Originally Posted by GBBob

Alright righties...who gets the nod from this fine group

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Originally Posted by Danzig

Among the other Republican candidates Gingrich named as possible 2012 contenders included former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Also included on Gingrich's list are Govs. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. South Dakota Sen. John Thune may also be a potential candidate, Gingrich said.



i'll take a stab at this, altho i'm not a 'righty'. who knows? lol

remember when bill clinton was thought to not have a chance in hell?! i would have to think gingrich has too many skeletons in his closet. i think sarah palin is an idiot, i would never vote for huckabee as i tend to shy away from ultra-religious folks. mitt romney seemed ok, but i just really don't know much about him. i could say the same for the rest of them. as for jindal, he didn't impress many with his response to the president a year ago, i think he's too new to the scene, that he's not ready for that leap.

i just prefer it when one party is in the executive and the other controls the legislative. we seem to get more accomplished that way.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Best three from that list is #1) Newt Gingrich (though I'll probably get crap for that.. I'd vote for him in a second. #2) Mitt Romney #3) Tim Pawlenty

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think Pawlenty is the sleeper in this group.

Originally Posted by Riot

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess :)

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:



Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.



"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."



Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

Originally Posted by Riot

Thank god you do continue posting here, so the rest of us can get the opinion of a rude jerk. Talk about drivel ...

All the general media sites, bloggers, etc. are looking at Obama's first year accomplishments this week, genius. Some dare to disagree with your personal assessment of Obama's performance.

Get over it. "Stupid" is in the eye of the beholder.

Originally Posted by Riot

I didn't say this country had an all-time great year, genius. Neither has anybody else.

Here ya go: certainly you are free to point out why all the below are bad things for the US:

Originally Posted by Riot

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess :)

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:



Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.



"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."



Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

Originally Posted by Riot

Plenty of economists - including McCain's chief campaign economist - think the stimulus worked just fine, doing exactly what it was supposed to, and causing us to stay out of a depression.

Far from "a total failure" in the opinion of many. Thinking of it, I've never seen any economist publically call it a "total failure" - do you know of one? Or is that just your personal opinion?

Originally Posted by Danzig

prove it. prove we'd have been in a depression had that not been passed. my recollection of that bill being pushed was it was to keep unemployment from going past 10%, which it did anyway...in other words, it DIDN'T accomplish what they said it would. and why would adding mccains chief campaign economist somehow give that remark credence? because he's from 'the other side'? i bet i could find other economists who would disagree...but then, I'D be cherry picking....god knows no one else pulls bits out of articles to back their points.

Originally Posted by Danzig

i bet i could find other economists who would disagree...but then, I'D be cherry picking....god knows no one else pulls bits out of articles to back their points.

Originally Posted by Riot

You Obama-haters act like you're queezing your eyes shut, stomping your feet, placing your hands over your ears, and yelling, "Nananaaaaa ... I can't heaaar that plenty of people think Obama is doing great! I refuse to see that he's measurably accomplished a heck of a lot this first year. No, no, it's not true, because I don't want to believe it! He sucks, dammit!"

You guys are hilarious :tro:

Originally Posted by Riot

Please do. Post some other economists you can find that disagree, and say the stimulus has been a failure. Especially post any you know of that say the economy would not have been worse without the stimulus - that the stimulus did nothing for the economy.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are far more people who remain skeptical than those like you who are such ardent fans that they fail to understand why Obama's 1st year hasnt been so great when 70% of the population feels the country is heading in the wrong direction.

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You would think if the leader of the country was doing such a bang up job the citizens would be a little more optimistic.

Originally Posted by Riot

Please do. Post some other economists you can find that disagree, and say the stimulus has been a failure. Especially post any you know of that say the economy would not have been worse without the stimulus - that the stimulus did nothing for the economy.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are far more people who remain skeptical than those like you who are such ardent fans that they fail to understand why Obama's 1st year hasnt been so great when 70% of the population feels the country is heading in the wrong direction.
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You would think if the leader of the country was doing such a bang up job the citizens would be a little more optimistic.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Post 94 contains a link to an article by an economist who disagrees

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're just cherry picking....if you're going to post pro-admin stuff, that's fine...but con is not allowed.

Originally Posted by Riot

??? That economist doesn't say the economic stimulus was a failure. He's complaining about how the job numbers are calculated. Post it if I missed it.

Originally Posted by Danzig

it did fail at what they were attempting to stop-the rise of unemployment past 10 %. i didn't say it was a complete and utter, abject failure, but it did fail to keep unemployment below this admins magic number-didn't it? that's what i wrote, if failed at that. you need to try harder to read and comprehend what i'm actually writing, not what you think i'm saying.

Originally Posted by Riot

But keeping unemployment at less than 10% wasn't the only reason for the stimulus. Yet it's the only thing you are using to judge it's effectiveness.

Unemployment numbers have peaked and have been dropping markedly the past few months, and are continuing to drop. They are the lowest they've been in a long time.

The stimulus is still a long way from being completely disbursed, too.

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're just cherry picking....if you're going to post pro-admin stuff, that's fine...but con is not allowed.

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://forecasts.org/unemploy.htm


Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-85,000) in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 10.0 percent.



In the week ending Jan. 9, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 444,000, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 433,000


http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...te-steady.html


Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can't find jobs.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Here are virtually all of the polls on Obama's performance

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

43% of Americans think Obama is doing a better job than the worst, evil, stupid, incompetent president in history. That means 53% of Americans don't think he is even better than Bush.

Originally Posted by Riot

Rather than look at a few weeks, look at Chart 2 - this is what I am talking about:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...ght-month.html

Unemployment is the lowest it's been since December 07 - March 08 figures.

Originally Posted by Riot

Doesn't call the stimulus a failure. Again, the guy isn't happy with the way the jobs numbers are being calculated (there was a recent change); and also isn't happy with who stimulus funds are being disbursed to (although he's not specific - he says "large societal benefits" - so is he against the train and road projects? the tax cuts? what exactly?)

Originally Posted by Riot

We'll be sure to put you in that 16% that doesn't like anything the President does, and never will :tro:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Do you understand what this guy is saying? You may want to rethink using his blog to defend your position which he quite effectively not only shows is wrong but much worse than the traditional numbers show.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You simply dont get it...

here try this one

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...162110460.html


at some point you really have to stop with this tax cut stuff...

Originally Posted by Riot

In the question of "is the stimulus is a failure", you quote one guy who doesn't really say that, then you just quote the same one guy again from a couple months previously?

Where are all the economists reviewing the first part, the first months, of the stimulus package (what, about 1/4 disbursed?) here in January 2010, and declaring it a failure? To make Antitrust happy, a "total failure" would be good.

Face it - Obama isn't the complete disaster you maintain he is, the entire US citizenry isn't against him (pretty strong poll numbers, actually, in the face what is happening the country), the fact is alot of people are assessing his first year anniversary in a positive manner based upon what the guy has actually accomplished, and you just can't stand the thought of that.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously if Obama cheated on his wife with a tranny you would praise him for his diverse sexuality. QUOTE]

Where did you steal that?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

(Imagine where they would be if the latest terrorist wasnt so inept?)

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

In all seriousness, wasn't it actually very adept terrorists that gave the last President his highest approval ratings of his entire presidency?

I mean, I highly suspect that the benefit of the doubt, good faith, and banding together that everyone did after 9/11 for Dubya wouldn't be afforded in any way to Obama, but if my memory serves, the worst terrorist attack in American history actually IMPROVED the ratings to a career-best for the last guy.

Just interesting.