Obama to brainwash youths of America

[Vampyr]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090903/pl_ynews/ynews_pl888_3

Which should be more considered brainwashing: the President speaking to American children about staying in school, or parents wanting to filter what their children hear in order to try to limit their opinions?

The funny thing is that they don't really care that what he's trying to say is good, they simply don't like it because it will make Obama look good to their kids.

[manasecret]

He's a pedophile!

[BreakABone]

I wouldn't call it brainwashing, but I kind of agree with the folks who believe that the post-speech discussion, seems to be pushing the agenda in a more positive light no matter what he says.

I think its great to encourage discussion, but it should be up to the teacher or the school on how to held it.

[Vampyr]

I wouldn't call it brainwashing, but I kind of agree with the folks who believe that the post-speech discussion, seems to be pushing the agenda in a more positive light no matter what he says.

I think its great to encourage discussion, but it should be up to the teacher or the school on how to held it.

It is up to the teacher to show it or not.

[KillerGremlin]

It would have been a nice touch if he handed out the information in little red books or pamphlets.

I've always felt that the government should push for education, but as a very passive player. I feel that school should primarily be about education and promoting a positive learning environment; it should be unbiased and it should be honest. I think Obama's intentions are good if not grand (the man is from Chicago, he knows the train wreck that is Chicago Public Schools) so I support the administration's decision to be active in promoting education. Do I agree with this delivery method? Morally...no. On the other hand, what's the better alternative? American schools are slipping. We used to be number 1 now a whole bunch of countries have us beat. So if Obama can get kids to take an active interest in school, I say go-Obama!

[Vampyr]

I think the delivery method is perfect. The President is one of the few people that can say something, and everyone will listen, be inspired, and actually act on it. Especially kids.

I didn't complain (and I don't remember anyone complaining) whenever Bush gave his anti-drug speech to America's youth. Most kids don't care about politics at this point.

The thing is he isn't promoting himself or his administration at all. The people who are against it are only against it because it puts him in a good light. It's like they are admitting he is doing something good, and they don't want their kids to know he is worth looking up to.

[Professor S]

The thing is he isn't promoting himself or his administration at all.

This is not accurate, and the administration even changed their original "curriculum" they sent out for the speech in recognition of this. I don't think people mind the idea of President Obama speaking to a nation of students. Many presidents have done this in the past, usually about the importance of school and/or drug abuse, etc.

What people are/were upset about is the orchestration of continued "Obama-centric" curriculum before and after the speech, such as essays about how they can help President Obama and the like. I believe one of the recommendations was to advise students to read his books, but I'm not certain. The materials have since been changed since the whole hubbub started.

The point is that the discussion should be about the topic President Obama is speaking on, not President Obama himself. It's this type of continued personal campaigning and politics of the individual that are inspiring so many to overreact and make claims that he is a fascist, socialist, megalomaniac, etc.

And now we hear that President Obama wants yet another prime time speech to talk about healthcare, and odds are the ratings are going to fall even farther than they did for the last one. He is quickly talking himself into obscurity. It has been my contention since his election that President Obama is great at campaigning for President, but he doesn't seem to know how to do much more than continually campaign, and I think he's is exhausting a lot of the good will with which he started his presidency.

[Teuthida]

American adults act like children and can't be reasoned with, so why not talk to the only ones who are acting their age. Makes sense. Might raise the intelligence level of this country in a generation or two.

I wasn't going to reply until I saw this article: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2009/08/evolution_shirts_on_trial_in_missouri_town.php
That didn't sit well with Sherry Melby, a teacher in the school district and mother of a band member. Yesterday Melby told the Sedalia Democrat: "I was disappointed with the image on the shirt." Melby said. "I don't think evolution should be associated with our school."
If that's a teacher's viewpoint, kids are going to have to learn to educate themselves.

[Professor S]

American adults act like children and can't be reasoned with, so why not talk to the only ones who are acting their age. Makes sense. Might raise the intelligence level of this country in a generation or two.

Well, that seems to be the attitude this adminstration has regarding their constituency, I hope they continue. It's this type of arrogant dismissiveness that loses elections.

If that's a teacher's viewpoint, kids are going to have to learn to educate themselves.

This isn't a new challenge by any means, and definitely not one this or any other administration will fix. Culture and social/religious norms are best left to evolve by themselves. Government can't "fix" a society, it can only reflect it, and when they attempt the former horrible things tend to happen.

[Teuthida]

How does one fix a society? I can't get over how backwards our country is in the sciences when compared to every other Western country.

[KillerGremlin]

How does one fix a society? I can't get over how backwards our country is in the sciences when compared to every other Western country.

If it makes you feel any better, our country kicks the rest of the world's ass (for the most part) with college. So we have really really smart college kids.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_att_ter-education-educational-attainment-tertiary

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_ter_enr-education-tertiary-enrollment

We have 7 of the best 10 universities in the States:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_uni_top_10-education-universities-top-10

31 of the top 100...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_uni_top_100-education-universities-top-100

People in the US also spend most time in advanced education:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_ave_yea_of_sch_of_adu-education-average-years-schooling-adults

And as I am learning in my Psychological Testing class, the United State's college student does better/has a higher IQ/scores better on tests than the majority of the world.


So what we lack in Primary and Secondary education, students QUICKLY catch up when they go to college. So, yay!

Problems in Primary and Secondary education both involve poor curriculum, lack of strict testing, lack of enforced standards, No Child Left Behind, problematic financial situations (CPSs), and this bullshit positive stuff we feed kids: "everyone can go to college!"

NO. Some people are just dumb. We need to bring back schools that don't put down jobs in construction and encourage Johnny Low-GPA/IQ/Test Scores to do something he can apply himself in.

[Professor S]

How does one fix a society?

"One" doesn't and can't. One person can influence a society, but change cannot be imposed open an unwilling populace. The old cliche is that "transformative change takes place in small steps over time", and that is as true as any statement ever made.

We've seen significant steps forward in many cultural issues over the last century, but most of them were generational shifts, taking decades in total, not moments. It's best that way, because a long process is generally a thoughtful one, and a society can avoid many of the unintended consequences of immediate/rash action.

[Angrist]

Haha, I always love seeing the culture differences between America and Europe. When's the last time we cared what our prime minister said? We only like to chuckle about him because he looks like an adult Harry Potter.

http://sybekarspel.punt.nl/upload/balkenende.jpg

Also another interesting thing I noticed... American presidents always tell people to pray when something bad happened (Colombine shootings etc.). If our political leaders told people to pray, I think they would get sued or something.
So why is there a huge discussion on whether evolution should be taught in schools, and whether the president can encourage kids to go to school.. but not about whether the president can ask people to pray?

[Vampyr]

This is not accurate, and the administration even changed their original "curriculum" they sent out for the speech in recognition of this. I don't think people mind the idea of President Obama speaking to a nation of students. Many presidents have done this in the past, usually about the importance of school and/or drug abuse, etc.

What people are/were upset about is the orchestration of continued "Obama-centric" curriculum before and after the speech, such as essays about how they can help President Obama and the like. I believe one of the recommendations was to advise students to read his books, but I'm not certain. The materials have since been changed since the whole hubbub started.

The point is that the discussion should be about the topic President Obama is speaking on, not President Obama himself. It's this type of continued personal campaigning and politics of the individual that are inspiring so many to overreact and make claims that he is a fascist, socialist, megalomaniac, etc.

And now we hear that President Obama wants yet another prime time speech to talk about healthcare, and odds are the ratings are going to fall even farther than they did for the last one. He is quickly talking himself into obscurity. It has been my contention since his election that President Obama is great at campaigning for President, but he doesn't seem to know how to do much more than continually campaign, and I think he's is exhausting a lot of the good will with which he started his presidency.

I've heard about the essay, which was promptly changed, but even that seems alright since it was in the context of getting the kids to work hard on their education. If it had asked something like "How can you help President Obama make abortion legal" or "How can you help Obama remove the Republican party", then that would have been a bigger deal.

You're mistaken about the book, though. The suggested activity actually states for the students to read books about presidents and Barack Obama, and goes on to ask why listening to all elected officials, including mayors, senators, and members of congress is important.

I look back to whenever Bush gave his anti-drug speech, and if the kids had been asked to write an essay "How can I help Mr. Bush", in the context of helping them work towards not doing drugs, then I would have also been okay with that. If the prompt had included "and make gay marriage illegal", then that would have crossed a line. But it didn't, these presidential speeches and their curriculum have all been based on things we can universally accept as good.

But if having some Obama centered things in the curriculum (which there are none) was the big deal here, why haven't people/politicians been voicing out against that? The only thing I've seen splashed across the conservative media and peoples Facebook updates is that they are angry the president is going to "talk directly to the kids."

For example, here's a link to the Republican Party of Florida and their chairman's statement:

http://www.rpof.org/article.php?id=754

No mention of a curriculum centered around Obama. He seems to think that the speech is going to be about government run health care and banks. He's also upset that teacher's can't teach about the "sanctity of human life" or "traditional marriage", and that they can't have prayer in school. He also refers to Obama as "Pied Piper Obama". These are the sorts of things that real people and parents will read and reiterate to their kids.

I ask again: which one is brainwashing?

[Teuthida]

Brainwashing:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oWvIOPiKFrs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oWvIOPiKFrs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I have to assume these are the sort of folks that are against Obama talking to their kids. No matter what he does they'll be against it. Which really makes the whole argument null.......and very very scary.

[manasecret]

"One" doesn't and can't. One person can influence a society, but change cannot be imposed open an unwilling populace.

Tell that to President Bush about Iraq! Oh, wait, too late.

*Cue flaming*

[Professor S]

Tell that to President Bush about Iraq! Oh, wait, too late.

*Cue flaming*

Actually, in hindsight I'd have to agree with this statement. I think the cultural challenges associated with winning the "hearts and minds" were greatly underestimated when it came to Iraq, reflecting our natural predisposition to assume other cultures share similar values. Now it looks like it's going to actually pan out (Afghanistan, not so much), but still Iraq tends to show this as a rule and not an exception to it.

And Teuth, that Jesus camp was not run or endorsed by Bush's adminsitration nor did it take place in public schools, and the Rep leader in Florida is not the President and leader of the free world, but this is besides the point. If a Republican president were to try to endorse himself through our schools, I'd be just as uncomfortable, and uncomfortable is all I am with this. It's a minor issue, but what I find funny is that it should never have been an issue at all because it never should have happened in the first place

Overall, I'm more of an active observer watching this Presidency continually make the wrong moves at the wrong time, and unknowingly helping to foment the entire "movement" that seems to be building against him, with utterly no understanding of how it's happening. So in not understanding, they dismiss it as simply political wrangling, and get themselves in even hotter water.

This is obliviousness at it's very worst, and by worst I mean best :D. All jokes aside, our country has never been more fractured as I believe the two sides in conflict genuinely have no common ground whatsoever, and they genuinely have contempt for one another. This President was supposed to bring us together, but I think it's pretty obvious that his approach to law making and communicating in general has done the exact opposite. He is the leader oif our country, and in the end this is his failure, regardless of whether or not you feel there are "forces" working against him.

[Jonbo298]

The Internet has made such a huge difference now even compared to 4/8 years ago when Bush was around. Cable news takes anything and everything and throws it at us regardless if factual or not. Hell, with the supposed amount of disdain for Obama, it surely must be making Bush look like a saint. He certainly never screwed up, did he?

Politics as they have evolved since 2000 (and before also but not as heavily as now) from my perspective is on a slippery slope to pushing the country to collapse. Between politicians in bed with every industry (with great results on our economy eh?), so much bias that it seems like nothing is ever achieved for the greater, to denouncing our President for telling kids to stay in school? Grow up.

I'm not advocating 100% equality on everything because its impossible. But once party lines are so divided that when any bill is started, if a Republican(s) is sponsoring it, Democrats are totally against it. If a Democrat(s) sponsor it, Republicans are against it by default. Think outside the box and not just based on your party affiliation. Who knows, maybe all this political divide will cause new parties to actually get some room on the stage. Though then begins the inevitable cycle that a new party once in power just becomes divided again it seems.

[TheGame]

I was going to argue with Prof, since I disagree with the last part of what Jonbo and Prof said.. How quickly we forget how bush would get democrats to vote with him be just acting like its an emergency.

I just want to say, though, that the democratic party is beyond weak. When the republicans had even a slight advangage in the house and senate under Bush, Democrats bowed their heads and reached out to try to help the republicans even though the republican representatives were not even trying to reach out to or mold any type of policy around anything any democrat would want.

And now that democrats can pass things without even having ONE vote from a republican representative.. they still act weak and try to reach out to get their approval even though its not needed. All the republicans are doing is trying to water down things like healthcare reform as much as possible, and when time comes to vote on it, they will still vote against it.

It really had boiled down to voting for the lesser of two evils when it comes to politics these days. Nothing Obama has actually done in his time as president can even be called 'progressive'. Hell I'd call him a conservative before I'd call him a radical any day, because he's actually not pushing for any real change. The only thing he's done well is handle forgien policy and help clean up the countries reputation with the rest of the world.

As Jonbo pointed out Media plays both sides of the story, and are not really in pursuit of the truth anymore. For example, If Sarah Palin complains about death panels being in the health care reform bill, then its just played as news... without people stepping in and saying its inaccurate. They're just like 'Democrats say there's no death pannels, some of these random people say there are death pannels.. ok on to the next story'... seriously?

I can't even watch mainstream media anymore these days without feeling ill.

[KillerGremlin]

Obama really seems like he needs to validate his approval...Bill Maher said it best. He said if Obama wants to really get things done he needs to just go ahead, kind of like Bush. Bush's whole thing was, "Well...see, I don't really care if you disagree with me about the war in Iraq, because, you see, I am right. And I don't care what you think. I'm the President of the United States, bitches!" If Obama was less concerned about TV appearances and appealing to people and more concerned about getting his shit done...then I think he could get stuff done. Like Bill Maher said, 60% of Americans don't believe in Evolution. Why would you try to validate yourself amongst a country full of dumbasses. /not a huge Bill Maher fan but he makes me smile :D

Interview Part 1: http://www.hulu.com/watch/91684/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-bill-maher-part-1
Interview Part 2: http://www.hulu.com/watch/91683/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-bill-maher-part-2

Now I don't know if I necessarily agree with going ahead and doing whatever you want. But I do think in order to do things you need to offend some people. This is how the real world works. There is no such thing as making 100% of everyone happy, so sometimes you need to do what you think is best and hope for the best. And things like education give people more credibility than some people with no education. My point is....even in a Democracy, someone is going to be pissed.

I agree with Prof S though...this country is incredibly divided right now, and that is not a good thing. Civil War part 2 anyone?

[KillerGremlin]

Bill Maher's quote I like:
"This is where the President needs to be a little more like Bush. Bush had horrible ideas: torture, deregulation, massive tax cuts for the rich, preemptive war: horrible ideas. But you know what he had that swagger that said, "I'm just gonna get it through, suck on it America if you don't like it." Obama he needs to marry his good ideas with that kind of attitude.

[Professor S]

I think we're forgetting the will of the American people in all of this blaming of media, politics, etc.

The fact is more people are for tax cuts than they are for public health programs.

The fact is more people supported the Iraq war when it happened and the Patriot Act than believe in global warming (Cap and Trade).

The fact is Bush did what he did, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, and got reelected handily in 2004 well after the Iraq war started.

Bush's policies got approved because he was convincing in his arguments, for whatever reason you wish to attach. This isn't a statement of personal approval, it's a observation of fact.

The fact is that if Obama forced through policies with the amount of opposition he faces now, he would be rode out of office on a rail in 2012 (with possibly and attempt on his life before that, sadly), and the Dems would suffer a election holocaust in 2010, and all this work they're trying to do would be gleefully erased within 2 years. Obama isn't a wimp, he's pragmatic and he understands what he can and can't get away with if he wants to achieve his goals and make them stick.

President Obama needs to convince the American people that his ideas are the right ones. To date, he hasn't been able to do so, and that is a failure of leadership.

[Vampyr]

People are also sadly misinformed a lot. The general populace is basing their opinions on public health care on a lot of false information - and also their desire to "not pay for someone else." They may be in the majority, but the majority shouldn't always rule. Our government is actually, though you may not notice at first, set up to make sure that doesn't always happen. What the majority wants is important, but sometimes they are wrong.

For example...people supporting the Iraq war. That is another case where they were misinformed - just like other people have already pointed out.

[TheGame]

The fact is more people are for tax cuts than they are for public health programs.

And thats exactly why the last elections turned out the way they did right?

The fact is more people supported the Iraq war when it happened and the Patriot Act than believe in global warming (Cap and Trade).

I agree, but its hard for the american people not to support something that was justified with so many lies.

The fact is Bush did what he did, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, and got reelected handily in 2004.

Won handily? Last I checked a lot of people thought Kerry should have won with the whole fiasco in florida. Obama won by a much larger margin then Bush ever did.

Bush's policies got approved because he was convincing in his arguments, for whatever reason you wish to attach. This isn't a statement of personal approval, it's a observation of fact.

In my opinion, Bush's policies won because Democrats are weak and bow their heads to republicans whenever they get a chance. They're even too weak to use the advantage they now have in Washignton.

Obama's policies are not being approved because republicans are not weak and will not bow their heads to a liberal. And because democrats are too weak to use the power they have now dispite republican's opinions on the matter.

The fact is that if Obama forced through policies with the amount of opposition he faces now, he would be rode out of office on a rail in 2012 (with possibly and attempt on his life before that, sadly), and the Dems would suffer a election holocaust in 2010, and all this work they're trying to do would be gleefully erased within 2 years. Obama isn't a wimp, he's pragmatic and he understands what he can and can't get away with if he wants to achieve his goals and make them stick.

What policies did Obama force through? How much has Obama really changed in the last 8 months? And as much as progressives don't agree of how he's handling things now, do you really think they'd sink low enough to vote for republicans? Why?

President Obama needs to convince the American people that his ideas are the right ones. To date, he hasn't been able to do so.

Agreed, though I don't think its ideas that's hurting him. Its his lack of action that's hurting him worse with his base.

[KillerGremlin]

Bush had confidence. Confidence is an important part of winning people over if you are a public speaker. I enjoyed listening to Bush's speeches; underrated, IMO.

[TheGame]

Bush had confidence. Confidence is an important part of winning people over if you are a public speaker. I enjoyed listening to Bush's speeches; underrated, IMO.

Bush's speeches made me feel uncomfortable. Its like watching a bad comedian.

[Professor S]

And thats exactly why the last elections turned out the way they did right?

I'll completely agree with you there, and thats because at that point he had lost the argument (and stopped caring, IMO). But in 2004 he won that argument and that was my point. Bush swayed the will of the American people, and that is what Obama has failed in doing.

I agree, but its hard for the american people not to support something that was justified with so many lies.

There is no proof, ZERO, that anyone lied. There is a ton of here-say and logical leaps based on truth that have no real connections, but no real evidence. Misinformed? Incorrect? Negligent, even? Sure. But the rest of the world was misinformed as well. To claim that Bush "lied" is an opinion with little to support it. I'll end my debate on Iraq there, as it's ludicrous to rehash it at this point.

Won handily? Last I checked a lot of people thought Kerry should have won with the whole fiasco in florida. Obama won by a much larger margin then Bush ever did.

You're wrong on two counts. 1) It was Ohio not Florida that was in contention in 2004 and 2) When Bush won in 2004 it was close in electoral votes, but at the time he won by the largest margin of actual votes in history. Obama did break that record, I believe.

In my opinion, Bush's policies won because Democrats are weak and bow their heads to republicans whenever they get a chance. They're even too weak to use the advantage they now have in Washignton.

I disagree completely. They aren't acting because they like their jobs and don't want to lose them.

Obama's policies are not being approved because republicans are not weak and will not bow their heads to a liberal. And because democrats are too weak to use the power they have now dispite republican's opinions on the matter.

This is the weakest the Republicans have been since Nixon. If the dems can't win now... maybe there are other reasons... like Americans think they have genuinely bad ideas...

What policies did Obama force through?

None. I never said he did. I was responding those who posted saying that he should.

How much has Obama really changed in the last 8 months? And as much as progressives don't agree of how he's handling things now, do you really think they'd sink low enough to vote for republicans? Why?

You really think progressives are the ones who got him elected? Progressives will generally vote for whoever is in a democrat suit, just as conservatives will generally vote for whoever is in a Republican suit. Its the center that wins elections.

Agreed, though I don't think its ideas that's hurting him. Its his lack of action that's hurting him worse with his base.

His base didn't get him elected, and his base isn't what has him in trouble now. What he's losing is the center, who voted for hope and change without really knowing what that meant, and now that they're seeing it in action, and argued terribly at that, they've retreated. If there was any kind of real leader on the Republican side, he'd be in even worse trouble.

[TheGame]

I'll completely agree with you there, and thats because at that point he had lost the argument (and stopped caring, IMO). But in 2004 he won that argument and that was my point. Bush swayed the will of the American people, and that is what Obama has failed in doing.

Hardly.

There is no proof, ZERO, that anyone lied. There is a ton of here-say and logical leaps based on truth that have no real connections, but no real evidence. Misinformed? Incorrect? Negligent, even? Sure. But the rest of the world was misinformed as well. To claim that Bush "lied" is an opinion with little to support it. I'll end my debate on Iraq there, as it's ludicrous to rehash it at this point.

There is plenty of proof that Bush is a liar, you just refuse to acknowlege it. He even lied about where he was on the morning of 9-11. And the reasons for the war were misleading. The rest of the world belived America because America was trustworthy at that point, but now we're not trustworthy.

You're wrong on two counts. 1) It was Ohio not Florida that was in contention in 2004 and 2) When Bush won in 2004 it was close in electoral votes, but at the time he won by the largest margin of actual votes in history. Obama did break that record, I believe.

You're right about Ohio, I got the 2000 and 2004 elections confused. However you're wrong about bush winning by the largest amount of actual votes in history. He won my 3 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Regan won by 7.5 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

Obama won by 10 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Clinton won by 7 million in 96, and by 5 million in 92, old bush won by 6 million in 1988, Regan won by 15 million in 84... I could go on and on.

Bush wasn't as loved as you might think he was. For a guy who served 8 years, he BARELY got approved for his office. His two terms margin combined is lower then anyone in the last 2 decades. Jimmy Carter is the only president Bush is compareable to.

You really think progressives are the ones who got him elected? Progressives will generally vote for whoever is in a democrat suit, just as conservatives will generally vote for whoever is in a Republican suit. Its the center that wins elections.

I think progressives are the ones who are hurting his approval rating now. When election time rolls around he's still going to get their votes, however.

His base didn't get him elected, and his base isn't what has him in trouble now. What he's losing is the center, who voted for hope and change without really knowing what that meant, and now that they're seeing it in action, and argued terribly at that, they've retreated. If there was any kind of real leader on the Republican side, he'd be in even worse trouble.

I guess this is a half empty and half full glass type issue. The people who voted for "Hope and Change" voted for it, because they wanted it. And they're not getting it outside of forgien policy.. so they don't approve of him. That's the way I see it.

[Vampyr]

I think the people who don't approve of him because of change not happening fast enough don't realize how long and slow the legislative process is. He has been an extremely active President - he's pushing things as much as he can.

And reality has a well known liberal bias. We can look back through history and see that, in every circumstance, liberals have gotten their way in the end. It will happen again. I believe that society in general has always been a slope towards being liberal - it just takes time. For some reason there are always conservatives who can't understand that they have been and always will be wrong.

[TheGame]

I think the people who don't approve of him because of change not happening fast enough don't realize how long and slow the legislative process is. He has been an extremely active President - he's pushing things as much as he can.

And reality has a well known liberal bias. We can look back through history and see that, in every circumstance, liberals have gotten their way in the end. It will happen again. I believe that society in general has always been a slope towards being liberal - it just takes time. For some reason there are always conservatives who can't understand that they have been and always will be wrong.

Well I look at it like this.. A big thing Obama ran on is blaming the president for how the economy is now. In all reality, it hasn't been enough time for everything to recover, but people want results now. They see that they're still unemployed, the stock market is still hardly worth gambling in, and Obama himself has been center-right on social issues and refuses to really ignore the republicans and push for the agenda they voted for.

So the longer the economy stays bad, the less people will approve of him. But I really can't picture the republicans offering up someone who can beat Obama, because that party in general has too many issues right now.

The Republican party's approval rating, last I heard.. is the lowest it has been in 25 years.

[Vampyr]

People also don't understand that the economy naturally fluctuates. There's nothing abnormal about what we are experiencing - the economy will recover and eventually fantastic, before declining again.

[Professor S]

Hardly.

Explain.

There is plenty of proof that Bush is a liar, you just refuse to acknowlege it. He even lied about where he was on the morning of 9-11. And the reasons for the war were misleading. The rest of the world belived America because America was trustworthy at that point, but now we're not trustworthy.

I'd ask you to post your irrefutable proof, but that would take us far off topic. My thoughts are that if there was real proof and just heresay, Holder would be going after Bush and Cheney, and not a bunch of CIA agents and lawyers over waterboarding.

How did we ever get on Bush in the first place? Is he still president?

You're right about Ohio, I got the 2000 and 2004 elections confused. However you're wrong about bush winning by the largest amount of actual votes in history. He won my 3 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Regan won by 7.5 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

Obama won by 10 million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Clinton won by 7 million in 96, and by 5 million in 92, old bush won by 6 million in 1988, Regan won by 15 million in 84... I could go on and on.

I was sure on that, so thanks for the clarification. I concede the point. I do lknow that he was the first President to win by a 50%+ majority in a long time, though.

Bush wasn't as loved as you might think he was. For a guy who served 8 years, he BARELY got approved for his office. His two terms margin combined is lower then anyone in the last 2 decades. Jimmy Carter is the only president Bush is compareable to.

I never said he was the most loved, I said he won the argument. I'm not even a fan of him as a president, everything considered. I simply refuse to acknowledge that he is the original Mr Satan.

Also, for a little perspective, Bill Clinton was a popular president, but never even won a majority of votes in either of his elections. And even as popular as he was, his progressive polices were soundly defeated in the beginning of his first term. Afterwards, he became very centrist because thats where the votes are.

I think progressives are the ones who are hurting his approval rating now. When election time rolls around he's still going to get their votes, however.

No, progressives aren't the ones really hurting him, centrists are, and thats why he hasn't acted and tried to push things through. Think logically for one second: Why would he be dragging his feet on progressive issues if it were the progressives that were hurting him? It makes no sense.

[Professor S]

People also don't understand that the economy naturally fluctuates. There's nothing abnormal about what we are experiencing - the economy will recover and eventually fantastic, before declining again.

Exactly. But I think judging by your politics, you and I make far different conclusions based on that fact...

And your assertions about the inevitability of liberalism are intriguing, if not 100% accurate, but to explore that subject would take another thread and a few hours of discussion.

[TheGame]

I'd ask you to post your irrefutable proof, but that would take us far off topic. My thoughts are that if there was real proof and just heresay, Holder would be going after Bush and Cheney, and not a bunch of CIA agents and lawyers over waterboarding.

How did we ever get on Bush in the first place? Is he still president?

We got on the subject because someone said:

"The fact is Bush did what he did, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, and got reelected handily in 2004 well after the Iraq war started."

This completly false statement was the first mention of Bush that I can find.

I was sure on that, so thanks for the clarification. I concede the point. I do lknow that he was the first President to win by a 50%+ majority in a long time, though.

Mostly because the other political parties and independants were completly flushed out that election. Same could be said for why Obama got over 50%. When there's only two reasonable people competing its hard not to win with a 50%+ majority. (Though bush managed to not even get the most votes and got in his first term.)

I never said he was the most loved, I said he won the argument. I'm not even a fan of him as a president, everything considered. I simply refuse to acknowledge that he is the original Mr Satan.

I never said that you said he was the most loved. I just said that Bush barely got into his seat. He has some of the lowest approval ratings in history, and he won by the smallest margins in history. Bush did not win over the American people as much as you think he did. The only thing he did right was manipulate washington into doing what he wanted.

Also, for a little perspective, Bill Clinton was a popular president, but never even won a majority of votes in either of his elections. And even as popular as he was, his progressive polices were soundly defeated in the beginning of his first term. Afterwards, he became very centrist because thats where the votes are.

He never won a majority of votes in either of his elections? Could have sworn I just posted how much he won by in both of his elections. We won by far more votes then Bush.

The difference between Clinton/Obama and Bush, is that bush was able to manipulate people in the house and senate to do his bidding with politics (i.e. Democrats being weak and actually following whatever he says).. and Clinton/Obama don't have as much luck manipulating the house and senate into voting for what they want because republicans simply refuse to play ball with them. The big difference is that Clinton had a real excuse for not being able to force his agenda in his first term. Obama has no excuse..

As much as the dems want to blame the republicans for watering down healthcare reform, its not the republican's fault. The Dems keep reachign out for approval that they're never going to get regardless of what the end bill looks like.

No, progressives aren't the ones really hurting him, centrists are, and thats why he hasn't acted and tried to push things through. Think logically for one second: Why would he be dragging his feet on progressive issues if it were the progressives that were hurting him? It makes no sense.

I listen to conservate and liberal media shows regularly. The talk on the conservative shows have not changed, they never have nor ever will support Obama. The talk on the liberal/progressive has changed completly to slamming Obama and the dems for being weak about how they're handling things in Washington.

I would agree with you if you said progressives aren't the ONLY ones hurting him, but they're a big part of what's hurting his approval rating.

[Bond]

He never won a majority of votes in either of his elections? Could have sworn I just posted how much he won by in both of his elections. We won by far more votes then Bush.
A majority is more than half. You're thinking of plurality.

[TheGame]

A majority is more than half. You're thinking of plurality.

Oh I see. That's mainly because there wasn't a legitamate independant canadate when he ran against Kerry. Less then 1% of the country that year who voted, didn't vote for Bush or Kerry. Obama, won by a much larger majority, and much larger difference in actual votes, and electorial votes. And there was more non democrat/republican votes in 2008 even though they still only made up 1.5% of votes.

A two player and 3 player game are completly different. But Bush's margins of victory and approval ratings are still the worst since Jimmy Carter. So I don't really get how one can argue that he "won handily" or even won the hearts of the American people at all.

Lets also keep in mind that the same Bush you speak of won without having the majority of votes in one of his elections. And in both of his elections he was not able to top 370 electoral votes. Which was the lowest Clinton had gotten.

Bush overall popularity wise doesn't compare to any of the other presidents since Carter.

[Professor S]

We got on the subject because someone said:

"The fact is Bush did what he did, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, and got reelected handily in 2004 well after the Iraq war started."

This completly false statement was the first mention of Bush that I can find.

You didn't look very hard then... I believe we were all talking about Obama until people decided to post about Bush related Jesus camps and other nonsense comparing Bush practices trying to get the conversation off topic. I talked about Bush in response to Vamp and Teuth injecting him into the convesation. Look harder next time, Game. And I still fail to see the inaccuracy of the statement. He won? Yes? He did what he wanted? Yes. The Iraq war was on? Yeppers!

Mostly because the other political parties and independants were completely flushed out that election. Same could be said for why Obama got over 50%. When there's only two reasonable people competing its hard not to win with a 50%+ majority. (Though bush managed to not even get the most votes and got in his first term.)

I understand that, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote, regardless of how popular he is perceived to be. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he would have lost the election if Perot didn't get his large percentage of third party votes, as I believe he mainly pulled from Republican/center right votes.

I never said that you said he was the most loved.

No, you said:
Bush wasn't as loved as you might think he was.
Close enough?

I just said that Bush barely got into his seat. He has some of the lowest approval ratings in history, and he won by the smallest margins in history.

The second election wasn't one of the closest in history. It wasn't overwhelming, I'll give you that, but in terms of actual votes I wouldn't rate it as such. Electorally? Much closer.

Bush did not win over the American people as much as you think he did. The only thing he did right was manipulate washington into doing what he wanted.

Exactly, he won the argument. He won two terms and basically did whaht he did with little of the hubbub you see happening now.

The difference between Clinton/Obama and Bush, is that bush was able to manipulate people in the house and senate to do his bidding with politics (i.e. Democrats being weak and actually following whatever he says).

Exactly, Bush won the argument.

and Clinton/Obama don't have as much luck manipulating the house and senate into voting for what they want because republicans simply refuse to play ball with them.

The dems are also refusing to play ball the Republicans. Have you heard about any of the Republican ideas being incorporated into any of the bills? Tort reform? Opening up competition nationwide, and not just in-state? No, so there is little to discuss, because there is no compromise. Besides, if the dems wanted to push through the bill, they could. They have the votes to push through anything they want. But they won't, because they're not stupid and they like their jobs. You really haven't posted anything that counters this obvious point.

The big difference is that Clinton had a real excuse for not being able to force his agenda in his first term. Obama has no excuse..

I know. Like I said, he's failing as a leader. What do we disagree on here?

As much as the dems want to blame the republicans for watering down healthcare reform, its not the republican's fault. The Dems keep reachign out for approval that they're never going to get regardless of what the end bill looks like.

...because they like their jobs and want to keep the majority in 2010. You keep leaving that part out. We do have elections in this country, and if the dems were to push through their policies with how the public feels right now, they would be rode out of office on a rail. It would be the 2004 mid-terms all over again, IMO.

They are weak because they are scared.

I listen to conservate and liberal media shows regularly. The talk on the conservative shows have not changed, they never have nor ever will support Obama. The talk on the liberal/progressive has changed completly to slamming Obama and the dems for being weak about how they're handling things in Washington.

Yes, but it's the center that wins elections. Once again, why would a progressive politician not push through progressive policy? Answer: They think they'll lose the election.

I would agree with you if you said progressives aren't the ONLY ones hurting him, but they're a big part of what's hurting his approval rating.

I'll say that centrists aren't the only one's hurting his approval, but they are the group that is keeping the dems frozen right now, because they realize that it's the center that wins elections. The center doesn't like whats going on right now on either side.

[TheGame]

You didn't look very hard then... I believe we were all talking about Obama until people decided to post about Bush related Jesus camps and other nonsense comparing Bush practices trying to get the conversation off topic. I talked about Bush in response to Vamp and Teuth injecting him into the convesation. Look harder next time, Game.

I was refering to within our conversation. I've been indiferent and never even commented on that post.

I understand that, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote, regardless of how popular he is perceived to be. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he would have lost the election if Perot didn't get his large percentage of third party votes, as I believe he mainly pulled from Republican/center right votes.

Losers always say independants cost them the election. What is your point?

"I never said that you said he was the most loved. "

No, you said:

"Bush wasn't as loved as you might think he was. "

Close enough?

No its not close. Unless you are implying that you originally meant to say Bush was the "most loved". Which would make your own reply of saying he's not the most loved wrong.

But lets stick to facts here, you never called him the 'most loved' nor did I say that you called him the 'most loved'. I just said he wasn't as loved as you think he was and didn't win by some big margin.

The second election wasn't one of the closest in history. It wasn't overwhelming, I'll give you that, but in terms of actual votes I wouldn't rate it as such. Electorally? Much closer.

I'll correct my statement, and say, in Recent History. Since 1972 there's only been one Election (besides his own 2000 one) with a closer margin thin his 2004 victory. I might just be lazy, but I can't find a president who got into office without the popular vote before except for Bush in 2000.

That's 10 elections, and he lands at #8 and #10 for vote win margin.

The dems are also refusing to play ball the Republicans. Have you heard about any of the Republican ideas being incorporated into any of the bills? Tort reform? Opening up competition nationwide, and not just in-state? No, so there is little to discuss, because there is no compromise. Besides, if the dems wanted to push through the bill, they could. They have the votes to push through anything they want. But they won't, because they're not stupid and they like their jobs. You really haven't posted anything that counters this obvious point.

Here's the problem, our arguements are a difference in perception in why his approval rating is dropping. Right now, the GOP's approval rating is below 30%. The Republican party is NOT leading some type of intelegent debate on the subject that is winning over centrists. Obama from the gate was weak about pushing the public option out, its not like he's back peddaling, he never forced it through to begin with.

And he's compromising the biggest part of the bill that republicans are against... the public option. You consider that "Not playing ball"? I consider "Not playing ball" what the republicans are doing. Saying that they won't even talk with the dems unless there's no public option. Saying "I won't even have a discussion with you unless you do exactly what I want" is not playing ball.

And polititians in general are weak about making the healthcare insurance industry have competition because they fund their campaigns. The reason there's all this talk saying "Dems don't have enough votes in the senate to pass the public option" is because Dems won't vote against the people who funded their campaigns (Nor will republicans).

I'll leave it at this though, we'll see what happens in 2010, and 2012. We'll really see if those approval rating numbers are really dropping because of people who would actually vote against him.

I believe the healthcare debate is hurting him more with his base due to false promises. You belive its hurting him more with centrests because of how he's reacting to it. That's our fundamental disagreement.. I'm right if Dems manage to get more seats in the house/senate and Obama gets a second term. You're right if Dems lose a lot of seats and Obama is finished after 4 years.

We'll see... and you can feel free to bring this thread back up when the time comes.

I just don't think its accurate to say he's losing some type of arguement when his approval rating is still 30% higher then the GOP's.

[KillerGremlin]

Transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/?source=email

Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama
Back to School Event

Arlington, Virginia
September 8, 2009

The President: Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today.

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning.
Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year.

Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.

I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.

I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.

I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.

Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.

You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.

Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.

I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.

So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.

But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right.

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.

Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.

I’m thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who’s fought brain cancer since he was three. He’s endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer – hundreds of extra hours – to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he’s headed to college this fall.

And then there’s Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she’s on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.

Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same.

That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.

No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it’s good enough to hand in.

Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.
So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?


Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

[KillerGremlin]

and best quote from Digg:
"HOLY FUCK.... STAY IN SCHOOL? LISTEN TO YOUR PARENTS? THIS IS DICTATOR TALK!!!!"

[TheGame]

That was a really good speech.

[Professor S]

I was refering to within our conversation. I've been indiferent and never even commented on that post.

And I wasn't responding just to you. There are other voices in this conversation than yours.

Losers always say independants cost them the election. What is your point?

Ok, if you want to ignore the point and dismiss is s "loser talk", then we'll drop the subject. I can only argue facts, not derisive statements.

No its not close.

No, not at all.:mischief: If you don't want to recognize our own statements for what they are, or the fact ou continually try and put words in people's mouths and restat their arguments to your liking (a bad habit of yours), I can't continue with the discussion. I consider the point closed.

I'll correct my statement, and say, in Recent History. Since 1972 there's only been one Election (besides his own 2000 one) with a closer margin thin his 2004 victory. I might just be lazy, but I can't find a president who got into office without the popular vote before except for Bush in 2000.

Now you're confusing the argument. No one mentioned 2000 in this entire discussion. We're discusing the reaction that people have to policy and why President Obama and the dems are frozen right now. The reason why Bush felt vindicated and felt empowered was his victory in 2004, as he looked at it as approval from the American people. I think it's safe to say that the dems and President Obama aren't feeling that confident about the American people's opinion of their policies, and therefore they are still trying to convince people. The 2000 election has nothing to do with this argument.

Quite frankly, President Bush doesn't either, but I let people sucker me into the conversation, changing the point from where it should be.

I won't be entertaining argument about Bush in the thread any longer, as it's off topic. Continue if you want to, but I see no reason to respond.

Here's the problem, our arguements are a difference in perception in why his approval rating is dropping. Right now, the GOP's approval rating is below 30%. The Republican party is NOT leading some type of intelegent debate on the subject that is winning over centrists.

I never really said they were. You're the one that said they were strong, I said they were weak. Lets focus here, and keep our conversation to one restatement of opinion at a time.

I said Obama is losing the argument. The argument isn't necessarily one party to another, its a discussion amongst the American people. The American people can smell a rotten egg for what it is. By the way, I doubt conservatives/republicans would give the Republican party above a 30% approval right now. They have no leader, and their message is pretty much fractured into Social Conservative vs. Fiscal Conservative.

This actually makes Obama's failure to this point all the more telling.

Obama from the gate was weak about pushing the public option out, its not like he's back peddaling, he never forced it through to begin with.

No argument here. He likes to let the Congress do the dirty work for him, that way he never has to stamp his name on policy that might be deemed as unpopular or fails to get passed, and therefore avoids accountability which will be in his advantage for the future election. It;s called being "teflon". Nothing sticks to him. The problem is, the Congress is failing to make his argument for him, putting President Obama in a difficult situation.

This week's speech will be telling. If he actually lays down a specific agenda, the people's reaction will be far more telling and little guessing will need to be done by either of us as to who was more accurate.

And he's compromising the biggest part of the bill that republicans are against... the public option. You consider that "Not playing ball"?

No, I don't consider it playing ball at all. I consider actually entertaining ideas from the other side as playing ball. He and the dems refuse to do so. I mentioned specific items, with no response or really acknowledgement from the dems at all.

Not only that, but for all the bluster about being flexible on the public option, I have yet to see a bill without one, or without government run "non-profit co-ops", or more accurately... a public option.

I consider "Not playing ball" what the republicans are doing. Saying that they won't even talk with the dems unless there's no public option. Saying "I won't even have a discussion with you unless you do exactly what I want" is not playing ball.

I consider not entertaining any alernatives as not playing ball. And what you have in Congress is exactly what you see in our conversation: A stalemate with neither side budging because neither side reallt cares for their other's ideas or their version of compromise.

And polititians in general are weak about making the healthcare insurance industry have competition because they fund their campaigns. The reason there's all this talk saying "Dems don't have enough votes in the senate to pass the public option" is because Dems won't vote against the people who funded their campaigns (Nor will republicans).

True, and thats the main reason why you'll never see tort reform from democrats, because of the money they get from lawyer groups to keep it from happening, just as many Republicans would never go for an option that would hurt Pharma.

Also, a lot of the dems that won in 2006 were "Blue Dogs" who ran on keeping spending down. The real problem is that no plan that has been devised, public option or not, has been deficit neutral. Instead, all accounts are it would blow it out of the water. Blue Dogs can't vote for that because it's against their entire campaign policy and they'll quickly lose their next election because they represent traditionally Republican areas.

And we're back to representatives not wanting to lose elections.

I'll leave it at this though, we'll see what happens in 2010, and 2012. We'll really see if those approval rating numbers are really dropping because of people who would actually vote against him.

Well, this story is not over. Opinion polls are fickle. Lets see how far the dems are willing to take this. I can only make judgements based on whats going on right now. All this can change in a week or a year. Just because President Obama is failing now, doesn't mean he always will. Right now? It looks pretty bad and we're seeing that reflected in politial hesitancy and continued messages to the public instead of action. If the opinion tides change, you'll see action pretty quickly, IMO.

I believe the healthcare debate is hurting him more with his base due to false promises. You belive its hurting him more with centrests because of how he's reacting to it. That's our fundamental disagreement.. I'm right if Dems manage to get more seats in the house/senate and Obama gets a second term. You're right if Dems lose a lot of seats and Obama is finished after 4 years.

I think you're being a little rediculous in those terms for validation. Like I said, things can change, but with whats going on RIGHT NOW, I can't see how anyone can think it's President Obama's progressive base that is the main force hurting his poll numbers and pushing dissent.

I leave this conversation repeating the same challenge Ive repeated several times in this thread, and that you've largely ignored (the campaign funds argument is not legitimate as the dems don't get much money from orgs that are against the policies currently derailed): IF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S AND THE DEMS DIFFICULTIES ARE WITH THEIR PROGRESSIVE BASE, WHY WOULDN'T THEY PUSH THROUGH A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA?

[Professor S]

That was a really good speech.

From all accounts I'm sure it was... but then again the objections to the speech were never really with the speech itself, but everything surrounding it.

Once again, this was not that big of a deal, but I'm glad that they made the changes that they did regarding the essay and such. Hopefully it will keep a lot of these "Obama's a NAZI" overreactions to a minimum and people can return to arguments based on real policy.

EDIT: KG, thanks for posting it. It was a very good speech indeed.

[TheGame]

We can just stop talking about Bush. He's irrelevant now, and was not a good example for you to use. And with that, I'll reply to your point again.

IF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S AND THE DEMS DIFFICULTIES ARE WITH THEIR PROGRESSIVE BASE, WHY WOULDN'T THEY PUSH THROUGH A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA?

Because he wants to hold onto the center.

Shocking answer huh? :)

I don't disagree with you when you say the center is important. I disagree when you say that the center is the main cause the drop in his approval rating.

The reason he won't push through a progressive agenda, on the healthcare front, is because democrats won't sign onto it. Democrats won't sign onto it because they get paid by the healthcare insurers.

People in the Center see that Obama is not forcing anything, and is open to discussion about healthcare reform. That's what wins over center votes, being open minded and using caution before making any major changes (even with having a majority that can't be stopped). People on the left, however, have a reason to be upset about Obama not being strong and pushing things through, which is why on those polls he was greeted with a negative reaction by them.

The reason Obama is staying consistant, and staying open to ideas from the conservatives (Even if you think its just an illusion).. Is because he still has support from the center when he works in this fashon. Just because he's losing progressive support when it comes to his approval rating, doesn't mean that they're going to suddenly vote for someone else.

That's why I say the actual elections will be what matters most. If the centrists are really put off by Obama, then its going to hurt the whole party and he's not going to have much of a chance of winning. If the left is put off by Obama, then its not going to affect things much.

[Professor S]

Because he wants to hold onto the center.

Thank you.

[TheGame]

Thank you.

:)

[Bond]

I know I am late, but just wanted to add my two cents:

The President giving a speech on education to students shouldn't be a partisan issue, it should be a patriotic issue. Perhaps if the speech were on the liberal perspective of abortion or health care reform that would be inappropriate. But, if the speech is on the tenants of studying hard and receiving a solid education, there should be no issue.

It's really a question of why this is even an issue at all? My answer would be the deteriorating respect for the office of the Presidency, beginning with Bush. "He's not my President!" Etc. Etc.

[Professor S]

It's really a question of why this is even an issue at all? My answer would be the deteriorating respect for the office of the Presidency, beginning with Bush. "He's not my President!" Etc. Etc.

Agreed. I think politics and public service have melded into a singular beast that confuses winning elections with serving the people.

I don't think anyone trusts their elected officials anymore, and they're more likely to believe crack-pot conspiracy theory than anything their representatives say. This isn't the fault of the people in totality, quite honestly, it's the fault of politicians not living up to their rhetoric and/or operating in their own best interests. This is also why I think you see the approval rating of President Obama fall, but not see the Republican's approval really improve. They're sick of everyone.

President Obama specifically, I think those that are against him refuse to believe a word that he says; they believe he speaks one way and acts another and therefore you have all this conspiracy theory surrounding him. While right wing talk shows and the like have some responsibility in fomenting this outrage, the biggest fault lies with the president himself because of his lack of clarity. He speaks in long, grand language about nebulous ideals, but he rarely takes a specific stand on anything or backs specific legislation as being something he really supports. He is VERY hands off when it comes to lawmaking, an area that is a big weakness of his when it comes to confusing and universally impactful subjects such as government run healthcare. America is looking for a leader on this subject, and to date President Obama hasn't filled that need, mainly because I think he fears the reprocussions of taking a stand on something so volitile.

Also, he is very good at working the media. Example: Van Jones resigned at midnight over the labor day weekend, an obvious attempt to make the issue go away. This avoidance of direct answers is building the same distrust on the right that Bush's avoidance of WMD clarity did on the left (and lets keep the comparison's to that alone). If President Obama or Gibbs would simply answer questions regardling Jones clearly and honestly, there would not be so much theory surrounding the entire issue. It's bad when Glenn Beck gets an advisor fired, which gives him more credibility with the American people as being more than just a quack, and now that the "resignation" was done literally in the cover of night it gives Glenn even more to rant about! This is what I talk about when I say this adminsitration is making one fumble after another. It's almost like they want the reaction they're getting.

The biggest problem with President Obama right now is that we know he gives great speeches and has wonderful ideals, but no one really knows who he is or specifically how he believes he can fix the issues he believes are hurting us as a nation. In the absence of clarity, his supporters have given him blind trust and his detractors oppose him with blind hate, IMO. This is why MY criticisms tend to concentrate on the specific actions he has taken and/or approved, because that is the only thing we can really judge him on.

His speech on Healthcare will hopefully clear some of this up, as it is supposed to outline HIS plan and ideas on the subject, and not just broad strokes.