|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Nov 10, 2008 12:55:05 GMT -5
But remember, folks, this guy is still the President for about 9 more weeks and as such, he can do a lot of damage during that time. Already, he's been on a frenzy signing new executive orders, and although Obama can and will reverse most of them, he may still feel it would help him go out on a high note if he could manufacture a new war during that time. ______________________________ By Paul Steinhauser CNN Deputy Political Director WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- On the day that President-elect Barack Obama is visiting the White House, a new national poll suggests that the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the most unpopular president since approval ratings were first sought more than six decades ago.
President Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in the history of such polling.
Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday disapprove of how President Bush is handling his job.
That's an all-time high in CNN polling and in Gallup polling dating back to World War II.
"No other president's disapproval rating has gone higher than 70 percent. Bush has managed to do that three times so far this year," says CNN polling director Keating Holland. "That means that Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned from office during Watergate with a 66 percent disapproval rating."
Before Bush, the record holder for presidential disapproval was Harry Truman, with a 67 percent disapproval rating in January of 1952, his last full year in office.
As Obama visits the White House to start the transition from the Bush administration to an Obama administration, 57 percent of those questioned think the transfer of power will be relatively easy and free from tension, with 39 percent saying the transition will be difficult. Watch what Bush and Obama may talk about »
"A majority say that the transition from Bush to Obama will go smoothly, although nearly one in four predict a lot of tension between Bush aides and Obama aides in the next few weeks. That sentiment is highest among Democrats, but even among them, a majority believes that the transition will be relatively easy," Holland said. Watch Obama's ambitious agenda »
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday with 1,246 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
|
|
|
Post by davidlee on Nov 10, 2008 13:13:10 GMT -5
Leave it to CNN to state the obvious and selectively leave out the even more obvious. Rick, I know you're on the Obama bandwagon, and more power to you, but you're starting to sound like a mind numbed sycophant.
For the sake of comparison why didn't you list the approval rating of your Democratic led House and Senate? Last time I looked their approval ratings were in single digits! Tell me that's not some kind of a record!
All in all the alleged "most unpopular president ever" makes Congress look like the most pathetic group of individuals in existence. Yet we keep voting them back into office, don't we.
BTW, would you mind expanding on your comment regarding Bush's executive order frenzy without quoting some left wing Internet blog or questionable media resource? Can you direct me to a legitimate site that shows all of his recent executive orders?
thanks in advance.....
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Nov 10, 2008 16:27:03 GMT -5
Hmmm...the executive order frenzy is something I heard on the radio news last night, so I'll have to dig it up to post a link.
But, I can certainly speak to the unpopularity of Congress. When the Dems gained a very slight edge in 2006, they only had enough to block the Bush agenda, and not enough to actually acheive anything. I blame the unpopularity squarely on Reid and Pelosi for being milquetosts and not explaining things to the American People.
One of Trent Lott's last comments before resigning his seat so as to get himself a cushy lobbyist job prior to a new law taking effect was that the Republican agenda in the Senate would be to filibuster everything the Democrats put forward, and then to campaign against a "do nothing" Congress. The corporate media can be at least partially faulted for not exposing this agenda better, but the true fault lies with the leadership for not screaming bloody murder about it.
What most of us on the left have been begging Harry Reid to do is that when the Republicans declare their intent to filibuster something, they should be forced to do just that. Reid's practice was to test the waters and see if there were enough votes for cloture, and if there weren't, to move to the next item on the agenda, where the charade would be repeated. When pressed about it, he'd say that there was too much important business at hand to tie up Congress with filibusters, but he played right into Lott's agenda.
What he should have done was to say, "OK, you want to filibuster, then have at it." Then he could have forced these guys to actually sit up all night without sleep until they gave in or were exposed by the media.
Obviously, with at least 6 Senate seats gained to this point, the public has somewhat caught wind of the agenda, but the Dems could have done a much better job of it.
They have done some good, though. All Bush judicial appointees to lower courts have remained tabled, with will leave Obama with possibly a hundred seats to fill with the Repubs nearly robbed of their ability to filibuster. Social Security Privitization is dead. But the Dems did knuckle under on war funding, although not without exacting a very high price from Bush by tacking on things he'd resisted, such as a hike in the minimum wage.
So, while Congressional approval is very low, the public still seems to lay most of the blame on the minority. I love Harry Reid personally, but would love to see him replaced by someone like Russ Feingold, and Pelosi replaced with Dennis Kucinich. Then, we'd see some action!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Nov 10, 2008 17:00:18 GMT -5
OK...I guess the Bush frenzy is something I got off "Ring of Fire" last night from Bobby Kennedy. It was in response to the accusations that Obama plans on revoking something like 200 of Bush's orders, but I can't find anything about Bush actually signing new orders now. So, unless I find something concrete, I stand rebuked! Here's some good articles on Obama's plans, though: www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_081110.htm
|
|
cdh
Full Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by cdh on Nov 10, 2008 17:45:37 GMT -5
Who is the only president that suffered a catastrophic attack to a US warship in peace time and did nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Nov 10, 2008 17:52:57 GMT -5
Who is the only president that suffered a catastrophic attack to a US warship in peace time and did nothing? If you're talking about the USS Cole, I beleive the perpetrators were caught in Yemen. It was toward the end of the Clinton administration and has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Keep in mind that toward the end of his 2nd term, Clinton still had a high approval rating and would probably have easily defeated Bush in 2000 if he could have run for a 3rd term.
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on Nov 11, 2008 17:05:56 GMT -5
Here's a pretty good summary of the executive orders Obama plans to rescind very quickly: ________________ WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama's transition team is reviewing hundreds of President Bush's executive orders, and Obama could reverse some of the most controversial measures shortly after taking office, his transition co-chair said.
Medical researchers are eager to see restrictions on stem cell research lifted.
"I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration, even today, moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country," John Podesta, a co-chair of Obama's transition team, told "Fox News Sunday" this week.
"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that to try to restore ... a sense that the country is working on behalf of the common good."
Reversing Bush's executive orders would be an immediate way for Obama to show that a new era has begun in Washington, said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor. Watch how Obama could reverse Bush »
"Until President Obama gets rid of all these executive orders, he'll be sharing his presidency with his predecessor," Turley said. "Now that's a particularly obnoxious thought for an administration that was elected for change."
Presidents use executive orders to implement policies under their authority and, unlike laws, do not require congressional approval.
"Much of what a president does, he really has to do with the Congress -- for example, budgeting, legislation on policy -- but executive actions are ones where the president can act alone," said Martha Kumar of the White House Transition Project, a nonpartisan group established to help new presidential administrations. Watch Obama's ambitious agenda »
What Obama will decide to do on executive orders dealing with three controversial areas -- stem cell research, a so-called "gag" order on international aid organizations regarding abortion, and oil and gas drilling federal lands -- are receiving increased scrutiny.
On the campaign trail, Obama promised to modify Bush's restrictions on stem cell research. In August 2001, Bush barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on stems cells other than that using 60 cell lines existing at the time the president signed the executive order.
Researchers say the ban has limited their progress and want the opportunity to create new stem cells from human embryos. Many conservatives, however, object to the destruction of human embryos because they believe it ends a human life.
On his campaign Web site, Obama said he supports the creation of new stem cells from embryos created for in vitro fertilization treatments that would otherwise be discarded.
Advocates for those suffering from a host of diseases -- including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries -- are eagerly awaiting the Bush-era restrictions to be lifted.
"We have every reason to believe -- if not on Day One, then in the very near future -- they will be issuing an order rescinding this policy," said Amy Comstock Rick, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.
But White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on Monday suggested that the incoming Obama administration should consider keeping Bush's policy in place.
"Unfortunately, the president's position on stem cells has been misconstrued over the years, with the suggestion that President Bush put a ban on research for embryonic stem cell research. That is not true," Perino said. "The president made a very important choice after a lot of careful deliberation."
Other controversial Bush measures Obama is expected to overturn are related to abortion and family planning.
U.S. State Department officials and family planning groups such as Planned Parenthood said they expect Obama to overturn the "Mexico City" policy, first instituted by the Reagan administration. The policy prevents taxpayer dollars from funding groups that perform or promote abortions overseas.
President Clinton dropped the order, but Bush re-implemented it and expanded the policy to ensure State Department funding does not go to family planning organizations that even counsel about abortion.
An Obama administration also could overturn the Bush administration policy of banning funding to organizations such as the U.N. Population Fund that operate in countries that practice forced sterilization, including China, which adheres to the "one child" policy.
Podesta said his team also is reviewing Bush's order that lifted restrictions on oil drilling on fragile federal lands in Utah. Environmental groups decried Bush's decision when he opened the lands to exploration this month, and Podesta called the decision a "mistake."
One set of executive orders that may take longer to overturn pertains to detainees at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison.
Obama has said he wants to close the prison, but Denis McDonough, a senior adviser to the incoming Democrat, said Monday that no decisions have been made about what to do with the prison's 255 inmates.
"There is no process in place to make that decision until his national security and legal teams are assembled," McDonough said.
|
|