Do you approve of Obama?

[heron88]

Title says it all.

[Sky Blue]

on what grounds?

[aethelbert]

No; he really hasn't done anything that shows results to approve of. I don't tend to approve of any full-time politician, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I disapprove.

[jonbravo77]

I think you should add a "to soon to tell" poll option. I wanted him to win because I thought he was the better choice, but I always had in the back of my mind that when someone does get into office that that person can be changed by the office.

So, really not sure yet. I think he is trying to do what he promised but being on the campaign trail and not having to deal with congress is pretty different than being in office and having the checks and balances.

[ucfgrad93]

Nothing in the past 30 days have made me change my mind about him. I disapprove.

[iJohnHenry]

Approve.

For a guy put into a bad spot, he seems to be treading water very well at the moment.

I hope he has a full 8 years to prove his metal. If the U.S. can stomach GWB for 8, I say give him a fighting chance.

Obama visits Harper, in Canada.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/Obama.gifhttp://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/harper.gif

[FreeState]

I partially approve - as I usually do with any politician. I was hoping for a real liberal to be elected so we will have to make do with a centrist.

[63dot]

I partially approve - as I usually do with any politician. I was hoping for a real liberal to be elected so we will have to make do with a centrist.

I say the same thing, too. By the time we have seen some action by the President, he will, by the force of Congress, or by contributors, have to be a centrist and leave any liberal ideals he had far behind. That's why I voted Green Party. Some leftists don't see much difference between Obama and Bush, especially with the tax cuts for the rich, but I wouldn't go that far. It's just that Obama, as any US President, is just one spoke in a wheel which includes the judiciary, legislature, lobbyists, and business (big and small).

The only major difference that may be made by Obama, if he gets eight years, will be a move towards national health care, but then again, if it happens, he would have only been a small contribution towards that. Current news would be praising or cursing him on this issue, but history will forget his and any President's legacies. It's hard to remember the legacies of any President in my lifetime that I still find legitimate today compared to how they were perceived at the time.

W - fighter of terrorism
Clinton - brought back the US economy to growth levels sustained longer than any previous Presidents' term
George Bush - liberator of Kuwait
Ronald Reagan - the great communicator between a divided Congress
Jimmy Carter - man of peace in the Middle East between Israel and Egypt
Gerald Ford - return to normalcy after the dishonesty of Nixon
Richard Nixon - opened up China to the west
Lyndon Johnson - Civil Rights Act
John F Kennedy - stood up to Fidel Castro

I see these as all great achievements, but depending on how one votes, it's easy to pull out the negative points in any of these Presidents' administrations. Though I am a Democrat, and often vote and think to the left of that, I think Nixon's olive branch to China was the most important factor in ending a threat of a third world war. But I do believe any Democrat would have done the same as the Communists and the West were coming dangerously close to a major military confrontation.

[jonbravo77]

I say the same thing, too. By the time we have seen some action by the President, he will, by the force of Congress, or by contributors, have to be a centrist and leave any liberal ideals he had far behind. That's why I voted Green Party. Some leftists don't see much difference between Obama and Bush, especially with the tax cuts for the rich, but I wouldn't go that far. It's just that Obama, as any US President, is just one spoke in a wheel which includes the judiciary, legislature, lobbyists, and business (big and small).

Well put...

[Four20]

i'm 26 and just got into politics over the last 4-5 years. it's nice to be proud of our president. Even though he doesn't have the experience at least he can form a complete and coherent sentence.

I do worry though, since it's the first one I'm proud of, if he fails that's one thing, but if he falls into the same gutter that the rest fall into. . .then I won't have much faith in government for a long time

[iJohnHenry]

You are very wise for only 26.

Yes, The System has ground-up and spit out better men than Obama, and yet it still survives.

[mrkramer]

I don't approve of what he's done so far specifically the stimulus and bailouts, and I don't approve of many of his policies, which is why I didn't vote for him, and wont vote for him in 2012.

[alexbates]

No way! Look what the expectations of the stimulus bill have done to the stock market...

Look at the poll results. Currently only 45% of people voting approve of him.

[és:]

'Approve' is a strange choice of words.

[spazattack674]

'Approve' is a strange choice of words.

+1. Agree with might have been a better choice. I'm not President Obama's mother, so I don't really "approve" of anything he chooses. I might not agree with some things, but there's no real "approval" on my part.

[63dot]

After a year in office, approval or disapproval will have more facts supporters and detractors can base their opinions on. As for disapproval, W proved his mettle.

[yojitani]

I'm not so sure about 'approve' either, but I am happy he took swift action on Guantanamo, I think more or less he's got the right idea about foreign policy (though the whole Hamas letter thing.. I don't get what the problem was there). But the bailout, I think this one is better than the last one. I'm curious to see what kind of infrastructural improvements we will see. The money should have been there a long time ago though. America's infrastructure is not all that good.

I wish some of that money could go to improved urban planning. Maybe it is? This is a country designed for cars. If you want to end dependence on foreign oil, go green, etc you need to reshape and rethink the way towns are built. And that is only the tip of the iceberg on the benefits of better planning!

The bailout was going to go through anyway. Since it has, instead of complaining about it, I hope that state and local leaders will try to make the most of it.

[zap2]

Yes


But not on everything

But compared to the last 8 year, the ways the nation is going looks great. And if he (only)backs down from few promises from he campaign, I'll be very happy!

[iObama]

Well, his first week in office he repealed a ban on funding for international institutions that perform abortions. Then, he seemed to pick every person under the sun who owed back taxes and appoint them. Then to top it off, he completely ignored his promise of bipartisanship on the stimulus package. Don't just say the Republicans voted unanimously "just because." There was a LOT of pork in that bill.

The weatherization argument is a joke. That's creating temporary jobs. We need stuff for the long term.

So no. So far, I don't approve of the job he's doing. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on the stimulus, because I can't predict how it'll turn out. But there's a lot of crap in that bill, and I wouldn't have voted to approve it. He claims the bill wasn't "perfect." If it's so imperfect, then he should make DAMN sure it GETS perfect when he's messing with $800 BILLION dollars.

[SactoGuy18]

I have no say because frankly, it's only been a month since he became President!

[Nukemkb]

He's stumbling a bit more than I expected...

[ErikCLDR]

First off, I don't approve of Obama because I fundamentally disagree with his economic policies that appear to be boarder line socialism.

He has made so many promises that I know he cannot fulfill. Yes, all politicians make up fake promises but Obama has promised over 500 things. The way I see it he has no credentials aside from being in the senate for 2 years (but he didn't accomplish a whole lot). People joke that Sarah Palin was unqualified but I don't see her being much more qualified than Obama.

What I do like about Obama is that he is an excellent speaker and can possibly motivate people. But thats about it.

[Primejimbo]

First off, I don't approve of Obama because I fundamentally disagree with his economic policies that appear to be boarder line socialism.

He has made so many promises that I know he cannot fulfill. Yes, all politicians make up fake promises but Obama has promised over 500 things. The way I see it he has no credentials aside from being in the senate for 2 years (but he didn't accomplish a whole lot). People joke that Sarah Palin was unqualified but I don't see her being much more qualified than Obama.

What I do like about Obama is that he is an excellent speaker and can possibly motivate people. But thats about it.

You might find this article interesting then:
http://www.therightperspective.org/?p=1472

[Clive At Five]

I say the same thing, too. By the time we have seen some action by the President, he will, by the force of Congress, or by contributors, have to be a centrist and leave any liberal ideals he had far behind. That's why I voted Green Party. Some leftists don't see much difference between Obama and Bush, especially with the tax cuts for the rich, but I wouldn't go that far.

As neither a Democrat or Republican, I would say that it speaks to Bush's actual Liberalism, not Obama's centrism. Bush was an extreme fiscal liberal, as have been many Republicans as of late. So, no, Obama is not being a Centrist, it just looks that way because the former Right has moved so far Left (fiscally, at least).

The Democrats have a Senate majority, House majority, more liberal judicial seats, and a very Liberal president... you'd be kidding yourself if you think they're going to check or balance anything. Even the first 30 days have shown evidence that they, in fact, are doing no such thing. Maybe it takes someone disassociated from "DnR" to see it though...

-Clive

[Clive At Five]

You might find this article interesting then:
http://www.therightperspective.org/?p=1472

I read that on Poligazette or something and I couldn't stop laughing. PUTIN warning us of Socialism! PUTIN!!!

I agree with him, though! Our economic policy has gotten so far out of whack, it's shocking. When did we all of a sudden decide that we were never going to let a company fail? The reason companies fail in the first place is because their business is inefficient. By bailing these guys out, we're FUNDING consumer exploitation. HELLO!!

Anyway. While I consider myself a social liberal, Obama's fiscal policy is so out of whack, I can't approve him thus far. Hell, my children are so far in debt and they aren't even born yet! :o

Oh, and has anyone else noticed that Bush's last year of his presidency went as follows: a stimulus bill, real-estate bail-out, TARP. Since Obama has entered office, he has signed a stimulus bill, signed a real-estate bail out, and they're now talking about TARP 2? This is definitely "Change we can Believe" in, folks. :rolleyes:

If you've met one politician, you've met them all.

-Clive

[Rt&Dzine]

I don't approve of his choice of Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, who wants to tax motorists based on how many miles they drive instead of how much gasoline they buy. So far, this bipartisan stuff doesn't appear to be a good idea.

[yojitani]

Well, his first week in office he repealed a ban on funding for international institutions that perform abortions.

Good thing, no?


Then to top it off, he completely ignored his promise of bipartisanship on the stimulus package. Don't just say the Republicans voted unanimously "just because." There was a LOT of pork in that bill.

I personally don't feel that the bipartisan thing is really worth bothering with. I'd rather he didn't crater to the right. Although that was his platform so I guess voters are hoping for it?

As for the pork thing, I haven't looked at a complete breakdown. The things the republicans objected to that I saw on CSPAN, I generally didn't have a problem with. I can see where most of them are going. What the republicans were referring to as 'pork' I saw (not in all cases, but most) as Obama thinking through the whole chain of labor needed to get things done. It seemed forward thinking. But like you, I'll believe it works when I see it.

[mactastic]

Tentative approval so far. He's obviously trying to fix things.

And hell, if he turns out to be a miserable failure, we'll just do what we did with Bush -- elect him to a second term.

[zap2]

and a very Liberal president...
-Clive

:rolleyes:

Very Liberal President?


. you'd be kidding yourself if you think they're going to check or balance anything.

You don't check or balance things...the system is set up to do that on its own.

And you see how Obama spent so much effort on winning over the GOP(which lead to rewriting of the bill)? Thats an example of checks and balances.

[benflick]

Tentative approval so far. He's obviously trying to fix things.

And hell, if he turns out to be a miserable failure, we'll just do what we did with Bush -- elect him to a second term.

+1
Any step is a step foward IMHO.

[Rodimus Prime]

I do not approve of Obama. He started off with pushing to delay the digital TV act.

This is costing jobs and wasting tons of money. 1/3 of station still switch. The FCC still had to threaten if all wanted to switch off anolog they would have to step in.

he started off right off the bat showing that he is going to be the "feel good" administration which is nothing more than just a waste of money.

We yet again do not have a president who has the balls to what is needed to be done.

[DPA]

I do not approve of Obama. He started off with pushing to delay the digital TV act.

This is costing jobs and wasting tons of money. 1/3 of station still switch. The FCC still had to threaten if all wanted to switch off anolog they would have to step in.

he started off right off the bat showing that he is going to be the "feel good" administration which is nothing more than just a waste of money.

We yet again do not have a president who has the balls to what is needed to be done.

+1. Postponing the DTV Act really pissed me off.

David

[leekohler]

So far I'm more "wait and see", but the guy has already done a hell of a lot more than Bush did his first month. I challenge anyone here to deny that. I think he's serious about what he's doing and that is amazingly encouraging.

+1. Postponing the DTV Act really pissed me off.

David

Are you serious? Of all the crazy things going on right now, this is what pisses you guys off? Really?

[Prof.]

****** DTV.:mad: It can wait another 5 years for all I care. My main concern is getting the economy working again.

[leekohler]

****** DTV.:mad: It can wait another 5 years for all I care. My main concern is getting the economy working again.

Thank you. That should be the least of our worries.

[Prof.]

Thank you. That should be the least of our worries.
I gotcho back, lee.

*pounds chest with fist twice then does peace sign*

:D:cool:

[Rodimus Prime]

Are you serious? Of all the crazy things going on right now, this is what pisses you guys off? Really?

I listed the reason it pissed me off in the orginal tread but here I listed the other reason is it showed me very quickly what type of president he is going to be.

One that is going to pass "feel good" policies and not do what needs to be done.

[mactastic]

You know, a funny thing happened -- Feb 19th came, and I got a digital signal from my provider. Seems that Obama's plot to keep digiTV from the masses failed...

[jonbravo77]

You know, a funny thing happened -- Feb 19th came, and I got a digital signal from my provider. Seems that Obama's plot to keep digiTV from the masses failed...

It didn't fail, Obama only extended the time to allow those without the converter and whose coupons expired to get one. It still gave the broadcasters the capability to turn over if they chose. As far as I heard

[leekohler]

I listed the reason it pissed me off in the orginal tread but here I listed the other reason is it showed me very quickly what type of president he is going to be.

One that is going to pass "feel good" policies and not do what needs to be done.

Oh please! Are you serious? DTV is NOT a "need". It's nice to have, but if you define DTV as a "need", then no wonder we're in trouble in this country. What- are people going to starve or be killed because they don't have their DTV yet? Give me a break.

[Rodimus Prime]

Oh please! Are you serious? DTV is NOT a "need". It's nice to have, but if you define DTV as a "need", then no wonder we're in trouble in this country. What- are people going to starve or be killed because they don't have their DTV yet? Give me a break.

No it may not be a "need" but it did show me a lot about his administration. It made it crystal clear that it will be a "feel good" administration. The DTV delay wasted billions, and is costing jobs. All for "feel good" reasons for the last min people.

it showed me that he going to push throw a lot of "feel good" laws and DTV is just the start of it. There are more in the works.

It showed me we have yet another admistration that is not going to be willing to do what needs to be done but instead do a lot of "feel good" things.

[jonbravo77]

No it may not be a "need" but it did show me a lot about his administration. It made it crystal clear that it will be a "feel good" administration. The DTV delay wasted billions, and is costing jobs. All for "feel good" reasons for the last min people.


To the bold point. Proof please...

[Rodimus Prime]

To the bold point. Proof please...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28863961/

Paula Kerger, president and CEO of the Public Broadcasting Service, estimates that delaying the digital TV transition to June 12 would cost public broadcasters $22 million.

22 million just to keep the PBS station running. Not hard to do the math and multiple that by other stations. NONE OF which budget for that extra cost.

Plus factor in all the money WASTED on the advertisements for the changes makes that number grow.

Now factor in all the money Verizon, Sprint ect used to gear up there new systems that now can not be test nor rolled out for 4 months. They have to eat the intersted on that. Plus no point to higher new staffing for the new wireless services.

Google is your friend.

But I just used DTV as one of the "feel good" examples. I have a nagging feeling closing guantanamo base was more of a "feel good" action that any thing else. While the base was wrong it still more "feel good" than productive. There are just things all over that are showing he is doing a lot of "feel good" actions but look at them deeper are they really just are "feel good" actions.

[NT1440]

22 million just to keep the PBS station running. Not hard to do the math and multiple that by other stations. NONE OF which budget for that extra cost.

Plus factor in all the money WASTED on the advertisements for the changes makes that number grow.

I looked through the article and unless I missed it, I didnt see anything about people losing their jobs over this.

Please oh please don't pull a Rushian "well common sense says bla bla bla" because we asked for facts, not unsubstantiated rumor mongering.

[Rodimus Prime]

I looked through the article and unless I missed it, I didnt see anything about people losing their jobs over this.

Please oh please don't pull a Rushian "well common sense says bla bla bla" because we asked for facts, not unsubstantiated rumor mongering.

You are trying to tell me multiple companyes eating well over 22 million in losses is not going to cost jobs and lets not forget the losses or more so the lack of jobs created by delaying the role out of the new services by Verizon Sprint and so on.

You can keep your head buried in the sand but face the facts.

But people are not seeing my reasoning for disapproving and why DTV is link to it. Getting caught up in those facts. I see OBAMA as nothing more than a "feel good" guy.

[NT1440]

You are trying to tell me multiple companyes eating well over 22 million in losses is not going to cost jobs and lets not forget the losses or more so the lack of jobs created by delaying the role out of the new services by Verizon Sprint and so on.

You can keep your head buried in the sand but face the facts.

But people are not seeing my reasoning for disapproving and why DTV is link to it. Getting caught up in those facts. I see OBAMA as nothing more than a "feel good" guy.

Then SHOW us the damn facts instead of tip toeing around like Rush Limbough or Sean Hannity. The underlined sounds straight out of their script.

And ONE example is how you judge the entire administration? I could just as easily say this administration actually cares about the people (several million apparently are stupid enough to not get that the transition is happening) and wishes to do whats best for THEM, not the company.

It is just ONE example after all.

[Axemantitan]

+1. Agree with might have been a better choice. I'm not President Obama's mother, so I don't really "approve" of anything he chooses. I might not agree with some things, but there's no real "approval" on my part.

The Declaration of Independence says:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

We are the governed. He derives his power from our mandate. We have every right to approve or disapprove of the way he carries out his duties. If he is found wanting, then at the conclusion of his employment contract (term of office) then we can hire a better candidate to fill the position.

[mactastic]

Please oh please don't pull a Rushian "well common sense says bla bla bla" because we asked for facts, not unsubstantiated rumor mongering.

You are trying to tell me multiple companyes eating well over 22 million in losses is not going to cost jobs and lets not forget the losses or more so the lack of jobs created by delaying the role out of the new services by Verizon Sprint and so on.
So much for hoping he'd avoid unsubstantiated rumor, eh? :rolleyes:

You can keep your head buried in the sand but face the facts.
Yes, facts. Those would be helpful.

[CalBoy]

You are trying to tell me multiple companyes eating well over 22 million in losses is not going to cost jobs

Well let's not forget that the delay isn't mandatory; if a station feels the burden of delaying is too great, it can always not wait until June.

Many stations have already done this, so I'd venture to guess that the cost or job losses aren't mounting as much as you claim.

As for the telecoms, I doubt the FCC was going to be selling the frequencies on the morning of the 18th.

[NT1440]

As for the telecoms, I doubt the FCC was going to be selling the frequencies on the morning of the 18th.

The frequency blocks were sold almost a year ago now.

But yes, i think the last poll said somewhere around 60% of broadcasters were going to switch before the new deadline (but not necessarily on the old deadline).

Yes it is a stupid move to delay, but only because we were supposed to make this switch almost a decade ago now and it just keeps getting held up. The last time it was the broadcasters themselves lobbying against it.

[CalBoy]

The frequency blocks were sold almost a year ago now.

Sorry, "sell" was a poor verb choice. Perhaps "release" is more appropriate here.
Yes it is a stupid move to delay, but only because we were supposed to make this switch almost a decade ago now and it just keeps getting held up. The last time it was the broadcasters themselves lobbying against it.

Yeah, it wasn't Obama's best moment, but I don't think it's a big deal. We have to remind ourselves that since the election, the economy has worsened and more people that used to subscribe to cable/satellite for their TV service are opting to forgo that luxury. At the same time, the coupon program ran short and people's purchasing power decreased. A perfect storm for there to be millions of potential homes without TV service.

[NT1440]

Yeah, it wasn't Obama's best moment, but I don't think it's a big deal.

Given the scope of the job ahead this isnt even a blip on the screen of his presidency.

[leekohler]

No it may not be a "need" but it did show me a lot about his administration. It made it crystal clear that it will be a "feel good" administration. The DTV delay wasted billions, and is costing jobs. All for "feel good" reasons for the last min people.

it showed me that he going to push throw a lot of "feel good" laws and DTV is just the start of it. There are more in the works.

It showed me we have yet another admistration that is not going to be willing to do what needs to be done but instead do a lot of "feel good" things.

Oh please. As others have said, provide the proof. This is a ridiculous point. Broadcasters can go digital if they want, as has already been pointed out.

[Rodimus Prime]

Oh please. As others have said, provide the proof. This is a ridiculous point. Broadcasters can go digital if they want, as has already been pointed out.

try that for Lubbock TX. One broad caster was FORCED to stay analog for emergency purposes and ONLY one station there has not gone digital.

The FCC also already stated they would stop station from going if to many in one area wanted to for "public interested"

They are not all allowed to go. Some are forced to stay broad casting both in the name of "public interested"

But this is off topic.

It goes back to my feeling of the Obama administration. DTV showed me he is "feel good". I question some of his other moves. Is it really for best intersted or just "feel good"

Sorry I do not see Obama as a white knight and only see him for the scum bag politician he really is.

[leekohler]

try that for Lubbock TX. One broad caster was FORCED to stay analog for emergency purposes and ONLY one station there has not gone digital.

The FCC also already stated they would stop station from going if to many in one area wanted to for "public interested"

They are not all allowed to go. Some are forced to stay broad casting both in the name of "public interested"

But this is off topic.

It goes back to my feeling of the Obama administration. DTV showed me he is "feel good". I question some of his other moves. Is it really for best intersted or just "feel good"

Sorry I do not see Obama as a white knight and only see him for the scum bag politician he really is.

And I think you're being ridiculous. Oh BTW- where is that link again providing proof? You'd think you'd have done that by now.

I don't think anyone here sees Obama as a white knight, only a lot better that Bush. If you're going to judge an entire presidency on one issue, that's your business. But I think that's a pretty inaccurate way to judge someone.

[sushi]

And I think you're being ridiculous.
Agree. So many other issues out there that are far more important.

If you're going to judge an entire presidency on one issue, that's your business. But I think that's a pretty inaccurate way to judge someone.
Agree.

We need to give him some time before passing judgement. That's true with any president.

[mactastic]

We need to give him some time before passing judgement. That's true with any president.
We should at least apply the George W. Bush standard for judgement, right? Meaning we need to wait until well after Obama leaves office and let the historians decide?

It's amusing to watch so many of those who say we can't yet judge Bush's accomplishments rush to judgement on Obama...

[bruinsrme]

I would hate to be so closely scrutinized as Obama is being so early into starting a job.