The Watering Hole

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125345/Obama-Approval-Polarized-First-Year-President.aspx?CSTS=tagrss

(Don't forget that 9/11 occurred in Bush's first year, otherwise this honor likely would have been his...)

This is pretty much the spot-on analysis I came up with...

The way Americans view presidents has clearly changed in recent decades, perhaps owing to the growth in variety, sources, and even politicization of news on cable television and the Internet, and the continuing popularity of politically oriented talk radio. The outcome is that Americans evaluate their presidents and other political leaders through increasingly thick partisan lenses.

I think Obama's first failure as President is not getting the Dems and Repubs working together, as I've stated before.

I think politics have become a bit of a showbiz Dems vs Repubs slugfest. It's not suppose to be that way and it seems to get worse and worse as news channels kinda push the envelope.

For our country to get any better than it is right now, both parties need to forget about who gets the glory and or, credit, and see that our country gets the credit. Period. Probably never happen but it's a good thought anyway.

The first task is to get the Facists and the Socialists working together...  ::)

Hookbender — Jan 26, 2010I think Obama's first failure as President is not getting the Dems and Repubs working together, as I've stated before.

But do you even think that is possible?  If everyone was happy and working together, what would Fox News and MSNBC talk about?  There is no margin at all in cooperation.  I don't see it as Obama's failure... frankly I am surprised he even gave the Republicans as many concessions as he did, considering that they haven't given an inch, but instead have spent the last year throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, and bad-mouthing everything he's done.  I'd much rather see him get angry, furious, than see him continue to take this reasonable tone with them.  If you're not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem, and that's all I've seen from them so far.

The Senate in general, though, sucks ass.  We are not likely to get anything of any consequence passed through there ever again.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/the_filibuster_and_family_full.php

Ahhh, correct. But the same thing happened to Bush, and Clinton. I'm just saying it seems to be getting worse and worse and the end result is probably going to result in a government that is pretty much not effective at anything.

I do hope, and have faith that Obama at least is smart enough, intelligent enough, to adjust his way of operating.

Yeah. The question to me is becoming, not is he smart enough.  Clearly he's smart.  The question is, do we need a smart president?  I ask this because it doesn't seem like a guy who thinks about things and offers reasoned positions is able to make the kind of impact people want, the kind of impact a Bush makes...

This is a great summation, by Thomas Schaller. I'm sorry I can't find the original blog post, this turned up in Google Reader and the original had already disappeared from fivethirtyeight.com.

EDIT: Found the source:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/risks-of-compromise.html

The Risks of Compromise

During the 2008 presidential campaign, I had repeated arguments with various friends on the topic Nate raised earlier, namely, whether Barack Obama was a liberal disguising himself as a centrist, or whether he was in fact a centrist. With respect to healthcare, as Nate argues--and I would agree--the worst outcome is to be depicted as having staked out a liberal position despite having actually forged a centrist consensus. I don't say "worst" in a normative sense here; I mean worst in terms of the politics, the optics. If healthcare reform is going to be depicted as unacceptable (and defeated) because it's considered a too-liberal big government power grab, it may as well be that.

One of the joys of reading The Audacity of Hope is also one of its repeated annoyances: Obama's reasoned and reasonable mind almost always works through a problem or controversy by admitting the merits of arguments made by advocates on both sides of some issue, then confesses his preference for a more liberal solution, but admits he is open to alternative solutions that might take into account a broad range of views and values. * The book was undoubtedly written with his own political future in mind, and he surely aimed to demonstrate both his intellectual faculties and his open-mindedness.

But the presidency is not an intellectual exercise. It is a not a law school class debate. And in this hyper-partisan age it damn sure isn't a colloquium in which opponents try to find common ground with opponents uninterested in reaching accommodation, no matter how much good faith bargaining is done. Consider the filibustering tendencies of the past three years, with the Republicans in the Senate minority, compared to the six years prior with the Democrats in the minority and George W. Bush in office.

Based on data provided by the U.S. Senate, cloture activities have doubled since the GOP became the minority. The average annual filed cloture motions from 2001 through 2006 was 34, but jumped to 69 in the three years since; average votes on cloture grew from 27 to 50; and per annum invoked clotures ballooned from 13 to 33. Neither party plays well with the other, but the GOP is more likely to throw a tantrum in the sandbox.

Did Obama think his political philosophies or 2008 campaign rhetoric would be an antidote to this sort of obstructionism? Did he think that the hand he reached across the aisle would be shook rather than bitten? Did he think wishing for a post-partisan America would make it so?

As I wrote previously, there is little to no incentive for Republicans to vote along with the Obama agenda. The president was in a go-it-alone situation from the beginning. He was going to absorb all the blame or reap all of the credit no matter what happened with health care or the economy.

In hindsight, tackling healthcare in the first year may have simply been biting off too much politically to chew. The complex web of interests arrayed on both sides of the issue presented a perilous landmine field in which almost every step would set off an explosion on Obama's left or right. I always thought energy was the safer policy issue to tackle first because, among other things, energy is viewed as a "Republican" issue whereas healthcare is viewed as a "Democratic" one. (For the same but inverse reasons, Bush tried to co-opt the Democrats on education with No Child Left Behind.)

The lesson to take away from the first year of the Obama presidency is that the risks of compromise as a governing philosophy in office are much greater than the risks of running as a "uniter, not a divider" or with a "there's not a blue America or red America, but the United States of America" theme during a presidential campaign. After all, a presidential election, after the primaries are done, is a forced, pairwise choice between the major party nominees. A policy debate, however, is anything but a pairwise choice, even if final votes in Congress or a presidential signing or vetoing of a bill are. A complex issue with a vast menu of options and trade-offs can end up angering a huge swath of the population in the way that an electoral choice does not.

A final irony is that the compromise reflex only tends to beget more compromise, more dissensus and more frustration. Proponents and opponents alike view you as weak, and in turn expect more compromise, greater concessions. Obama needed to lay down some markers during Year One. And now, amazingly enough, the ability to lay down markers is diminished by the loss of a single U.S. Senate seat, as Official Washington commences with calls for the president to curb his audacious appetites in Year Two.

* Bold is mine.

I think we need a smart President as long as we have dumbass people in congress. If you have a dumbass President making dumbass decisions the dumbass people in congress are likely to follow the dumbass leader.....bring in George Bush, for example and his Iraq war shit. Etc. etc.

Your right, Obama is smart enough. I guess my hope is he has the ability to adjust. I think he does.

Good write up.

From the State of the Union tonight, which I thought made a lot of the points that I have been thinking.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent – a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

the speech was not a bad one at all. it had its moments i disagreed with, but everything does. what i took away is that he has heard and acknowledged his shortcomings in the public eye and is addressing them. it remains to be seen what is actually done about the problems though. it will be interesting

Honestly, I doubt anyone expects anything but a good speech from Obama. What I was pleasantly surprised with was that he laid out the inaction, especially of the Senate, so clearly.  I also liked this:

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naive. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- and some post-partisan era.

with the current senate population i expect very little to be accomplished. yet another reason to throw every one out and start over. same government structure, constitution, etc. but new people...

If we threw them all out and it was 59 Republicans and 41 Democrats, I don't think there would be an ounce of difference.  The very idea that we need a supermajority to accomplish legislation is ridiculous.  The country will always be closer to 50/50 than 60/40.

Gaddamn, if I hear about the situation he took over again I'm gonna puke.

Not one of those ideas he tossed around will ever exist. Some I liked very much to hear though. Wish he would have told me pot would be legal by next week. I would have really liked that.

And fucking Nancy.....on my damn T.V.?????? Bitch!!!

Man has a great smile.

Decent sense of humor.

That's about it for me.  

Hookbender — Jan 29, 2010Gaddamn, if I hear about the situation he took over again I'm gonna puke.

Not one of those ideas he tossed around will ever exist. Some I liked very much to hear though. Wish he would have told me pot would be legal by next week. I would have really liked that.

And fucking Nancy.....on my damn T.V.?????? Bitch!!!

Can someone please explain to me the hatred of Nancy Pelosi?

She's no different than any other bag of bones in Congress. Why the hatred? Because she's a woman? A liberal woman? A liberal woman from Northern California? I just don't get it. She's no crazier than anyone else, no more insolent or rude to Republitards (the asshole Republicans, not the ones with brains). But it seems to me many aging white men with conservative leanings I know just HATE her. It's so weird to me, because she's such a non-entity in my view. I understand Hillary hatred, because she is, in actuality, kind of a bitch.

But Pelosi? Come on! She's not a commie. She's not even really a socialist. She's just another career politician who happens to be a powerful left-leaning Democrat.

Explain your ridiculous (to me) hatred, please. I need to understand it. I mean, to me it's like hating someone completely unremarkable and boring, like Harry Reid. Oh, wait...
Tripper

Tripper — Jan 29, 2010 Can someone please explain to me the hatred of Nancy Pelosi?

Hehe... How can you NOT?

She's a complete whack job and WAY farther over the edge than any of the other asshats I've seen.  Some of her demands and commands are unreal.  She definitely does not realize she's supposed to be a servant of the people.  All I've ever heard from her seems to be "This is what I want so it's going to happen even if no one else wants it!"

She (and Biden) make great protection for Obama because anyone stupid enough to try and pull a Kennedy on him would want to see them move up even less.

(Oh no!  Does this make me an aging white man with conservative leanings??! :o :D)

It would be much quicker for you to name one reason that would require me to like her. Much less typing, ya know?

I didn't say I hated her, nor did I imply that. I simply called her a bitch and showed my dislike of her face on my T.V. How does that translate to hate?

CraigBert — Jan 29, 2010[quote author=Tripper link=1264455657/0#14 date=1264731897] Can someone please explain to me the hatred of Nancy Pelosi?

Hehe... How can you NOT?

She's a complete whack job and WAY farther over the edge than any of the other asshats I've seen.  Some of her demands and commands are unreal.  She definitely does not realize she's supposed to be a servant of the people.

Are you fucking kidding me? She's from my area; she represents San Francisco.  She is a servant of the people to the extent that she can be.  A good 80% of her actual constituents probably find her "too conservative."  I know this shit is in the eye of the beholder, but I also know that considering who she represents and who elects her, she is actually pretty bland, not all that liberal, and nothing that anybody around here really gets worked up over.

Tripper — Jan 29, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1264455657/0#13 date=1264728681]Gaddamn, if I hear about the situation he took over again I'm gonna puke.

Not one of those ideas he tossed around will ever exist. Some I liked very much to hear though. Wish he would have told me pot would be legal by next week. I would have really liked that.

And fucking Nancy.....on my damn T.V.?????? Bitch!!!

Can someone please explain to me the hatred of Nancy Pelosi?

Explain your ridiculous (to me) hatred, please. I need to understand it. I mean, to me it's like hating someone completely unremarkable and boring, like Harry Reid. Oh, wait...
Tripper


http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2010/jan/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-documents-detailing-pelosis-use-air-force-aircraft

House Speaker’s Military Travel Cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a Two-Year Period, Including $101,429 for In-Flight Expenses
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC -- January 28, 2010

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Air Force detailing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s use of United States Air Force aircraft for Congressional Delegations (CODELs). According to the documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. The following are highlights from the recent release of about 2,000 documents:

   * Speaker Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. The average cost of an international CODEL is $228,563.33. Of the 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House Speaker’s family.
   * One CODEL traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. Purchases for the CODEL included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
   * According to a “Memo for Record” from a March 29—April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring Kosher items into the Hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the Delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. Bourbon, Whiskey, Scotch, Vodka, Gin, Triple Sec, Tequila, etc.”
   * The Department of Defense advanced a CODEL of 56 members of Congress and staff $60,000 to travel to Louisiana and Mississippi July 19-22, 2008, to “view flood relief advances from Hurricane Katrina.” The three-day trip cost the U.S. Air Force $65,505.46, exceeding authorized funding by $5,505.46.

“Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel. And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch previously obtained internal DOD email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s last minute cancellations and changes.

i think the above works well enough for me. it's an example of the fact that she believes she is above the american people. i'm sure if you searched hard enough you could find others who have done the same types of things. if you do post them here and i'll add their names to the list of politicians i can't stand

Shit. If your so worried about the money politicians cost us, the tax payer, you must hate the hell out of George Bush and his Father, along with every President that has raised any tax. Add to that, the govornor of your state etc. I'd just ignore politics in general forever if I were you. ;)

I remember that story and I think the investagation found that what she did was legal, or not breaking any rules.  

charger — Jan 29, 2010[quote author=CraigBert link=1264455657/0#15 date=1264735904][quote author=Tripper link=1264455657/0#14 date=1264731897] Can someone please explain to me the hatred of Nancy Pelosi?

Hehe... How can you NOT?

She's a complete whack job and WAY farther over the edge than any of the other asshats I've seen.  Some of her demands and commands are unreal.  She definitely does not realize she's supposed to be a servant of the people.

Are you fucking kidding me? She's from my area; she represents San Francisco.  She is a servant of the people to the extent that she can be.  A good 80% of her actual constituents probably find her "too conservative."  I know this shit is in the eye of the beholder, but I also know that considering who she represents and who elects her, she is actually pretty bland, not all that liberal, and nothing that anybody around here really gets worked up over.


Wow, I knew San Francisco was fucked up, but I didn't know it was THAT fucked up!  :o

Hookbender — Jan 30, 2010Shit. If your so worried about the money politicians cost us, the tax payer, you must hate the hell out of George Bush and his Father, along with every President that has raised any tax. Add to that, the govornor of your state etc. I'd just ignore politics in general forever if I were you. ;)

I remember that story and I think the investagation found that what she did was legal, or not breaking any rules.  

you completely missed the point. who mentioned taxes? the point to the story was she went way over and beyond what she needed in travel and amenities and ran up huge UNNECESSARY bills.

It wouldn't make any difference how huge the bills were if the tax payer didn't pick up the tab.

Judicial Watch is an extraordinarily partisan source to quote, Chase, and the Pentagon has not said anything about her requests or use of aircraft being "excessive". Got anything better?

I'm still waiting for a list of "crazy" Pelosi quotes or outrageous demands.

I mean, here's a very loony website's list of "horrible" things Pelosi has said.
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/biographies/Pelosi.htm

Most of them are pretty fucking common-sense things, obviously through her filter.

Unless you're a Bush loyalist, Limbaugh devotee, or woman-hater, these quotes still don't really explain the bitter hatred I see.

I guess this will just have to stay as something I don't really understand, which is fine.

"God is great, beer is good...and people are crazy."
(I've been listening to a lot of modern country music these days - sorry - it's one of my radio stations at work - I don't endorse the first part of that quote. ;) )

Tripper

regardless of where the source is, the FOIA documents back up the claims

http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2010/jan/nancy-pelosi-air-force-documents

i'm not claiming she's the worst. she may be or she may not be. i'm just showing an example of why most politicians should be shown the door

Hookbender — Jan 31, 2010It wouldn't make any difference how huge the bills were if the tax payer didn't pick up the tab.

???

the taxpayer is picking up the tab....

chase — Jan 31, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1264455657/0#23 date=1264954599]It wouldn't make any difference how huge the bills were if the tax payer didn't pick up the tab.

???

the taxpayer is picking up the tab....
Money doesn't grow on trees.  The tax payer always picks up the tab.  It's the tax payer money that buys everything for the government.  That's "The way government works 101".  Come on now man.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7057198&page=1

It's all bullshit, but if the people on your side are slinging the mud, you are a lot more likely to want to join in, I guess.

http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm

Foreign Travel by members for the conduct of government business is financed through special allowances. These funds can come from various sources.

Money is appropriated by Congress through the Mutual Security Act to pay travel and other expenses of congressional committees for routine and special investigations.
Members traveling abroad are allowed to use American-owned counterpart funds. These are foreign currencies held by U.S. embassies and credited to the United States as part of various foreign assistance programs; they can be spent only in the country of origin.
American Ambassadors overseas are allocated sums for official entertaining. These funds may be used for the same purpose by members of Congress when traveling overseas.
Members may use the funds of various government agencies when they speak on foreign policy issues at overseas posts.
Members may travel on military aircraft, including cargo planes, at no charge.
The 1989 Ethics in Government Act set restrictions on foreign travel paid by lobbyists and other special interests.
For both the House and Senate, special-interest paid foreign travel is limited to seven consecutive days, excluding the days spent traveling.
Domestic travel funded by special-interest groups is limited to four consecutive days on the House side (including travel time), and three consecutive days on the Senate side (excluding travel time).
One relative per trip also may accept special interest-paid travel expenses, and the ethics committee may grant an extension in exceptional circumstances.

if i was wrong so be it

Question....who buys the gas that goes into those military planes?  

tax payers.  All I'm saying is that no matter how that chick travels......the tax payers are paying for it.

To clean politics up it needs the equivalent of a
Snopes to nationally  name and shame the obvious partisan bullshit as lies.

fingers — Feb 01, 2010To clean politics up it needs the equivalent of a
Snopes to nationally  name and shame the obvious partisan bullshit as lies.

That'd be great, but there are too many dumb partisan assholes of all stripes who would refuse to believe it. We suffer from a dearth of critical thinking in this country. Fact doesn't matter if it conflicts with ideology.

Hence the quoting of Judicial Watch, with their history of "selective prosecution"...

You want better source material? Factcheck.org and Politifact.com

You bullshit, they call you on it.
Tripper

i actually had never read anything from that site before. i just did some quick google research on pelosi and this was something that caught my eye. not everyone knows which sites are slanted in which direction.

chase — Feb 02, 2010i actually had never read anything from that site before. i just did some quick google research on pelosi and this was something that caught my eye. not everyone knows which sites are slanted in which direction.

That's the trickiest part, you know? It takes a lot of energy to determine whether a source is even fair.

Snopes, politifact.com, factcheck.org. They're the big three in fairness right now. Oh, and regardless of Jon Stewart's personal bias or the fact that it's a comedy show, not a news program: The Daily Show.

We all need good bullshit detectors, and we don't always have time to learn enough about sources to know whether they're giving us the real story, because journalism has become more about placating Washington and corporate interests than actually doing their job.

Tripper