leader. If he can inspire people in their own lives that may end up being more important than any policy changes he makes.
Yeah, he's really mellowing out. Hard not to do when his past includes publicly stabbing a steak while yelling, "kill" about his enemies. Emanuel is on my red list until some scandal forces him out. I suppose I can understand why Obama respects him and keeps him close, but I consider him a bad influence. Make no mistake about it...Emanuel is where is he is because of his fund-raising ability. He knows how to make people who donate from the gut disgorge enormous checks, and this is how we came to have Obama in power. Unfortunately, he is one of those people who is always right, even when he's wrong. I expect him to be an embarrassment to the Administration, especially if the local scandal in Illinois takes a more definitive turn toward revealing improprieties on Emanuel's part.
I am just worried that with such high expectations will come great disappointment. Not doubting Obama's capabilities, but the current issues he is facing are mammoth and are not solvable in a short time, maybe even during his stay in the White House. He will need to manage expectations of him early on to avoid disappointing his well wishers later.
Isn't an exactly equivalent thing true of every US President for the past 100 years (and perhaps longer)?
Perhaps, but the "he" referred to here is Rahm Emanuel. No doubt each successful candidate has a "kingmaker", but in this case, I am unhappy with this individual as COS. Obama paying off R.E. for his fundraising ability and organizing work with this important job is just a little shady, especially with the Governor of Illinois facing corruption charges relating specifically to political patronage. Obama would have been wiser to select more objective advisors.
Well, I can certainly see that he's not Leo McGarry. I heard he did quite well (in the "inclusive, bipartisan" sense) with many cabinet appointments, which some Republicans were apparently pretty pleased with?
Most presidents approval goes done during the term. In the next month his approval rating will be down. But it is good that the rating is so high right now.
People are too in love with an illusion. Regan maintained a high rating above 50% throughout his eight years. Time will tell if Obama can do that. Did you see when he gave an Executive order over trials at Guantanamo Bay? He was so confused he had to ask others what the orders said and if there were any other ones. These are orders issued by the president not a member of his staff. Soon the charm will wear off and the American people will expect results. This will be the do or die time to see what he can do.
It's sounds like Obama's agenda is big government. The US tried to spend its way to properity during the Jimmy Carter (D) presidency. At that time, the Deocrats were also in control of Congress. In very short time inflation was out of control and unemployment reached 10%. The US turned to Ronald Regean and he offered a different nessage to rebuild America. “In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.†-Ronald Reagan-First Inaugural Address Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity. But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today. Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic "yes." To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I've just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy. In the days ahead I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity. Steps will be taken aimed at restoring the balance between the various levels of government. Progress may be slow, measured in inches and feet, not miles, but we will progress. It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles there will be no compromise. http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/first.asp
Very well said. Borrowing to try to spend our way out is insane and causes a once free market to fail even worse. Companies need to fail if they can not compete. No amount of borrowing and spending will negate that fact. I was listening a couple weeks ago to a talk radio station who was interviewing various Governors from around the country about the possibility of Federal Tax Bailouts of the states. I listened as Mark Sandford, Governor of South Carolina stated that their State Government was cutting where they need to and be fiscally responsible. He did not want the state bailout. In response, the host interviewed Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania. His response sums up what is wrong with Obama's plan and government in general. He attacked Mark Sanford as being one of those people who do not believe in borrowing and spending. He went on to state that this the way to get the economy moving and his state is in dire need of extra tax money. Borrowing from our future will do nothing but put off problems for a few more years. So far, I have seen nothing out of Obama's mouth except how he is going to spend more to make the Federal Government bigger to stimulate the economy.
At best Obama will be able to eaise the pain. However, the stimulus will ballon to as much as $1.5 trillion. What are we going to do if this doesn't work? Spend more money? Part of the stimulus package is hundreds of millions of dollars of birth control. http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/26/tantaros_pelosi/ Don't worry. Timothy 'turbo-tax' Geithner wil save America.
It is hilarious that a man who did not understand he had to pay taxes is about to be in charge of the Treasury which included the IRS. He is being swore in as I type. Another chance for Obama to be on TV. I am sick of seeing him already.
Turbo-tax Geithner ran the New York Fed which is basically the central bank. He was suppossed to monitor what was going on in New York. Not only that but he played a part in planning the tarp bailout. Senator Dodd and President Obama were on the top of the list of accepting donation from Fannie Mae and blocking the 2005 legislation to better regulae the mortgage industry. As long as Obama and company can keep a straight face when they blame Bush ... We are looking at an endless stream of money. States are going to be bailed out and there isn't much stimulus in the stimulus. This is really a massive redistribution of wealth and expansion of programs. How do we fund another 2trillion in 2010?