2006 Fox News Poll: 51% Of Democrats Wanted Bush To Fail [Cited by Rush Limbaugh 3/9/09]
The Internet is an amazing thing. With all of the hullabaloo over Rush Limbaugh’s comments I started wondering if I could find evidence of Democrats wanting Bush to fail. Lo and behold Fox News did a poll in 2006 and asked that very question. An article on the poll appeared in the NY Post by Craig Charney, a former Clinton pollster (I found the text of the article at sistertoldjah.com). Check this out.
A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. Such deep hatred is bad news for the country at a time when America needs to bridge the partisan divide. It’s also bad news for the Democrats, who risk repeating the Republicans’ mistakes of a decade ago, driving away the centrists they need to regain power or going too far if they do manage to win.
Fox’s question was revealing: “Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” Democrats said “not,” 51 percent to 40 percent – where the public at large wanted success by almost two to one. [See page 4 of this document for the poll in question.--ST]
In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people – suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies – detest George W. Bush.
When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents – hardly right-wing zealots – hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.
In fact, the fury against to Bush has reached unprecedented levels, even compared to the animosity among Republicans to his predecessor. Not long ago, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that “strong disapproval” of Bush was 10 points higher than that recorded for Bill Clinton at any point during his presidency, including his impeachment. (That wasn’t during a war, either.)
[CORRECTION] Following quote from Betsy Newmark’s blog post.
Remember, for better or for worse, George W. Bush will be our president for more than two years. Hoping that he’ll fail is really hoping that America will fail. These people detest Bush so much that they don’t mind America getting a setback across the globe if it will weaken Bush.
Of course, there’s a key difference between then and now. Wishing Bush would fail meant wishing the country lost in Iraq. Wishing Obama fails means rooting against socialistic policies that threaten everything the country was founded on and our future prosperity.
Do you think the MSM, considering their whining about Limbaugh’s comments, would think to look something like this up now and then report on it? Nope, that would actually mean really reporting on something and adding some context. That would mean they couldn’t marginalize and demonize him.
Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!
[UPDATED 3/9/09]
Quite a day! I had no idea this would ever happen. I actually e-mailed the story to Rush last week, but it wasn’t until Gateway Pundit and Little Green Footballs picked up on it that it got out there.
Amazingly, even Fox News picked up on this and ran a story flashing back to the poll.
Again, I didn’t do anything special here. A little light bulb went off and said let me check around and see what I can find. Any reporter for any media outfit could have done the same. The fact that they didn’t says alot about the mainstream media and their agenda.
Here’s the transcript from Rush’s show.
Bret Baier – Political Grapevine!
O’Reilly’s Talking Points!
Here’s Sean Hannity running with it!
![](\"http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2588/4054089200_336925df5e_m.jpg\")
March 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left vis-a-vis Mr. Limbaugh’s comments. As usual, though Lefties want it both ways. They wanted George Bush to fail (which meant wanting our military to fail in Iraq), but “whine, snivel, bitch and moan” when Rush Limbaugh says something similar. And likewise there is hypocrisy with respect to giving Obama time. Liberals hated George Bush from day one. Now, when your guys is in we’re all supposed to be quiet, right?
Sorry, that ain’t happening. Not with him pursuing his radical agenda. I was willing to give him time but I will not sit here and be silent as he tries to destroy our country with his fascist agenda.
By the way, you don’t need a library, Bob. Go on the Internet and look up the Constitution. After all, those little facts outlined in it, you don’t seem to like them very much from the sound of it.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I am e-maling a link to your site to Rush right now!
He needs to bring this up next week.
Loren’s last blog post..Video Tutorials – A Beginners Guide
March 8th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Where does it say that? I remember something ‘promoting for the welfare of the people’.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I’m done whining, because we won’t survive 4 years of Obama…I’m demanding a RECALL now.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
No Hope For Change’s last blog post..The Pelosi Left – Out of Touch
March 9th, 2009 at 2:27 am
Are you claiming he is being intolerant? If so: intolerant of what and why is his ‘intolerance’ unjustified? We both know you were just trying to make a mocking quip, however, your quip sucked.
“I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left vis-a-vis Mr. Limbaugh’s comments.”
Limbaugh is one individual who is at the centerfold of the Republican party. This poll is of a research corp calling people in their homes and asking them. Was Mr. Limbaugh called at home and asked or did he intentionally place himself in the spotlight and make the comments?
“They wanted George Bush to fail (which meant wanting our military to fail in Iraq), but “whine, snivel, bitch and moan” when Rush Limbaugh says something similar.”
According to the poll of 900 registered voters, and let us assume that the spread goes something like (350D, 350R, 200I), 179 of the ‘Democrats’ wanted Bush to “not succeed”, 140 wanted him to. Now let us take a look at ‘Independents’ who were surveyed: 126 wanted Bush to “succeed”, 68 wanted him to “not succeed”. The survey clearly states, through its unscientific and undocumented testing methods, that this was based off of “succeeding” or “not succeeding”. Nothing in the PDF mentions failure.
“And likewise there is hypocrisy with respect to giving Obama time.”
Don’t revise history. Bush always has had his critics but the vast majority of Americans gave him a good two years of support. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm
“Liberals hated George Bush from day one.”
I’m a liberal and I never hated George Bush. I’ve severely disagree with his policies but I’ve never hated him. Since when do you speak for me?
“Now, when your guys is in we’re all supposed to be quiet, right?”
The ‘All or nothing’ crap is beyond old. This is why Independents are repulsed by the Republican party today. Nobody has ever said Republicans should be quiet and say nothing. What people want is for the extremely hardliner Republicans (aka the ‘All or nothing’ base) to be reasonable.
“Not with him pursuing his radical agenda.”
Lol @ you seriously believing Obama is engaging in a socialist agenda.
“I was willing to give him time but I will not sit here and be silent as he tries to destroy our country with his fascist agenda.”
He’s a fascist now? Want fascism? This is fascism: http://www.newsweek.com/id/187342
“you don’t seem to like them very much from the sound of it.”
Bob doesn’t like the constitution now? Please quote exactly where in Bob’s comment that he makes the allusion towards that. What McCarthyism.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:43 am
[...] wrote about this deplorable poll on September 24, 2006 (h/t Betsy Newmark via Sister Toldjah via Garden State Pundit via Gateway Pundit) — A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of [...]
March 9th, 2009 at 8:49 am
March 9th, 2009 at 11:42 am
[...] UPDATE: Jimboster e-mails to say that credit for this find goes to Garden State Patriot. [...]
March 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
[...] Keep reading here [...]
March 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
http://www.charneyresearch.com/2006Sep24_NYPost_HateTrap.htm
Second of all, the last paragraph in the quote on your post–scolding those who hated Bush–wasn’t even in the original article. Shame on the liar who added that (whether that’s this blogger or not).
Comment to Dan: ask yourself why you keep using the President’s middle name. And be honest with yourself.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Don’t have to give Obama six months, socialism has failed every time it has been tried. Your response was typical of a liberal, condescending and arrogant. By the way did you catch Warren Buffet’s comments today. Even though he support our current Pres. he does not agree Obama on several of his big agenda events or on letting a crisis goto waste. I’m sure you do your homework and see for yourself. Hey Bob do you know what the Capital Gains tax rate is in China. Drum roll, it is ZERO percent. I have lots of other facts like these. Can you say Jimmy Carter II
March 9th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
[...] It wasn’t that long ago that Democrats were hoping that President Bush would fail. Garden State Pundit discovered this poll today from [...]
March 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Boots…
Charney’s take on the poll is irrelevant. All that’s relevant is that 51% of polled Democrats wanted Bush to fail – oh, excuse me, “didn’t want him to succeed.”
Last part of quote was an honest mistake on my part. I have updated the post accordingly. Please also refer back to the sistertoldjah.com blog post as it is quite clear on this.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Fair enuff–I tried to make no assumption as to whether you added that or someone else. You have my thanks for looking into it and correcting it (and I believe you that it was an honest mistake!).
However, I beg to differ that Charney’s take is irrelevant. It is THE crux of the matter. The partisan vitriol going back and forth on this web site isn’t just a *part* of the problem, it is *the* problem. It saddens me that both your blog and the one you got the quotes from missed what Charney was really trying to say.
Americans need to focus on what brings us together, not what drives us apart.
(And if you think that only the numbers are relevant, then don’t forget that it was 900 folks polled. That is an extremely small sample.)
March 9th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
[...] 2006 Fox News Poll: 51% Of Democrats Wanted Bush To Fail 2006 Fox News Poll: 51% Of Democrats Wanted Bush To Fail [...]
March 9th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Again, I wasn’t addressing the issue of getting along but I’ll say this: I’m all for civility in debate. However, I do not agree about the second part (”focusing on what brings us together”). I believe we should be focusing on ideas that work and making people’s lives better. Consensus and bi-partisanship ought not be our objective. Solving problems. Adhering to the Constitution. This is where we should be focused.
By the way, I am in marketing research. 900 people is actually a pretty robust sample size. Even if the margin of error is as high as 5% it still wouldn’t change the meaning of these results.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Hypocrisy Against Rush As 51% Of Dems Wanted Bush To Fail In 2006…
All this media attention to Rush Limbaugh over his comment that if Obama stands for socialism that he wants Obama to fail in his goals, is just total hypocrisy. While I’m no real fan of Rush Limbaugh his comments have……
March 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Compromising is OK under certain circumstances. In others, you most hold on principle. How does one compromise on abortion? How does one compromise between capitalism and socialism?
By the way, as an example, here in New Jersey our government has pretty much been either “moderate” (Whitman) or crazy Left (Corzine, McGreevey for the past decade). All it’s given us is the absolute worst state in the nations for taxes and business. And a budget that has almost doubled since the beginning of the decade. People are leaving the state in droves.
We conservatives have a much different vision for this state. One that cuts government and cuts spending and puts taxpayers before unions and special interests. What about those ideas do you disagree with, I ask you? Where should we compromise on them knowing that moderate and left-wing ideas and policies have failed us miserably?
March 9th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I can’t believe you deny the hypocrisy. What we want is for YOU to be reasonable.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Give Obama at least 6 months before you whine, snivel, bitch and moan
Whine, snivel bitch and moan, eh? As opposed to what we had to listen to for 8 straight years from the left? But that was dissent, not whining bitching sniveling and moaning, and of course dissent is the highest form of patriotism, at least as per the leftist talking points.
So, Bob, is dissent suddenly not the highest form of patriotism anymore?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:05 am
This was question 10, where is question 1 through 9. What was the topic of the rest of the poll, were questions asked in that order or were they posed randomly. Were question 7, 8 and 9 leading questions that focused the question 10 towards a topic that isn’t mentioned in question 10. I have looked for the poll, FOX NEWS only posts their archives to OCT 2007.
Rush loves to use lies of omission to support his cause. Post the rest of the poll or your point is moot.
I pity you if you fail to post this comment.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:33 am
You are grasping at straws. The poll is clearly sound and not leading in any way.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030909/content/01125107.guest.html
In 2006, much of the nation wanted OUT of IRAQ. I rather doubt that 51% of DEMOCRATS wanted BUSH to fail as a president or in keeping our nation safe and economically sound. I certainly didn’t. You need to especially note that 34% of independents, 1/3rd, also responded with the same answer.
Don’t forget also that Bush’s approval ratings were in the tank even then. I believe it was already below 30% approval. Rush’s desire for Obama to fail comes in his first 40 days before any of his programs have even been tested or even implemented.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Above embedded in this text: Lo and behold Fox News did a poll in 2006 and asked that very question
Above embedded in the quoted text: [See page 4 of this document for the poll in question.--ST]
This is how it’s done, Rod. You go back up to the post. You make the cursor go over the text with the link. You click on the link. Does your mommy also still dress you in the morning? Sheesh!
I’m glad, though, that you didn’t want Bush to fail. Looks like you were part of the 49%.
Next, you can try to twist the poll results all you want. The fact of the matter is there was a large segment of the Left that hated W no matter what. It was blind rage. The poll reflects just how deep the resentment was – enough so that they wanted him to fail in any way possible – even if it meant losing in Iraq. Please don’t act like this wasn’t so.
LBNL, Obama wants to radically transform our nation away from free market principles and capitalism, into a nation that yields more and more authority to the state. This will ruin our nation economically and limit our freedoms. Forgetting even the constitutionality of some of what he wants to achieve, this will not work. That’s why we we oppose it.
We don’t need 40 days, or 100 days, or a year to figure this out. The opposition is based in principle.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:58 am
As far as Obama wanting to “transform our nation away from free market principles and capitalism” BS !!!!
This attitude that this country has to run as a Lassez Faire capitalist state, often referred to as economic liberalism, is total crap. Lassez Faire capitalism is running in this country exactly like it played out in France in the 1700s. Let ‘em eat cake. Now all we have to do is find a MARIE ANTOINETTE to behead and blame for the faults of 30 years of often ill advised deregulation for which the RIGHT wants to blame a President who has been in office for 45 days. YES, 30 years. Canada didn’t follow those deregulation ideas of the 1980s. They have barely felt this recession and their banks are still healthy, growing in the world while others shrink.
BUSH had 6 years to prove himself and didn’t have near the public support of the electorate at the time that poll was taken. Nah, I know, you can’t allow a democrat to succeed. You have to divide the country and make self fulfilling predictions.
UNITY? Not with the American Fascists on the front line. Oh, and the GOP is far closer to fascism then the DEMS are to SOCIALISM, as you say.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Examples of Socialism in the UNITED STATES…..
Public Highways, Public Schools, the Interstate System (that Socialist Eisenhower), Public Libraries, City, State and National Forests, Parks and Recreation areas, subsidized drugs for the elderly (GW BUSH), Walmart keeping the bulk of their employees as part time so they can send them to medicaid instead of providing health care. Oh, and don’t forget that nice new Football Stadium or Basketball Arena that was built with taxpayer money so that big business can attract top flight employees to your city. I didn’t hear anyone screaming socialism at that. Is socialism only good when it benefits business like Highways and forest management and sports arenas? No, it’s simply that SOME systems work better for everyone when they are socialized. Could you imagine toll gates on every street and highway in the country?
OK, sure, we don’t want a socialist government but the US really can’t exist as a socialist government. We are far too diversified and far too free to accept such ideas and I agree, central control of things like marketing and business is highly flawed and non functional. Change to a socialist form of government would require a revolution, and I don’t see that coming either.
I’m sure you will point out the new Health Care Package that is being promised. Being a business owner myself, I know that it is important that employee overhead be decreased so that each employer can hire more employees with the least cost. My brother works 60 to 80 hours a week for a major manufacturer at high hourly wages because his employer wants to minimize employee overhead. Besides, we already HAVE socialized health care. We call it the EMERGENCY ROOM. The costs of caring for the uninsured in this country is hidden in the costs of every hospital and is paid for by all of us via increased health care prices and outrageous insurance costs which are passed on to the businesses and corporations who pay them.
Crying Socialism by the right is nothing but fear mongering. Using words like COMMUNIST and (LOL) Liberal Socialist (what a term, American Democrats more like LIBERAL CONSERVATIVES politically, if there is such a thing) does nothing but divide our nation and produce fear in our electorate all while defeating the unity of our people and the purpose of our nation, which is to supply freedom, justice and country where we can all work and attain our own version of the American dream.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Just one example supporting my general point: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html
Secondly, laissez faire economics did not bring about our current economic problems. it was bad government policy in the way of easy money from the Fed and the push to make it easier for those who could not afford homes to get mortgages. It was greed at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (where liberals mainly ruled the roost — and Barack Obama was Fannie and Freddie’s #1 recipient of donations I might remind you.)
Fascism? Nice try. Conservatives are most certainly anti-fascist. We believe in maximum freedom and limited governent control and interference. Another way of looking at it is as a continuum with freedom on the one end and fascism on the other. An agenda that aggressively increases the size of government and its control over our lives is most certainly more fascist. Perhaps you should read my other post on the subject: http://gardenstatepatriot.blogivists.com/?s=fascism
Lastly, I’ll start supporting Obama when he stops pursuing an un-American, anti-capitalist agenda — and when he stops spending trillions of dollars on garbage.
By the way, I wouldn’t point to public schoools as an example of successful socialism.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
The succeed vs. fail wording was addressed above. In essence, it’s a pretty darn weak argument to make. As is the yes/no. Again, I have experience with this stuff. I do it for a living. It’s not uncommon.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Laissez-faire (pronunciation: French, laissez-faire.ogg [lɛsefɛʁ] (help·info); English, En-us-laissez-faire.ogg ˌleɪseɪˈfɛər (help·info)) is a term used to describe a policy of allowing events to take their own course. The term is a French phrase literally meaning “let do”. It is a doctrine that states that government generally should not intervene in the marketplace.[1]
The term is often used to refer to various economic philosophies and political philosophies which seek to minimize or eliminate government intervention in most or all aspects of society.
FROM Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today’s Investor by David L. Scott. Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
laissez-faire
Of, relating to, or being an economy devoid of government interference.
Yes, we have certainly attempted to take a Lassez Faire approach to our economic system.
And as far as the market tanking after Obama took office. According to the GOA, the recession began in early SUMMER, May or June, 6 months before the announcement of a recession was made in DECEMBER. The freefall started after the Sub Prime crisis hit. If it was so easy to stop, then why didn’t MR. BUSH stop it? I mean, he was in office for another 5 months after the sub prime crisis and the economy continued to fall. Obama has only been in office for less than 2 months.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Any topic out there — One that doesn’t go with either hard lined approach to a topic.
“And how are they any better than “conservative” ideas?”
Conservatism outside of its religious influences is a great concept. Unfortunately like socialism, such idealism on a topic only works on paper. I’m not saying conservatism is a paper only concept, but I’m saying a balanced/realistic conservative party that represents a nation on a global scale cannot serve its people if it serves religious tones first. Now take those words as they are — Don’t misconstrue or infer poorly on them.
“In others, you most hold on principle.”
Principle and ideology grow as people grow. And principles emerge and stay relevant within the context of their settings.
“How does one compromise on abortion?”
I absolutely detest abortion. I think it is disgusting, and I personally believe its wrong. However, I believe it should remain an option. What we need is real sex ed. No fear mongering, no abstinence-only education, no gingerly shaped ‘education’ as it is set-up today — In which it is criminal for an educator to answer many of the questions that don’t line up perfectly on guidelines. Condoms and other forms of contraception need to stop being shunned and obtaining them shouldn’t be a moment of shame as most of the ‘religious right’ has done by the various stigmas attached to them. What I think needs to be done is to shift the stigma: Make it shameful to not use protection, encourage the personal responsibility to protect yourself and your partner if you are going to make the decision to engage in sexual activities. Get parents involved.
Many people love the mantra that it is a parent’s right to teach their children — The issue is that most parents want no role in that today. School is daycare, something they use to get away from their children. Sure you can ostracize those who don’t conform to your standards, but the problem is that ultimately we will only be divided as nation and as a people on a global level. While some divisions are fine, even encouraged, driving wedges by having an all or nothing stance never accomplishes anything for us and only empowers those who wish us to further be divided.
“How does one compromise between capitalism and socialism?”
Socialism is a paper idea. As is capitalism. What we have in America is a mix between the two. Which is what we should have. Social programs allow for reasonable assistance/provisions for citizenry while a laissez-faire economy gives us competitiveness and gives greater incentive for the best/brightest to lay their claim to their own rewards. The issue we really are arguing is balance. I don’t like the idea of a welfare state. There are too many people truly mooching off the system, those people give the truly stricken and downtrodden a bad name, and they are a hemorrhaging drain on each and every one of us. I don’t like an economy that exploits every possible loophole out there, like the 100 billion+ a year in tax evasion through foreign banks, and the segment of the population who is willing to let people rot in order to pinch pennies.
“By the way, as an example, here in New Jersey our government has pretty much been either “moderate” (Whitman) or crazy Left (Corzine, McGreevey for the past decade). All it’s given us is the absolute worst state in the nations for taxes and business. And a budget that has almost doubled since the beginning of the decade. People are leaving the state in droves.”
I personally don’t know about New Jersey’s situation. I can’t truthfully comment on it.
“One that cuts government and cuts spending and puts taxpayers before unions and special interests.”
This is a large subject. I’m going to skip spending/interests and go straight to unions. I’m the son of a single mother who raised me off of her teaching salary. I’ve worked in the classrooms, seen the things the districts do to the teachers, and I’ve worked hand-in-hand with some of those terrible teachers everybody loves to point at. My mother had to forfeit her social security when she became her teacher. She will only get her pension and nothing more. All teachers in our state have to do that. She has had to deal with classrooms of 35+, with no aids (unlike the one part-time aid she would be able to have a decade ago), nearly no materials, strict state-mandated guidelines in order to get adequate funding, and a tyrannical district that holds them under their thumb.
They have to stay 2-3+ hours a day, without pay, in order to prepare for the next day as well as grade the numerous papers for each child. I’ve graded several thousand papers, it isn’t a fun task even if you do it in the most efficient set-ups possible. And every day the districts dump more of their work-load onto the schools administration, which in turn dumps it all onto the teachers. If the teachers complain or even try to speak up do you know what happens? The funding for that school ‘coincidentally’ gets cut a little further, or that school gets a surprise inspection. Unfortunately the teacher’s unions have been demonized as huge spenders of money when the real problem are the districts. The district buildings, which in our state nearly have triple the staff of an average school, run the A/C 24/7, have their own cafes in-building, spend ludicrous amounts of money on on trips for themselves and other ridiculous luxuries. Did you know that the teachers have to clean the floors of their classrooms now? They can’t even afford janitors to vacuum. And for the past decade I personally know every teacher that I have ever met has spent hundreds of dollars of their yearly paycheck in order to buy supplies for their students so they would at least have the bare minimum to learn. If you want to point a finger — Point it at the management not the teachers. They break their backs for their students, its the districts who scrape a little more off the top in terms of funding every year.
Now for the autoworkers union — They’ve become like the districts. They are bloated, and use their union as a weapon to beat the horribly managed American car companies to the point where both of those things combined creates disaster. The biggest issue here are the idiots who play generational business games with their children getting high level positions, ultimately running the companies, without any actual knowledge of whats going on. The next biggest issue is the unreasonable levels of compensation the auto workers union is getting in overtime pay. That is where the UAW bullied the American car companies.
Unions can be a great tool so the little guy can get reasonable benefits. However, when a union becomes a weapon to threaten and bully unfairly it loses its original purpose and becomes something bad for a companies economic well being.
“Where should we compromise on them knowing that moderate and left-wing ideas and policies have failed us miserably?”
You need to remember that as time has progressed the basic standards that you personally expect today were obtained by unions and other similar establishments that existed decades ago. Most people seem to not realize that, as well as most haven’t read The Jungle to see how far things have changed and the reasoning for that change. I believe we should aim for an economically viable betterment of our standards as time progresses. Companies shouldn’t revel in ridiculous profits without the brunt of the workforce getting the benefits they’ve duly earned. I’m not saying they should walk away with money bags, but they deserve the basic necessities.
“Michael…you’re refutation is kind of weak.”
I disagree. My retort in regards to the original comment was short.
“Failing is the exact same thing as not succeeding and you know it.”
If you were to not read the context in which the questions were asked and the method of how they were obtained I would agree. However, it would be silly it not consider the context.
“There was no “good two years of support,” nor was support from the vast majority of Americans.”
Maybe the ultra-ridiculous crazy ‘liberals’ didn’t give him his two years but the rest of us sure did. See the chart I posted earlier from the BBC that measured his approval ratings. He got a vast majority of support.
“When Bush took office approval ratings were generally around 50%, and probably would have remained around there, barring any major blunders.”
We aren’t discussing would-haves. We are discussing what happened.
“His approval rating skyrocketing and remaining relatively high for about a year was a direct result of 9/11. You know that. It has nothing to do with giving him a chance.”
Yes it does. He got an amazing chance from 9/11. He was given leeway unlike no other. If you want to grind your teeth and claim otherwise, feel free to, but that doesn’t change what he got.
“I can’t believe you deny the hypocrisy. What we want is for YOU to be reasonable.”
I made several short statements — Something too little for you to greater infer into what I had said. I did not deny any hypocrisy, I merely made slight comments based off of the aim of the article’s writer and his response. And to be straight to you: I am reasonable. I’ll tear somebody down, of any affiliation, if they are too hard line and try to force their views when around me. I understand moderation and I understand compromise. I also understand not wanting to compromise and gritting your teeth to disbelief at how somebody of a differing view can be so short-sighted in their reasoning.
“So, Bob, is dissent suddenly not the highest form of patriotism anymore?”
Dissent is a beautiful thing. And it should be encouraged and appreciated by both sides. The issue is when things are spun and misconstrued from their true aspects to something that is merely political fodder.
Rod in post #36 is more or less correct. He could phrase it better, but the gist is true.
“Rod, Obama most certainly is moving away from free market principles. There’s a reason the market has tanked since his election.”
Garden I suggest you look up other times when the economy has tanked in the past. I believe the ‘Daily Show’ had a segment on this that I saw online.
“The folks on Wall Street don’t like his big spending, big government agenda.”
Wall Street has their portfolios set-up around the system in place. Their profits are built around the broken and out of date regulations that allow for loopholes.
“From government run health care, to punishing cap and trade proposals, the prospects for prosperity are bleak if he gets what he wants.”
The issue is that those two things are not in place nor are they even remotely about to be in place. Go with the things Obama is doing now and what he has done. Despite your opinion on them working or not working, they are far from socialism. Anybody with a dictionary knows what socialism really is. Hannity/Rush just throw it out there like they are masquerading as McCarthy.
“Secondly, laissez faire economics did not bring about our current economic problems. it was bad government policy in the way of easy money from the Fed and the push to make it easier for those who could not afford homes to get mortgages.”
This is where most people get lost. The subprime mortgages were mostly fine. The issue is what they lead to. ‘Preferred’ investments, sorry I do not remember their exact term, is what caused most of this shamble. Subprime mortgages is just what burst the bubble. The cascade and everything else associated with it is related to that. And that was due to the banks choosing to do that. Wells Fargo’s President was interviewed last year for an article about that. He clearly explains exactly how almost everybody, but his company, got into this fiasco.
“It was greed at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (where liberals mainly ruled the roost — and Barack Obama was Fannie and Freddie’s #1 recipient of donations I might remind you.)”
And everybody else was there too. As well as every candidate gets donations from every corporation, hoping to gain favor. Now I won’t say Obama’s administration is completely free from all of this, but it isn’t on the size or scale that you are portraying it as. Again — See that Well’s Fargo article. I’d give you the name… but I was reading it in the lobby of an office while I was waiting for an appointment a few days ago.
“We believe in maximum freedom and limited governent control and interference.”
I’m being an ass with this comment but it still rings true: Banning abortion. That is government interference.
“An agenda that aggressively increases the size of government and its control over our lives is most certainly more fascist.”
I agree with Eisenhower’s warning of the military industrial complex. However, I must ask: Why are republicans for bolstering our military spending every year? Is that not an increased size of government? Both parties need to get off of their stupid pedestals and work together on something reasonable that addresses the global concerns that plague us.
“Lastly, I’ll start supporting Obama when he stops pursuing an un-American, anti-capitalist agenda — and when he stops spending trillions of dollars on garbage.”
Now you are sounding like Hannity. And Hannity is a lunatic who doesn’t even check the facts of the information he presents.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
First, as you said, we in this country compromise Right and Left, however, we are mostly RIGHT of center. The bulk of our population believes in capitalism and the freedoms it supplies. DEMOCRATS are not socialists, they are CAPITALISTS, they just don’t cling to the extremes of the CONSERVATIVE concept. LIBERAL is not socialist, it is, in fact, the MIDDLE, the center, a compromise between RIGHT and LEFT. Frankly, almost ever democratic candidate,save Kuchinich, was quite LEFT of center. Progressive as we call it. In the US we often refer to the MIDDLE as LEFT because that’s as far as we GO.
How does one compromise abortion. If you do not believe in abortion, it is not your problem. What is a problem is when groups believe in different morals. We are not a pure democracy. It is not our way to criminalize one group for their convictions simply because 51% of the population believes they are immoral, or wrong, or even committing a crime. Especially if the “crime” is not a direct burden, cost or injury to the society. History tells us that abortion has been around for millenia. There is no statement against abortion in the bible. If it is so wrong, why didn’t Moses, or God, or Jesus or Paul make any specific statement to that point. In the Jewish faith, a child is not a person until it is one month old. A Jew is not to mourn over a child born dead or one that dies before it is one month old. It is not your right to judge me by your moral structure so long as it causes no injury to you or society directly.
Is Obama moving away from extreme market capitalism, yes, but only slightly. What created this mess is multifaceted. The prime point as I see it are -
1. Ill advised market deregulation that confused investments, hid risk and put higher leverage on banks.
2. Greed in the market. A lot of this coming from Hedge Funds used to insure these investments. Bernie Maddoff is an example.
3. The sub prime mortgage laws. Probably what tipped the apple cart. These sub primes were insured via Hedge funds. Oh, and since the sellers of these mortgages usually sold them off in bulk to banks and financial institution. It became another source of greed. Stretching the laws and often breaking them simply to gain the commission. Incidently, none of the sub prime mortgages were via the FNMA or FHLMC (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), they were funded by private investors, and commercial and investment banks all over the world.
4. Certainly there are more factors, for instance, allowing investment banks to act as normal banking institutions, etc. Still, the first 3 seem to be of most importance.
Yes, we were deregulating and approaching a more lassez-faire position and it was this deregulation and “let it fall as it will” attitude that created this economic mess. We MUST re-regulate the system to an extent or the same situation will happen again. Certainly overregulation is just as ill advised.
Some people believe that economies self regulate. Money and economics are NOT natural systems. They are man made system. Money and economics do NOT self regulate, they must be controlled. The theories and concepts of this types of regulation complex and often involves higher mathematics to prove. Economics must be CONSTANTLY monitored and adjusted as the environment and systems change around it. This is why Lassez-Faire economics fails for most of the society while making a few people rich beyond their dreams.
As far as OBAMA being American? After the BUSH fiasco, and the recent findings that he had pretty much rescinded the the BILL OF RIGHTS, I wonder how you can say such a thing. America is a society, a diversified group of people. Obama was elected to run this country by a substantial majority of the population. Being AMERICAN is giving this man the time, the patience and the trust so he can prove his concepts. When and IF they fail, then you can criticize his actions.
Certainly the market is not going to like what Obama is doing. It’s not about the market and their profit levels, it’s about getting this country back to work. It’s about bringing this country together. We can no longer be divided by idealogs and devisive political childishness. We can no longer allow the country to be run for special interests, making laws so that a few people can profit in the market place. We can no longer allow this country to be controlled by a MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY political direction.
Now, I certainly won’t say this is all the fault of the GOP, Democrats have made their share of mistakes and many of them also believed the SUPPLY SIDE LIE. We have backed ourselves into a corner and it will take the minds of a good leader like Obama and the work of the most intelligent economists in the nation to pull us out. What we need is what Obama requested.. UNITY.. if you don’t understand that, then you’re not in the boat.
March 11th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Jen Kuznicki’s last blog post..Deep Compromises?
March 11th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
This is a link to a website following the legislation of the Ammunition Accountability Act. New Jersey is pushing it, might want to let your readers know about it.
I also have a blog, isn’t the Internet great. This is why the libs are pushing for total media control. They hate the fact that there are people out there spreading the truth.
Great work!
March 12th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Michael/Rod…will try to comment if I have time. Hard to respond to essay-length comments!!!!
March 12th, 2009 at 12:06 am
March 12th, 2009 at 5:00 am
[...] wrote about this deplorable poll on September 24, 2006 (h/t Betsy Newmark via Sister Toldjah via Garden State Pundit via Gateway Pundit) [...]
March 12th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Patrick’s last blog post..Okay, So It’s Over…
April 16th, 2009 at 2:15 pm