The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

What are you basing this on?

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public-S...-Unchanged.aspx

I saw somewhere today that the support was around 40%. I can't remember where because I was flipping channels, but I know it wasn't Faux.

[Balta1701]

I saw somewhere today that the support was around 40%. I can't remember where because I was flipping channels, but I know it wasn't Faux.

Am I allowed to link to Kos in this thread if it's just for data?

 

Pollster Support level (previous where available)

 

Gallup 52 (53) 2/4

CNN 54 2/7-8

Pew 51 (57) 2/4-8

Rasmussen 37 (42) 2/4

CBS 51 (63) 2/2-4

 

There is actually one pollster out there which has been showing 40% support for the stimulus package; Rasmussen. That however, has so far been the outlier. The trend lines are noteworthy, but the 15-20 point baseline difference suggests that Ras. is doing something fundamentally different in how they're asking the question or how they're sampling.

 

And, as always, take note of which media organization chooses to cite the outlier the most heavily.

[mr_genius]

Am I allowed to link to Kos in this thread if it's just for data?

 

Pollster Support level (previous where available)

 

Gallup 52 (53) 2/4

CNN 54 2/7-8

Pew 51 (57) 2/4-8

Rasmussen 37 (42) 2/4

CBS 51 (63) 2/2-4

 

There is actually one pollster out there which has been showing 40% support for the stimulus package; Rasmussen. That however, has so far been the outlier. The trend lines are noteworthy, but the 15-20 point baseline difference suggests that Ras. is doing something fundamentally different in how they're asking the question or how they're sampling.

 

And, as always, take note of which media organization chooses to cite the outlier the most heavily.

 

i'm surprised it's that low with all the favorable coverage it's gotten. well besides the evil FOX news.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2009 by mr_genius

[hawksfan61]

This is true, but there's a fine line there, because I'm almost certain he's thinking about how Clinton tried to push his own ideas through Congress early in his administration and it didn't work. At the end of the day Capitol Hill is running the show, too.

 

I agree he probably worries about what happened with Clinton, but the pendulum is swinging too far back the other way, particularly when you are talking about a once in a generation spending/stimulus/whatever we are calling it bill. If I am Obama, I bank more on the fact that I have a very high approval rating and won a nice victory, than defer to a Congressional majority that quite frankly has shown themselves to be totally inept the past 2 years and has dismal approval ratings. I know it takes two to tango but on something that is supposedly this important, Obama should have been steering this ship from the get-go instead of throwing out this ridiculous "4 million jobs" number and letting these numbskulls implement it how they please.

[southsider2k5]

Then vote against it and abandon the theatrics and stop pretending like you actually want to compromise. I have no issues with that.

 

The same could be said to Obama who flat out said he wasn't going to do what the republicians wanted... How exactly is that compromise and negotiation?

[lostfan]

The same could be said to Obama who flat out said he wasn't going to do what the republicians wanted... How exactly is that compromise and negotiation?

What the Republicans want is pretty much the opposite of what he wants, why would he do that? He's the president. "negotiation" means you land somewhere in the middle, and they actually did give concessions to the Republicans.

[whitesoxfan101]

An increasingly tough sell

 

A recent poll by Pew Research Center found that a narrow majority of Americans, just 51%, support the stimulus. And that's down from 57% in January. Even worse for the administration, support seems to be dropping among people who say they've learned more about the stimulus:

 

 

Notably, support for the proposal is now much lower than it was in January among those who have heard a lot about the economic stimulus. By 49% to 41%, those who have heard a lot about the proposal now see it as a good idea; in January, those who had heard a lot favored it by more than two-to-one.

 

Furthermore, a poll from Rasmussen reports that 62% of voters want more tax cuts and less government spending in the plan. This must be music to the ears of Republicans, who have been on a media blitz of their own, arguing for the same. Newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele wasted no time in explaining why he thinks his party should vote no.

[southsider2k5]

What the Republicans want is pretty much the opposite of what he wants, why would he do that? He's the president. "negotiation" means you land somewhere in the middle, and they actually did give concessions to the Republicans.

 

But as whole the bill still was objectionable. Why does compromise only seem to work one way? Because Obama through them a couple of bones, they are still supposed to vote for something that overall they are diametricly opposed to? That makes zero sense.

[StrangeSox]

But as whole the bill still was objectionable. Why does compromise only seem to work one way? Because Obama through them a couple of bones, they are still supposed to vote for something that overall they are diametricly opposed to? That makes zero sense.

 

How far did they expect Obama to change his position? If they weren't going to vote for it anyway, they should have said "don't waste your time" instead of wasting his time.

[southsider2k5]

How far did they expect Obama to change his position? If they weren't going to vote for it anyway, they should have said "don't waste your time" instead of wasting his time.

 

Doesn't that work the other way? Why is the assumption that the Repubs should capitulate to Obama?

[whitesoxfan101]

Doesn't that work the other way? Why is the assumption that the Repubs should capitulate to Obama?

 

I would guess that, fair or not, that assumption comes from the fact that the GOP did a lousy job the last several years, causing the people to vote a pretty large majority of democrats into the Congress, as well as voting one into the White House.

[lostfan]

Doesn't that work the other way? Why is the assumption that the Repubs should capitulate to Obama?

For the same reason people assume the Democrats should capitulate to the Republicans. The perception of what bipartisanship should be is pretty absurd.

 

The party that's in power is going to get more of what it wants, naturally. Why should it be any other way?

Edited February 11, 2009 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

For the same reason people assume the Democrats should capitulate to the Republicans. The perception of what bipartisanship should be is pretty absurd.

 

The party that's in power is going to get more of what it wants, naturally. Why should it be any other way?

 

Bush did the exact same thing for eight years and was ripped for it. I would say that turnabout would be fair play.

[lostfan]

Bush did the exact same thing for eight years and was ripped for it. I would say that turnabout would be fair play.

If you believe that, fine, I guess. It's pretty pointless to try to change your mind and vice versa. Personally I think it's kinda silly to expect a president with a near-supermajority in Congress to defer to the minority party to the point where he's actually instituting their policies, but hey to each his own I guess.

[StrangeSox]

Bush did the exact same thing for eight years and was ripped for it. I would say that turnabout would be fair play.

 

Maybe I'm not remembering it, but when did Bush meet with Democrat lawmakers (as the minority party) and include at least a few of their proposals?

[southsider2k5]

If you believe that, fine, I guess. It's pretty pointless to try to change your mind and vice versa. Personally I think it's kinda silly to expect a president with a near-supermajority in Congress to defer to the minority party to the point where he's actually instituting their policies, but hey to each his own I guess.

 

I agree with that. But I also think that it is silly to expect Republicians to see out thier agenda in the same breath. Why are they being vilified for doing exactly what the Democrats are doing?

[southsider2k5]

Maybe I'm not remembering it, but when did Bush meet with Democrat lawmakers (as the minority party) and include at least a few of their proposals?

 

Google "Bush meets with Democrats." There are a ton of hits.

[StrangeSox]

(southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 07:36 AM)

<!--quotec-->Google "Bush meets with Democrats." There are a ton of hits.

 

Most seemed to be from November 2006 and 2007. Nothing when he had a majority and popular support.

 

BTW, this also came up. If Matthews is right, Bush only met with them twice during his whole Presidency. Once in Feb. 2007 on Iraq, and once in Jan. 2008 on an economic stimulus bill. He also had Senate democrats over shortly after the 2006 elections for coffee, but it wasn't to negotiate or discuss specific legislation. So, in a matter of a few weeks, Obama has already matched Bush, and he did it when his party had strong majorities.

 

edit: here's the Bloomberg article on it

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4TTrb_raIQ

Edited February 11, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

I agree with that. But I also think that it is silly to expect Republicians to see out thier agenda in the same breath. Why are they being vilified for doing exactly what the Democrats are doing?

I'm not vilifying the Republicans here. I just think the theatrics are annoying.

[lostfan]

Google "Bush meets with Democrats." There are a ton of hits.

He had to when they were in control of Congress. I honestly can't think of any times where he did that when they were the minority party (brief bipartisan spirit after 9-11 excluded).

[southsider2k5]

Here's another if Bush had said it...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

Biden said his impression is that Russia is looking to establish "a long-term economic relationship" with the United States. He attributed Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's changed attitude to the fact that "all of a sudden, oil is no longer $190 a barrel," cutting deeply into Russia's foreign earnings.

 

Remember the slack Bush caught for not knowing what prices were? How about being over $40 per barrel wrong? This man has no clue.

[Cknolls]

If Maxine Waters was my congresswoman I would never admit it. She is perhaps the dumbest person in Congress, A sorry excuse for a representative. Did anyone see her asking questions about underwriting fees paid to the banks who received TARP money? She has no F***ing clue what she is talking about and she should apply for a job on ALL MY CHILDREN. Pathetic! But she had no problems with her own FAMILIY'S link to the Mass. bank that received money from the gov't.

 

 

[Cknolls]

Here's another if Bush had said it...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

 

 

Remember the slack Bush caught for not knowing what prices were? How about being over $40 per barrel wrong? This man has no clue.

 

 

Ah come on its just Joe being Joe. Stupid is as stupid does.

[lostfan]

Here's another if Bush had said it...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

 

 

 

Remember the slack Bush caught for not knowing what prices were? How about being over $40 per barrel wrong? This man has no clue.

This link is taking a pretty long time to load for me, but I can't see what he said in the section you quoted being incorrect. In so many words, he said oil prices fall, Russia's revenues drop, they're not in a position of strength. What exactly is wrong with him saying that?

[Balta1701]

This link is taking a pretty long time to load for me, but I can't see what he said in the section you quoted being incorrect. In so many words, he said oil prices fall, Russia's revenues drop, they're not in a position of strength. What exactly is wrong with him saying that?

The $190/barrel price is the incorrect part. Never got above $150.