For Sale: Obama's Senate Seat (no, really)

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

None of this stuff that's happened recently surprises me. Burris always had the faint whiff of vanity and preening ambition about him without the smarts to pull it off.

Now we're starting to see why Obama didn't want him seated in the Senate.

I knew Reid did not want to seat him. Do you have a source for Obama? From what I recall Obama wanted Burris seated:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/dem-aide-obama-wanted-sen_n_155909.html

Source here:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20081231_13_A3_Illino556150&archive=yes

The key passage:

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision," the president-elect said in a statement.

I wonder what happened in the week between your Obama quote and mine?  Also, I wonder if Obama's belief that Burris is a "good man" and a "fine public servant" still holds true. I mean really, we know what kind of a character judge Obama is (I mean, excluding Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Killifer, and possibly Arne "corporal punisher" Duncan and Rahm "free rent" Emmanuel)?

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

None of this stuff that's happened recently surprises me. Burris always had the faint whiff of vanity and preening ambition about him without the smarts to pull it off.

Now we're starting to see why Obama didn't want him seated in the Senate.

I knew Reid did not want to seat him. Do you have a source for Obama? From what I recall Obama wanted Burris seated:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/dem-aide-obama-wanted-sen_n_155909.html

Source here:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20081231_13_A3_Illino556150&archive=yes

The key passage:

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision," the president-elect said in a statement.

I wonder what happened in the week between your Obama quote and mine?  Also, I wonder if Obama's belief that Burris is a "good man" and a "fine public servant" still holds true. I mean really, we know what kind of a character judge Obama is (I mean, excluding Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Killifer, and possibly Arne "corporal punisher" Duncan and Rahm "free rent" Emmanuel)?

This rant about judgment coming from a supporter of torture. But I digress ...

I suspect Obama backed down from trying to prevent Burris from taking office, simply because there was really no way to do it. The legalities were a bit fuzzy early, but it became increasingly clear over time that there wasn't much they could do. So, in the interest of moving on to more important things, they quietly dropped the opposition.

I'm no fan of Burris. But I think getting him under oath and verifying a few things that have allegedly come to light in recent days would be prudent. Then the Senate or Illinois Legislature can proceed from there.

[guido911]

This rant about judgment coming from a supporter of torture our country. FIFY.

Typical response though. If Obama looks bad, change the subject.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

This rant about judgment coming from a supporter of torture our country. FIFY.

Typical response though. If Obama looks bad, change the subject.

I acknowledged the very brief digression, then went back on topic. That's hardly anything to throw a penalty flag over, ref.

Whether Obama looks bad is subjective. Anyone with an approval rating near the 70 percent mark isn't doing too badly, it appears.

You're getting better at holding your tongue, guido. At least you didn't say, "FU, you POS." []

[cannon_fodder]

Point of order:  George Bush had an approval rating of 90% at one point.  In hindsight, few people would argue he was actually doing a good job.  The rating was merely a reflection of present attitudes and feelings in the nation - not really of the presidents approval.

Hence, the current 70% approval rating of Obama may be a strong desire for him to do well and optimism at Change™ instead of necessarily his actual approval rating.  Unless you are arguing that in hindsight GW Bush was actually deserving of such accolades:
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

/slinks away from the conversation.  Voted Obama, think he is doing OK.  Not really a fan of the stimulus package though.

[Conan71]

Even though Obama inherited the current economic problems those hardest hit by this won't care about that a year from now.  If things are not moving in the right direction, Dems will face a massive back-lash in the '10 mid-term.  That's the whole point in GOP members running for cover from this bill, they are banking on it being basis for a revolt once people figure out it's done nothing but raid our treasury even worse than Bush and 12 years of GOP control of Congress did.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Point of order:  George Bush had an approval rating of 90% at one point.  In hindsight, few people would argue he was actually doing a good job.  The rating was merely a reflection of present attitudes and feelings in the nation - not really of the presidents approval.

Hence, the current 70% approval rating of Obama may be a strong desire for him to do well and optimism at Change™ instead of necessarily his actual approval rating.  Unless you are arguing that in hindsight GW Bush was actually deserving of such accolades:
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

/slinks away from the conversation.  Voted Obama, think he is doing OK.  Not really a fan of the stimulus package though.

Actually, yes, I thought Bush was doing a very good job at the time of his 90 percent approval rating. That was during the weeks after 9/11.

But Bush's approval ratings started to drop when it became obvious he was gung-ho to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (it pays to remember that the public's enthusiasm for the upcoming war barely over 50 percent), plus the horrendously botched post-war planning there.

So, yes, I think the 70 percent approval rating reflects the approval of his job performance at this point in time. It's pretty elementary.

[cannon_fodder]

Wow.  So you really think 90% of people actually thought GW was doing a good job?  I'd argue rather strongly that it was just patriotic sentiment with no consideration to what the president was actually doing.

And FWIW, the Iraq invasion saw a 15% spike in his approval rating:


University of Minnesota Graph (side note:  how bad of a candidate was Kerry that he couldn't beat a man with < 50% approval rating?)

Even though enthusiasm for the war was not that robust, the country again rallied around the president.  In spite of the fact that 50% of the people thought it was a bad idea to invade Iraq 75% of the people thought he was doing a good job.  Again, a time when sentiment was clearly dictating the answer to the question - not their views of his actual performance (I think this war is a the worst idea Bush has had.  But I approve of the job he is doing.).  

Frankly, in the time of a national emergency (say, for instance, an economic meltdown) it is the nature to rally around a leader who is taking action, any action.  Particularly a new leader.  Do 70% of the people agree with his one accomplishment thus far?  

Nope.  Just like the Iraq war almost 50% of the populace is not in favor of the stimulus package.  And just like the Iraq war the president enjoys a 70% approval rating.  So I don't like the main main focus and/or accomplishment of the man in office, but I think he's doing a good job.

Clearly the sociology in these numbers is more than elementary.   And even if you take the numbers at face value, at very least recent history teaches us that popular opinion in the form of current approval is no guarantee of future results.   I'm cautiously hopeful and am still more favorable towards Obama than not... but, well, I hope you see the nuance I'm trying to point out.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wow.  So you really think 90% of people actually thought GW was doing a good job?  

At the time, yes. I think I made myself abundantly clear about that.

Just because you don't agree with everything he does doesn't mean you don't look at the big picture at the time and say: "Yeah, he's doing a good job."

Really, it's rare to find anyone who's a one-issue voter, where one issue colors everything about whether a politician gets a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on general performance. And that's healthy, I think.

BTW, that spike during the beginning of the Iraq War reflects the success American troops were having at the time. But, like I said, at the time, "It's when the war ends is going to be the hard part." Apparently the administration didn't think so, or it would have planned for it.

[guido911]

Gallup has Obama down to earth a little bit. Approval down, disapproval up:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

As I have always said, don't put any stock in polls.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Gallup has Obama down to earth a little bit. Approval down, disapproval up:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

As I have always said, don't put any stock in polls.

Except for that notable exception that was the presidential election, of course.