Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Generic Ballot (Gallup 5/24-30)

Topics: Generic House Vote , National

Gallup
5/24-30/10; 1,600 registered voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

National

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
49% Republican, 43% Democrat (chart)

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

Before conservatives get too excited, this is "Likely voters" Results.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Actually I don't think it is likely voters. Progressives, we need to kick some ass over the next few months. Lets set the record straight!!!!!

____________________

Field Marshal:

Wow, what an epic failure the Dems and Obama. HUGE FAILURE!

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yeah, right, and what does the "Party of no have to show for itself"?

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

This is getting to easy. Someone please give farleft a tissue, I think he is about to shed some tears.

____________________

StatyPolly:

aouch!

Looks like Rass is grossly underestimating GOP support. If GOP is +6 among registereds, it should be +well into double digits among likelies.

I am sick of that lying lefty Scotty Razz!

____________________

Farleftandproud:

This result is clearly because the media has focused so much on the oil spill, and from the points of view of most people, that isn't going to paint a good picture of our government in general. All the media sources have focused so much on this disaster that the typical issues the more "left leaning" media groups on tv focus on, they haven't done.

It was a huge setback, but one we can overcome.

____________________

melvin:

IF THIS POLL IS CORRECT THAT MEANS GALLUP IS PROJECTING THE GOP WILL WIN 100 SEATS IN 12 SENATE SEATS.THE DEMS NEED TO PASS IMMIGRATION REFORM ASAP BECAUSE THE LATINOS ARE VERY UPSET,BUT THE PASSAGE OF A IMMIGRATION BILL WILL KEEP THE GOP FROM REGAINING CONTROL OF THE CONGRESS.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yeah, and I remember in May 2008 Obama was trailing Mccain by 7 points. It might be a reach to think 2010 will be a great year for the Dems. but I know we are very prepared and once we get the ads running on tv and know who our opponents will be, the race will no longer be this generic nonsense, but you will have actual senate, house and gubernatorial races.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Farleft,

It's perfectly reasonable to be the "PARTY OF NO" when you're a small minority, in terms of legislative and executive powers, and all you can do is obstruct the best you can the agenda that you strongly disagree with, along with the majority of citizens.

Perfectly reasonable.

____________________

Mark in LA:

Field Marshal,
You may measure life by percent approval/disapproval in a Rasmussen Poll, but I for one prefer more concrete measures.
For instance, after four years, and again after 8 years of this Administration, what will be the changes in employment, national surplus/deficit, national debt, stock market indexes, etc.
The GOP gave took a rose-garden and turned it into a mountain of manure. If you judge Conservatism by ANYTHING other than poll numbers, you all are epic failures.
I've got enough patience and understanding of how the world works, that I am pretty optimistic of how we'll measure up, especially compared to the abject failures of our previous GOP President and Congress.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Memorial day weekend was a factor. A lot of people were away from Friday to Monday. That means two days where only limited people were contacted. This could be a factor.

____________________

Paleo:

Relax, Melvin and Far Left. The polls will bounce around the next five months. A six point margin would like mean loss of the House (you can't extrapolate the senate from these numbers), but these numbers are not etched in stone.

____________________

A 7-point swing in a week doesn't sound logical. It may be "statistical noise" due to the holiday week. Wait for another 2 weeks and see what they say before anyone -- on either side -- gets two excited.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Farleft,

Obama never trailed McCain in May 08. Once he wrapped up the primary, the only time McCain led was from early Sep, coinciding with Palin's nomination and GOP Convention, until Sep 15, coinciding exactly with the collapse of Lehman Bros.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

____________________

CUWriter:

Hey everybody, let's all freak out over statistical noise five months before the election.

____________________

Mark in LA:

II really don't see the point in living and dying by individual polls of approval/disapproval and/or generic ballots.
Rasmussen and Gallup paint pictures that look bad today. Tomorrow they may be worse, or they may be better.
Tying your emotions to these polls is like being a day-trader in the stock markets. Pets.com announces a new - exciting CEO, so people race to buy and capture a 5% market swing.
The Warren Buffets of the world stand back and say "I don't care who Pets.com's CEO is. I don't see how they'll ever turn a profit."
Look long. Look long.
The market is turning around. Hiring in on the upswing. Deficits should start declining with the wind-down of Iraq and increasing growth of the GDP.
The GOP is doing their best to alienate everyone who's not a Southern White Christian Conservative, and God be Praised, Palin isn't going to disappear anytime soon!
We take our medicine this fall, and clean house in 2012.

____________________

Marcello Mastroianni:

This might not be "statistical noise". It's probably not coincidence that this shift occurred during the week that images of the oil spill were becoming more widely distributed, and this issue will not be going away anytime soon. This summer does not look good for the Dems, and the fall doesn't look much better.

____________________

seg:

This is undoubtedly a blip and it undoubtedly represents the effects of a whole WEEK of negative news coverage. The MSM will soon enough start bailing out Obama, despite the fact that it is becoming increasingly clear that he despises them the way the narcissistic always despise their sycophants.

This blip shows where liberals would be without cacooning by the liberal MSM. After a week that pales in comparison to typical coverage conservatives endure, liberals show a steep decline.

If the news media were as diverse ideologically as America, the 15-20% that are liberals would sink back to being bit players. Conservatives dominated the media in the 50's but were increasingly ousted by liberals in the late 60's and ever since. Perhaps if liberals continuing ruining news outlets conservative/moderates will make a comeback and have the 80-85% dominance of the airwaves their numbers represent instead of the 10-15% represented by Fox.

Likewise, perhaps an enterprising movie company will recognize the generally untapped market for movies that fail to denigrate or condescend to the values of ordinary Americans.

Liberals here continually talk about the poor outcomes Republicans produced without seeming to recognize that Obama and company have already done more damage in just over a year than Bush managed in 8 years, with disasters looming before us as far as the eye can see.

For those of us who were adults in the 70's but weren't under the influence of narcotics and M.J., Obama is Jimmy Carter at his worst both in domestic and foreign policy. The attitudes, policies, and outcomes are eerily similar. "Cowboy" Reagan turned Carter into a bad memory and a burden Democrats staggered under until Clinton. Who will be Reagan this time. My votes at the moment go to Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels.

____________________

Paleo:

Ha! I remember Jimmy Carter, and Obama is no Jimmy Carter. And Ryan and Daniels are no Reagan. Unlike Carter, Obama inherited a mess, the same way FDR and Reagan inherited messes. A financial collapse and two wars. Yet all the Republicans can do is call for a return to the same policies that got us into this mess.

____________________

StatyPolly:

'"Cowboy" Reagan turned Carter into a bad memory and a burden Democrats staggered under until Clinton. Who will be Reagan this time.'

Seg, think who is getting similar ridicule from MSM today that Cowboy Reagan got in 80. That ignorant hick. I was in my pre-voting teens back then, and MSM had me LOLing at Ronnie's near daily moronisms.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yeah, right, and what does the "Party of no have to show for itself"?

That they aren't the Party of Big government and big failure, That's all they need to be- similar to the Dems in '06 when Pelosi was proud to be the party of no.

What's a progressive anyway? A liberal in denial?

____________________

Paleo:

Big failure? That's what was left on Obama's doorstep when he took office. If it weren't for the actions he took, including the stimulus, the economy likely would have suffered a total collapse. Speaking of the stimulus:


"The CBO now estimates that the stimulus put as many as 2.8 million people to work in the first three months of this year -- and raised GDP by as much as 4.2%.

The CBO estimates that the stimulus put 1.2 million to 2.8 million to work in the first quarter, and boosted GDP between 1.7% and 4.2%.

Thanks to the stimulus, the unemployment rate was lowered by between .7% and 1.5% in the first quarter, the CBO estimates."

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/cbo-stimulus-put-up-to-34m-to-work-in-first-quarter.php

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

you didn't answer my question, so I will repeat it: If you could vote on the American with Disabilities Act would you have voted for it?

____________________

LordMike:

It's not surprising. Obama had a very rough week in Gallup (was lower in approval than even in Rasmussen) and it was a holiday weekend. It will be more interesting to see what happens to this number next week.

Weird that folks would gravitate towards the "drill,baby, drill" crowd after the oil spill. But, this was an odd week.

____________________

seg:

Paleo:
Every president claims he is inheriting a mess, and Carter was no exception. In truth, inflation had been building a long time before he created a bonfire under it.

Carter = Obama on diminished expectations for America and a disbelief in American exceptionalism. Carter = Obama on seeing the federal government as the fount of all that is good and right. Carter= Obama on a butt-licking foreign policy featuring "humility." Carter=Obama on making very much of his own intelligence and enjoying the early benefit of a fawning press. Really, it goes on and on.

StatyPolly:
I have often thought, also, about the similar treatment of Reagan and Palin. I believed the crap about Reagan until AFTER Reagan was elected. In fact, I found it embarrassing that such a "moron" could be elected president.

It took me a couple of years to finally appreciate Reagan. The man had clarity of vision and Margaret Thatcher-level guts. Can you imagine Obama deliberately creating a deep recession to stop out-of-control inflation? No, he is a pygmy, as was Carter, which is why both have the magical ability to turn wine to water.

Despite nearly continuous MSM lies to the contrary, Reagan was an intellectual who wrote very well and a formulated a highly coherent political program over many years. Most importantly, as made clear in his diaries, he always said what he meant and meant what he said. Obama is a slick deceiver.

Back to Palin: Unlike Reagan, Palin has made the mistake of trying to win approval of those who could only despise her for her lack of an Ivy League degree (why is that liberals worship those who graduate from elite schools? I say this as someone who was accepted to MIT but was offered a scholarship insufficient for my relatively poor parents and therefore went to a state school, instead.)

She also looked bad in the 2008 campaign because she was not widely read and had not thought deeply about issues. Reagan had neither failing.

On the other hand, I saw an hour long speech by Palin taped in Denver (I happened to be in Denver at the time). I was amazed: this was what she should have been BEFORE running for VP.

I believe both Reagan and Palin were/are not all that smart, maybe IQ=110-115. That, however, is the range that includes John Kennedy and FDR, both of whom were natural leaders and were effective (though not always wise) in leading. For that reason, I consider character more important than high IQ. John Kerry is in the same range but is a pompous buffoon. [See Steve Sailer in 2008 for all these IQs]. By the way, Obama guards info on his SATs and LSAT for a reason: I suspect his IQ is in the low 120's, little or none above Bush.

Resigning from office hurt Palin's prospects immeasureably. So, for Palin to be taken seriously, she needs to do as Reagan did and take a stand on every issue in a weekly column and write every word herself. She has done extremely well in her postings to-date (and yes, by God, she was right about "death panels" - see the N.I.C.E. panel in G.B.).

In any case, while I think Palin is the ONLY politician on the scene with real charisma, I think she has too much baggage for this time around.

____________________

Field Marshal:

seg, prepare for Obamalover and the other baiters on the site to now call you racist, bigoted, etc. ad nauseam. Its a reflection of their limited intelligence.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

One thing about this is polls are never all that accurate after long weekends.

I remember back in 2006 the GOP could have lost more seats than they actually did. As I recall, many of the seats they lost were in Democratic leaning districts like CT, suburban Philly, Seattle and others like that.

The Democratic victories in places like AL, and other places in the south, Indiana, Texas, and the Western states were very slim. Tester won by a small margin in Montana, and Webb won by less than 1 percent in Virginia. In contrast, the Democrats who picked up seats in districts that went for Obama and kerry won by as much as 12-15 points.

It is possible that the Dems could lose seats in the south, and win some nail biters in places like WI and Washington.

I would be more interested in seeing how this poll added up region to region.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Kennedy had "Bay of Pigs"
BoBo has "Bay of Rigs"

Got that from Rush, very funny.

Progressives are progressing nicely into negative numbers.

____________________

Travis:

@nelcon1551:

I agree. That's a substantial shift that doesn't really comport with any events, except for the Memorial Day weekend.

Democrats in Congress aren't under more political fire than Republicans about the BP oil spill. [Also, note that Obama's numbers are little changed from when Democrats & Republicans were polling about evenly, and are unlikely to account for a 7-point shift.] So, it would be odd for that to cause a dramatic shift toward Republicans, especially since the Republican Party is more consistently seen (according to polling) as being the party more amenable to oil companies. Because of that, if anything, I would think we would see a shift AWAY from, not toward, Republicans.

Concomitantly, we know that Democratic numbers are consistently impacted in general by weekends, as well as specifically by long weekends when people are likely to travel.

So, it's perfectly reasonable to ascribe this dramatic shift to the special circumstances of the past week.

It will be interesting to see how Gallup writes this up, if they even do. If they think it's a notable trend, they probably will. If they don't think it's a real trend, they probably won't say much about it.

Ultimately, I think the counsel of patience to see what the next couple of weeks show is wise. If this is a real trend, it will show up in subsequent polling.

But, at this point, I would, as a Republican, be wary of celebrating. As a Democratic, I would be reluctant to embrace gloominess. I think the wise bet would be that this is nothing more than statistical noise.

____________________

Travis:

@nelcon1551:

I agree. That's a substantial shift that doesn't really comport with any events, except for the Memorial Day weekend.

Democrats in Congress aren't under more political fire than Republicans about the BP oil spill. [Also, note that Obama's numbers are little changed from when Democrats & Republicans were polling about evenly, and are unlikely to account for a 7-point shift.] So, it would be odd for that to cause a dramatic shift toward Republicans, especially since the Republican Party is more consistently seen (according to polling) as being the party more amenable to oil companies. Because of that, if anything, I would think we would see a shift AWAY from, not toward, Republicans.

Concomitantly, we know that Democratic numbers are consistently impacted in general by weekends, as well as specifically by long weekends when people are likely to travel.

So, it's perfectly reasonable to ascribe this dramatic shift to the special circumstances of the past week.

It will be interesting to see how Gallup writes this up, if they even do. If they think it's a notable trend, they probably will. If they don't think it's a real trend, they probably won't say much about it.

Ultimately, I think the counsel of patience to see what the next couple of weeks show is wise. If this is a real trend, it will show up in subsequent polling.

But at this point, I would, as a Republican, be wary of celebrating. As a Democrat, I would be reluctant to embrace gloominess. I think the wise bet would be that this is nothing more than statistical noise.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I honestly am less critical of the Republican party prior to 1995 than I am the post 95 GOP.

The tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was much higher for it's time period under Reagan than it is now with Obama. The GOP over the past 15 years has become so extreme, with it's policies like cutting social security, medicare, yes, law enforcement (Not an issue we talk a lot about).

Even the staff of MSNBC believes Reagan, Nixon and George H. W Bush are saints compared to the creeps dominating the party today; Rand Paul, M. Bauchmann, Sarah Palin, and candidates like Pat Toomey in PA even make Mitch Mcconnell look liberal in comparison. Something has got to give and the voters have to find some common sense.

Fox news may not be fair, but I do have to say it is balanced. CNN and MSNBC have overexposed the oil spill and the Joe Sestak thing to the point, there is no focus on other things like repeal of Don't ask don't tell, financial reform and other winners for the Democrats. Fox at least focuses on topics that favor conservative candidates but they are not one dimensional.

Over the past two weeks, I have to ask the question, What liberal media are we talking about? If I were Obama, I would not be pleased right now.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Good Lord, you republicans and your liberal MSM conspiracies.

Answer me these questions.

1) How many labor reporters are there? Now, how many business reporters are there?

2) If the "liberal" MSM is so powerful, how have republicans won 5 of the last 8 elections, and 2 of the 3 demoratic wins not by majority?

3) How influential is the MSM, when Obama's strongest supporters, the young, poor, and minorities, are the least likely to watch those MSM broadcasts or read the MSM newspapers to which you refer?

____________________

Hugo L:

I think there are polls soon to be published suggesting a connection between this and the electorate's perception of Obama's response to the oil spil. Especially a certain type of electorate.

I'd be very sceptical about it being noise.

Oh, and yeah, many here should apologize to Scott Rasmussen.

____________________

LordMike:

@TeaPartyRules

I've got another joke from Rush. "Drill, baby, drill"... oh, wait... that's not funny.

The DCCC should be nailing that phrase to the wall of Goopers the next 5 months!

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Sometime look at the demos of people that read the NYT or any paper and watch any news program on TV (this includes Fox).

The are overwhelmingly white, middle class or higher, and over 50. In the case of network nightly news, they are largely over 60. Those were among Obama's weakest demos. It seems to me the MSM has the opposite effect of what you say it has.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

@ LordMikey

Do you drive a car?
Do you use products delivered by truck?

If you answer yes to either of these, then you're probably a hypocrite.

The quickest way to oil independence is for all the liberal hypocrites to stand behind their own words and stop using oil. Basically I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is or shut up. In the mean time DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!!!

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"By the way, Obama guards info on his SATs and LSAT for a reason: I suspect his IQ is in the low 120's, little or none above Bush."

The new book on Obama by David Remnick goes into his Occidental College records and found that his performance wasn't all that impressive. Decent, but not excellent. No one ever said he was a genius.

However, I'm not sure what your hang-up is on IQ. It hasn't been since John Quincy Adams that being among the elite was a political asset in America. In fact, once the electorate expanded, JQ Adams found it quite a hindrance.

Someone with an IQ above 130 is probably smart enough not to get into politics.

"Despite nearly continuous MSM lies to the contrary, Reagan was an intellectual who wrote very well and a formulated a highly coherent political program over many years."

Reagan was an intellectual? What scholarly work did he produce? He did school himself well on right wing thought after he left Sacramento. The magazine "Human Events" was a staple of his reading list. Someone who is intellectual thinks broadly as well as deeply. An intellectual might have acknowledged the AIDS crisis, realized that there is indeed a Russian word for "freedom," and not spoken at an cemetary in Bitburg, Germany, where no American soldiers were buried but Nazi SS ones were and then equated them with holocaust victims. An intellectual knows that American exceptionalism is a theory itself and highly debatable.

An intellectual has to produce an original contribution through research, theory, art, literature, science, etc... that comes as a result of his or her thoughts. Just mulling over or evaluating thoughts does not make one intellectual. A consumer of intellectual products does not an intellectual make.

Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson are the only American presidents I would call intellectuals based on the fact they produced significant works. Although a case could be made for John Adams, James Madison, and John Quincy Adams.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Arron you are over thinking it. BO's Occidental records won't be released because it will prove that he used foreign student aid funds.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well even Obama admitted he used illegal drugs other than marjuana, and after all the Bush stories about his cocaine use, the GOP didn't even go there. Obama isn't perfect and nobody is. As long as he doesn't involve himself with a ponzi scheme with Bill Ayers and Resco, or cheat on his wife, or do other things that politicians have killed their careers over, I think Obama will fare much better in integrity than most politicians.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Getting back to a previous statement about Carter and Reagan, I personally think the difference between the two parties in 1980 was not nearly as great as it is now. It is like the difference between day and night, or "heaven and hell" between many of us.

Carter was a Conservadem from Georgia, and didn't really have a lot of progressive legislation while he was president. He was a great man who I admire, but not a decisive leader.

Reagan's extremely conservative policies made it so statewide Democrats did quite well while he was president. There were moderates and liberals and southern Democrats in the Democratic party, and the GOP had a good mix of conservatives and moderates. Things were not so polarizing.

In 2010, the two parties can not find one ounce of common ground and with a few exceptions want to wage war together. That is why our future remains very bleak.

____________________

dpearl:

I would note that much of the change since last week and the week before in the Gallup results are due to a change in the percentage of Republicans versus Independents versus Democrats in the sample.

Two weeks ago Gallup:
% of Dem for Dem 91%
% of Ind for Dem = 34%
% of Rep for Dem = 4%

This week Gallup:
% of Dem for Dem = 93%
% of Ind for Dem = 34%
% of Rep for Dem = 3%
Since the actual percentage of registrants for each party has not changed much over a couple of week period, it would seem that either the less enthusiastic Democrats are now calling themselves independents or this is an unusual Gallup poll in terms of party affiliation.

____________________

iVote:

Anyone who's freaking out about this needs to take a deep breath. There will be a Gallup poll released every single week until the election.

That's 22 more polls.

Don't get too discouraged/enthusiastic about a single poll.

The only polls that matter are the ones a few weeks before election day. And even then there's only one poll that really matters.

____________________

obamalover:

@seg

What you fail to mention is that Obama graduated Suma Cum Lade from Harvard Law. That means he graduated in the top 5% of his class. That means he is smarter than at least 95% of the people that goes to Harvard Law. I would be willing to wager his IQ is at least 150.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

____________________

nick283:

When the Republicans last controlled Congress (1995-2007), the dow went up 250%. Since the democrats gained control (2007) the dow is down about 20%. By the way, it is Summa Cum Laude. I'm sure that must have just been a typo though. Also, he graduated magna cum laude, at least according to the Harvard Crimson. Still darn good, but not Summa.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

So Dpearl? Are you saying that a higher percentage of Republicans were interviewed this week than usual with Gallup? No change in independents between two weeks ago?

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@CUWriter

"Hey everybody, let's all freak out over statistical noise five months before the election."

Well said.

____________________

iVote:

If the election were held tomorrow, the Republicans would admittedly win big. Obama's approval ratings seem to be on the lower end of where they usually are (due mainly to a lack of polling from anyone other than Rass and Gallup), and the Republicans seem to have opened up a lead on the generic ballot. But the election is still 5 months away. The polls will change and fluctuate from day to day and week to week.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

And it is up to people like myself, IVote and Obama Lover to help out any way we can and recruit likeminded friends. Reach out to those in other states to help elect the more progressive candidates to office and let those people who may not vote in midterms that 2010 is just as important as 2008, if not more since we know Obama has passed health reform, which 6 or 7 previous presidents had failed when they tried. There is a lot at stake.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Obama is obviously a bright guy. No one could or should argue with that. Most of our Prez's have been in some way. I would argue James Garfield was our smartest prez ever.

Graduating summa cum laude shouldn't be your baseline for intelligence. As my professor used to say, law school is fairly subjective and gives no basis for intelligence, just the ability to bullshit.

Obama is really good at that!

As far as the poll. Its one weeks worth of data 5 months before the election. Lets wait and see.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

"StatyPolly:
Farleft,

It's perfectly reasonable to be the "PARTY OF NO" when you're a small minority, in terms of legislative and executive powers, and all you can do is obstruct the best you can the agenda that you strongly disagree with, along with the majority of citizens. Perfectly reasonable. "

Well Polly, they are indeed entitled to their opinions, but there have been many times the GOP obstructed everything even when it was something that most people support. The financial bill only got the vote of 3 republicans, when the bill holds those corporations who rip off their consumers and the government accountable. Ending don't ask don't tell got the support of either 1 or two republicans when 70 percent support ending it! Obama, disappointed the left when he called for the increase of troops in Afghanistan when strategically, winning in that country is impossible. I don't believe Obama wanted to even do that, but he was trying to make an attempt at doing an unfinished job in the region from the previous administration. I applaud his courage, but am not so sure things will end up well over there. The GOP had no problem with Obama's increased defense budget. So much for excessive spending.

Maybe at the moment half of Americans want to repeal the health care bill, but I think in this instance too many people have not seen the benefits of the reform, and have forgotten that some of the elements in the bill were a good thing. How many people really like the fact that health insurers can drop people because of pre-existing conditions? Anyone could have a pre-existing condition. How many people don't want a health insurance system where there is competition?

I believe that at least half of the things in the health bill, many Republicans would want.

Americans are just so gulable, and there are some trends that do work in the short-term, but in the long term it slips away.

What surprises me is Obama's approval on foreign policy issues is fairly high, but not so high on domestic issues. This sounds like a role reversal to me.

The bottom line is that we may have conservatives in the Democratic caucus like Ben Nelson and Liebermann, but when push comes to shove, most of the time we have seen party line votes. I am questioning if there are any truly moderate Republicans left when even the ones from my neighbors in Maine and Mass. put their party first and the interests of their state 2nd.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Obama may be the brightest president in modern times along with Bill Clinton. TR was truly gifted as well and had an extremely high intelligence.

I think most of our presidents were smart other than our last one. If Bush had not been from a wealthy family of means, I am convinced he would have ended up a garbage collector.

Reagan, I think had about a slightly average intelligence, yet he had that amazing ability as an actor and as a public speaker.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Chester Arthur is the guy who became president when Garfield was assasinated and he is virtually unknown compared to other presidents but he grew up in a town in NY state about 20 minutes from me. He lived in Greenwich, and Hoosick. There are a couple of historic landmarks about his life.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"law school is fairly subjective and gives no basis for intelligence, just the ability to bullshit."

I would say this is the case regarding college in general. I know I b.s.ed some B+'s into A's on more than one occasion. But then bullshitting is a skill that can be useful in your life, so it helps to learn it early. >;-) Very, very useful for a politician. Quantitative geniuses usually aren't electable.


"I would argue James Garfield was our smartest prez ever."

On what basis do you make this claim? He was president less than a year and didn't do much noteworthy. As far as I know, he was a teacher and later the principal of what's now some liberal arts college in Ohio, later a civil war general, like most of the presidents from that era, a lawyer, and later and a member of the house.

Not saying he was stupid or anything, but I'm not sure I'd place him up there with Thomas Jefferson.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I can't forget Thomas Jefferson for being one of the most brilliant too.

I just came across the recent Afghanistan poll and I seriously believe that in my opinion, engaging in that war after so many Americans regret Iraq and are tired of foreign conflicts, was a mistake. Here is a recent poll.

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?"


Favor Oppose Unsure

5/21-23/10 42 56 2

3/19-21/10 48 49 3
1/22-24/10 47 52 1

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Chester Arthur is the guy who became president when Garfield was assasinated"

Makes sense they wanted to solidify the OH and NY electoral votes. OH, PA, and NY used to contain a third of the electoral votes and republicans dominated OH and PA for half a century after the civil war. The only way a democrat could win was to steal NY, which was was an uphill battle.

____________________

dpearl:

"Statistics has been the handmaid of science, and has poured a flood of light upon the dark questions of famine and pestilence, ignorance and crime, disease and death."

--James A Garfield

Garfield was a big supporter of beefing up the federal statistics program - so that's something in favor of his claim to intelligence.

____________________

dpearl:

"So Dpearl? Are you saying that a higher percentage of Republicans were interviewed this week than usual with Gallup? No change in independents between two weeks ago?"

No - I'm just saying that seeing a much bigger shift away from the Dems than you see within each group means that there must of been a shift away from Dems in the sample (could have been to Indep or Rep). Unfortunately Gallup didn't post the sample percentages so you can't tell exactly what happened.

____________________

melvin:

Obama have let the Democrats down,by not having a public option in the health-care bill really hurt the base,by not passing immigration reform in sending 30.000 more troops to war really hurt his base,the Dems have nothig to take back to their districts.its all on Obama,by not repealing the bush taxcuts,by not repealing dont ask dt tell immediatly really hurted the base

____________________

Field Marshal:

On what basis do you make this claim? He was president less than a year and didn't do much noteworthy.

Not basing it on what he did during the presidency. I've read biographies on most presidents and its just my opinion.

I was fascinated by his ability to answer a question posed to him writing the response in ancient greek in one hand and latin in the other at the same time.

He also is credited with discovering a proof of the pythogorean theorem.

As far as recent prez's go, intellect-wise, i would say hands down Jimmy Carter followed by Bill Clinton and then George Bush I. I don't think Bush II, Obama, Reagan, Ford or Nixon can lay a hand on those three. Again, just my opinion.

____________________

iVote:

I would argue that he's let down the progressive liberals, yes. But 80%-95% of Dems in general still approve.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

you still haven't answered my question: If you could vote on the American with Disabilities Act would you have voted for it?

____________________

Field Marshal:

That's because rational debates with irrational people usually is a waste of time.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

It's a simple question FM. If you say yes the debate ends. I'm waiting...

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Garfield was a big supporter of beefing up the federal statistics program"

LOL, that would have made him a socialist wouldn't it? He supported all those faceless bureaucrats with their bloated government pensions! Hehe...but it probably was an issue given that patronage and pensions were behind a lot of the political conflicts of that time.

@ FM

What book on Garfield did you read? I'm not aware of any authoritative biographies besides one written around 30 years ago. I think there was a volume of The American Presidents series on him, but I'm not the biggest fan of those. It's interesting that he was killed basically because of political resentment. Kind of puts the Sestak job offer in perspective.

"As far as recent prez's go, intellect-wise, i would say hands down Jimmy Carter followed by Bill Clinton and then George Bush I. I don't think Bush II, Obama, Reagan, Ford or Nixon can lay a hand on those three."

Was Carter that smart? I know he graduated from the Naval Academy in the top 10% but not the top. He has been a prolific writer since his presidency. I guess that indicates something.

I agree with GHW Bush and Clinton. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and the elder Bush was considered one of the top students at Yale during his era. So much so that his son resented it.

Herbert Hoover was also quite intelligent. Intelligence on its own is usually not enough to be a successful president. Hoover and Carter were probably the hardest working, too.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

Yes, the American Presidents Series by Ira Rutkow. It mostly deals with his assassination since he wasn't in office for too long.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Are you or are you not opposed to the ADA?

Or is it one of those "lamestream media gotcha questions *wink wink*"? (aka forcing you to say what you really believe but are normally too ashamed to it say publicly)

____________________

seg:

obamalover:
The obsession with IQ's is mostly peculiar to democratic politicians, beginning at least with Alai Stevenson, then Kennedy (whose supporters actually were convinced that he was superior to Nixon, who had an IQ above 140). LBJ was concerned only with power and had no intellectual pretensions. Despite accomplishments that dwarfed Kennedy's he was despised by liberal intellectuals even before LBJ upped Kennedy's ante in Vietnam.

Carter's frequent comments about "intelligence" are exceeded only by Obama's frequent references to "smart" everthing.

Al Gore and John Kerry continued the tradition of pretending to greater academic achievement than they actually had (Gore flunked out of Vanderbilt and Kerry had lower grades than Bush). Gore claimed that his IQ is 133 but refused to release any academic records.

On a comic note, Biden during his presidential runs notably shouted to hecklers that his IQ was higher than theirs and made frequent references to having a high IQ. This is the same guy who was nearly expelled for plagiarism and was saved by a humiliating plea of coming from poverty (a gross exaggeration).

The only Republican politician I can recall dwelling on his IQ was Spiro Agnew, who defended himself from liberal charges of stupidity during his election by publishing his actual IQ score, which I recall being around 130. Ironically, his functional stupidity was revealed when he was caught and resigned over penny-ante corruption. A democrat would have shown his intelligence by: (!) getting a lot more money, and (2) getting his liberal friends in the media to cover up his misdeeds.

Obama wrote two books detailing everything in his life he thought made himself look good or that needed to be headed off before it could be brought up by others. I think he would have found a way to either bring up or leak his SAT and LSAT scores if they were that high. He got into Harvard on the strength of lobbying by a notorious but well-connected Palestinian radical money man.

Furthermore, I find his magna cum laude unconvincing, especially when his thesis was never released. Do you not wonder why? Perhaps it is for the same reason that Michelle's Princeton thesis was withdraw from circulation: (1) it was embarrassingly poorly done, and (2) it showed deep-seated animosity towards blacks who integrated and acted and thought white.

As for being intellectual, if you read Lincoln's letters (as I did recently on my Kindle), you will see that he was a first class writer and thinker. What else is an intellectual? Every academic in the country who gets tenure (and nearly all who don't) publish more scholarly documents than did Lincoln (or Jefferson, for that matter). Is your definition so constipated that you would rank Lincoln below all of them?

I will also point out that only the so-called academic I have known of who published ZERO scholarly works is one Barack Hussein Obama. He not only published nothing in 12 years as an adjunct professor, but published zero as editor of Harvard law.

PS: Did you notice in the news this weekend that Obama's house in Chicago is next door to Farrakan? Wonder why that just now has come out?

____________________

obamalover:

@seg

Obama got into Harvard Law because he did well at Columbia. And once he got into Harvard Law he kicked ass, so it is kind of hard to make the argument he was so undeserving of admittance since he got better grades than 95% of the geniuses there (and don't get me wrong you literally have to be a genius to get into Harvard Law).

Anyhow, has it entered your mind that maybe liberals value intelligence in a president. Maybe that is why we are so obsessed with it. Conversely, at times it seems like Republican politicians try to out dumb their opponents, which is what the inbred hillbilly voter values: someone as dumb as they are.

Sorry if I want my President to be a genius; guilty as charged. But let me guess, being smarter than the average voter makes you an elitist, right? LOL!

____________________

seg:

obamalover:
Just curious: Do you actually think that the Democratic candidate in 2004, Kerry, is a superior intellect? Not superior to Bush (which he wasn't, anyway), but on an absolute scale.

Do you think that Biden is a superior intellect? Not in comparison to Palin, but is he among the brightest of Democrats in your opinion?

____________________

pion:

And, lest we forget, we should mention how the great seg let it slip that he had been accepted to MIT. Of course, seg was absolutely forced to reveal that bit of information to make is incredibly novel point on how "liberals worship those who graduate from elite schools".

On a side note, although in awe of seg's impressive knowledge of IQ amongst the political elite (he's on in a million!) I do know a couple of tidbits about IQ:

1) IQ tests have changed a lot since they were invented, and I personally have no idea what they measure or measured.

2) Richard Feynman, a giant of physics and science, revealed in his book, 'Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman', that his IQ was nothing special (around 120 if I recall) and that his sister Joan had a higher IQ than him.

3) People who know a lot about IQ testing are highly suspect.

____________________

obamalover:

@seg

I supported Howard Dean M.D. over Kerry and I supported Obama over Biden. There is a reason why Obama was at the top of the ticket. So I'm not going to defend politicians I didn't support.

Anyhow, Obama was clearly intellectually superior to McCain. And I'm not going to even compare Obama to Palin, because that would be like comparing Einstein to well... um... Palin. Geez, I can't really think of anyone dumber than her and most of the conservative base loves her. GO SARAH! LOL!

____________________

Field Marshal:

Obama may have been intellectually superior to McCain but i would argue McCain was significantly smarter than Obama. Books can only make you so smart, its experience that counts in my book. Obama's lack of it has shown that all the smarts in the book don't account for much when it comes down to making decisions. Guess thats why he always voted present.

As far as getting into Columbia, that's a mystery since he admits himself he was a C student at Occidental. Obama doesnt rank anywhere near other modern day presidents in terms of intellect in my opinion. He is no where near genius, not by a long shot.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Pion please,

Seg was just trying to get the libs to worship him. And it's starting to work already, I can tell.

Seg is easily the brightest poster here. Among public schools grads. Cogency, fluidity, vocab, fact recall. Dude's got mad skeelz. You're jealous.

____________________

StatyPolly:

>>>The 49%-43% lead for the Republicans is the largest that the pollster has ever recorded for the party.

And they've been around for like what, 4-5 years? At least!

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/06/01/republicans-jump-out-to-historic-lead-in-gallup-generic-ballot/

Surprised not much mention of the Sestak dealio. That thing is a centipede. Or maybe a Victoria Secret model. Whatever optic people prefer. But it's gotta be adding to the numbers. More than the oil, in my book. Although most experts that I normally hold in high regard tend to disagree. Whatev

____________________

hoosier_gary:

The link above to the gallup release is wrong. The release is at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/139331/Republicans-Move-Ahead-Generic-Ballot-Congress.aspx

These are some huge one week swings. Looks like people finally see Obama's utter failure in the oil spill as proof that the liberal vision of big government is a disaster. They wasted a trillion dollars on a stimulus bill that didn't create a single job, they destroyed our healthcare system, and now they are destroying the entire gulf coast because of their belief that big government is the answer to all problems.

Reagan had it right. Big government is not the answer. Big government is the problem.

We'll see if this is a one-week anomoly or a trend. If it is a trend, look for a loss in the house in the 65 seat range. If it gets even worse for the democrats, look for a 100 seat loss.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Did you not see the debates? McCain looked lost, angry, and clueless. Obama trounced him according to any public opinion poll.

Anyhow, would you vote for the Americans with disabilities Act?

____________________

obamalover:

@hoosier gary

"Looks like people finally see Obama's utter failure in the oil spill as proof that the liberal vision of big government is a disaster."

Wow. Obama has left this problem completely up to BP and the private sector to solve. What universe do you live in? LOL.

"They wasted a trillion dollars on a stimulus bill that didn't create a single job."

According to the CBO the stimulus created as much as 2.8 million new jobs in only the first three months of this year alone. Again, do you live in like some deluded conservative fantasy land?
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=967

____________________

nick283:

Hmmm Obamalover, since you seem to like repeating yourself, I'll give you an answer that is probably what you are looking for. I am not sure how i would vote on it. I think it has severe unintended consequences which serve to harm the disabled. A rational employer is going to now possibly not hire a disabled person because they fear the costs of compliance as well as the costs of firing a disabled person if they don't work out for other reasons. Of course the employer will just make the decision not to hire the person and who can tell if they did it because the person was disabled. Research has shown that employment levels for the disabled dropped after the enactment of the law. While I think the employment section of the act is not really rational and doesnt really help the disabled, I would support the public accomodations and public transportation sections.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

@obamalover:

Is that the same CBO who said that the healthcare disaster bill would cut the deficit by $100 billion? Is that the same CBO that now admits that the healthcare disaster bill will increase the deficit by $700 billion?

Is that the CBO who said health insurance premiums would go down because of the healthcare disaster bill? Is that the same CBO that now says premiums are going up because of the healthcare disaster bill?

Is that the CBO that said employer costs are going down because of the healthcare disaster bill? Is that the same CBO that now says employer costs are going up by $500 billion because of the healthcare monstrosity bill?

2.8 million jobs. That's funny. That's why the unemployment numbers went up, right? Oh wait - according to Obama, the unemployment rate would be 134% by now if it wasn't for him.

Actually, according to Obama's recovery.org project (before he shut it down due to severe embarassment) giving a graveyard $500 toward a riding lawn mower created 50 jobs. According to that site, giving union members a pay raise created 26,000 jobs.

The trillion dollar stimulus bill was a complete waste of money. 69% of economists say so. The other 31% are democrats.

____________________

dpearl:

@Hoosier_gary

Your statements about CBO projections are in error. CBO still projects the overall effect of the recent health care legislation will be to slightly lower deficits. They also describe a number of factors that make that estimate highly variable. Some of those go in the direction of adding more to the deficit while others go in the direction of increased savings.

have a look at
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11544/Presentation5-26-10.pdf

for the CBO's point of view on this.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It may be the largest lead pollster has recorded, yet I have seen leads evaporate very quicky.

The Joe Sestak thing may have been handled poorly by Clinton and Obama, but I think they were the ones who screwed up, not Sestak. That is the line I'll stick to when I make calls for him. It was not a cool thing Clinton did, but there is nothing wrong with Sestak not to have taken it public. If it had been me and I was asked not to run in the primary, I would have said to Clinton, "Get lost". I would have simply proven I am better than that.

Now Captain Kirk in IL on the GOP side for senate has some explaining to do about certain medals he bragged about and never recieved. That may be one step worse than Blumenthal in CT saying he fought in Vietnam. He actually did fight for the effort in Vietnam, but was never in the country. It wasn't a complete lie.

____________________

obamalover:

@nick283
If an employer does not hire a disabled person for fear of compliance that would be discrimination. The Disabled person can take that person to court if he feels he wasn't hired because he was disabled.

And the fact that you conservatives are against legislation for disabled individuals shows how morally depraved ya'll are.

@hoosier gary

in addition to what dpearl said, you clearly are totally and utterly ignorant of how the unemployment rate works. If more people enter the job market who once stopped looking for jobs then that will raise the unemployment rate, which is what happened. The employment report last month said a NET of 200,000 jobs were created last month, but the unemployment rate went up. Why the disparity? Because the job market got better and people who gave up looking for jobs are now reentering the job market.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Farleftandproud---

They both lied, farleft. Take your hyper-partisan blinders off for half a second. Blumenthal claimed to have fought in Vietnam, even though he never left the States. Kirk claimed a unit citation award as his own personally. I think it is obvious that they both lied and whose lie was worse.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The CBO scoring on the health bill was a joke. The "best" projection shows a net reduction of $143 billion by 2019. However, using reasonable assumption, not lies inserted by the Dems to use as propaganda which, as usual, OL scooped up and is repeating without thinking (Can you say, jawohl Mr Goebbels?), you don't come anywhere near a reduction of the deficit.

As far as the CBO with the stimulus, its all models and estimates. There are no job count data. In fact, the numbers are based on the same models that they used prior to the passage of the stimulus. There is no physical count, just estimates based on spending.

From Reason Mag:
"In response to a question at a speech earlier this month, CBO director Doug Elmendorf laid out the CBO's methodology pretty clearly, describing the his office's frequent, legally-required stimulus reports as "repeating the same exercises we [aleady] did rather than an independent check on it." CBO tweaks its models on the input side, he says—adjusting, for example, how much money the government has spent. But the results the CBO reports—like the job creation figures—are simply a function of the inputs it records, not real-world counts.

Following up, the questioner asks for clarification: "If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then that would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, right?" Elmendorf's response? "That's right. That's right."

Earlier this month, I argued that jobs "created or saved" should be extended to jobs "created or saved or estimated or assumed."

http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/26/heckuva-job-creation-estimate

____________________

hoosier_gary:

@obamalover:

Your name says it all. With a name like that you can't call people ignorant.

More people entering the workforce is a lame excuse for Obama's monumental failures.

The CBO had to use the lies supplied to them by congress. You have to look at not just the phony score, you also have to look at the cost of the doc fix, the other external costs increases for medicare not included in the bill, and believe that congress is going to cut $500 billion from medicare. If you are stupid enough to ignore all of that and trust democrats to cut medicare spending then you truly are idiots.

Then again, you could just turn to the previous head of the CBO (who was not called into Obama's office before he suddenly cut the CBO cost projections in half like the present director). Two months ago he said this healthcare monstrosity would add $563 billion to the deficit. Since then, the CBO has officially increased its own cost estimate. This monstrosity is going to cost at least $800 billion more than Obama's lies about it and most likely at least a trillion more.

____________________

JMSTiger:

Gallup Generic Ballot Poll- July 1994

Republican- 49%
Democrat- 44%

Things are starting to look similar.

When November rolled around, Gallup had the generic number tied at 46% and the GOP still picked up 50+ house seats. If Gallup is showing the Republicans with a 3-5% lead in the generic ballot by late October of 2010, there will be a massive bloodbath for the Democrats at the polls.

____________________

seg:

On Ivy league schools:
A few years ago a retrospective study was completed that investigated the achievements of those accepted into Ivy league schools 14 years before. As it turns out, half of those accepted went to state-supported schools for one reason another. I suspect many of them had parents in an inconvenient income range (not rich enough to pay out of pocket and not poor enough to get a free ride).

Ten years after graduation there was absolutely no difference between the two groups in advanced degrees, salaries, marital status, number of children, holding public office. etc. The only exception was a very small advantage for black Ivy-leaguers whose parents were particularly poor (tokenism at work?).

The researchers' conclusion was that the individuals' characteristics determined their success, not where they went to school. Or, as one guidance counselor once told me, "Talent is where you find it." As my professor in graduate school put it, "Good students make good schools, not the reverse."

I say the same about political talent: it is not confined to graduates of elite schools. Obama makes a great mistake in mining such a narrow strata. I truly believe in the benefits of diversity, by which I mean being inclusive not only of different races and ethnicities, but of different political views, personality types, skill sets, etc.

The ironic mistake of many liberals is focusing excessively on "objective" credentials, which has become short-hand for liberals who attended elite schools and had experiences reserved only for the financially gifted or politically expendient. Upper class liberals start this jockeying when their children are in kindergarden.

I would rather have my children work at McDonalds than become a page in D.C. I come from a working class background and am concerned that my children have mixed only with other high-achieving children. I believe very strongly that it is important to understand that those with lower prospects are fully human and are not to be pitied or condescended to.

I will note that in my experience liberals frequently despise working class whites and condescend to them mercilessly. If Frank Rich or Obama cannot understand why these folks support Democrats much less than their economic situation would suggest, that is a large part of the reason. Contempt usually becomes mutual.

____________________

obamalover:

People at the CBO have Ph.D.s in economics. They are not idiots, and not even the most conservative Republican Senator would say that the CBO is biased.

But this is the common theme among conservatives. When scientists showed that global warming is real; conservatives attacked scientists. Now that the CBO (the gold standard of economic analysis in Washington) comes out with favorable data about the healthcare bill and stimulus; conservative nuts are bashing the CBO. This is called cognitive dissonance. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

@Obamalover:

Global warming is as real as the love between Al and Tipper Gore.

Where have you been? Scientists have admitted global warming was a big scam.

Denial might not be a river but da-president is a failure.

____________________

seg:

obamalover:
Are you not embarrassed to make cracks about "inbred hillbill[ies]"? How is that different from the "N"-word ?

I will admit to some sensitivity on this since I was literally (not figuratively) born in a shack in Appalachia with no running water or electricity. I have managed to do pretty well in life, especially after deciding not to marry my sister.

CBO: The folks at CBO are fine people who go to great pains to remind everyone that they have to score bills based ONLY on the assumptions given to them by Congress. Hence, they have no choice but to include perfectly ludicrous assumptions.

I am glad to see that you worship PhDs, also, but I will point out that real experts in any field are or should be acutely aware of how much they do not know. That should be especially true of economics since there is no real possibility of empirical studies to test assumptions. At any time someone's prediction will come true, but the laws of probability say that even random guesses will sometimes be correct. I am not aware of any economic model that has consistently predicted the economy for more than short periods (where success is due mostly to auto-correlation effects -- i.e., momentum).

As Taleb points out in The Black Swan, econometric models assume that the past will continue into the future with no unpleasand surprises (he calls it Mediocrastan). Their models, at best, are poor predictors even for the short term.

For the long term their models are ALWAYS disastrously wrong because of "Black Swans." The latter are unexpected or discounted game changers that knock the pieces off the board and change the rules of the game ("Extremistan").

Since Black Swan events actually occur every 10-20 years and no economic model even considers them, predictions by the CBO (and everyone else) of more than 10 years are humerous flights of fancy. Economists and politicians gradually forget the last Black Swan and get back to their old ways with indecent speed (see latest hilariously inapt financial "reform" and Fanny and Freddy lending practices).

I compare it to women who swear to never go through child birth again then start lobbying for the next one two years later, having somehow forgotten their previous pain and discomfort. Thus the human race continues. Thus economists are always dead wrong in the medium to long term.

In other words, no economist, PhD or not, can make accurate predictions about the future. The CBO, in particular, has a miserably bad record, somehow always underestimating costs by huge amounts, especially when the Speaker is a Democrat.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

If you bash CBO, then you can't use them when they suit your purposes.

Seg,
You have a big chip on your shoulder. There's elitism in education, get over it. The difference between the Ivys and state schools IS the quality of students. The better the school, the more competition. I was close to the top at my state school, but when I applied to graduate schools I had to compete against people from Ivys and it was difficult. As one professor told me "all our applicants have your excellent qualifications."

All presidents rely heavily on the top schools to staff their agencies. Republicans included. G.W. Bush tried to reach down occaisionally and look how well it worked out for him with people like Harriet Miers.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
There is elitism in everything. I have no problem with meritocracy. I do have a problem with credentiocracy.

You know, it wasn't so very long ago that Ivy League schools were bastions of white, conservative priviledge and good liberals railed against them. My how times change. Then again, liberals have always idolized the very rich (Soros, Buffet, Kennedy, Roosevelt -- as long as they mouth the right platitudes.

I am making the, to me, obvious point that merit is not confined to Ivy league schools. It is astounding to me that liberals today have to struggle to see that point.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

@Aaron:

You said, "If you bash CBO, then you can't use them when they suit your purposes."

You most certainly can. It's called politics.

Just like Obama was buddy-buddy two months ago and has received more money from BP than any politician in history. It suited his purpose to be in bed with BP then and now he claims they are his number one enemy.

____________________

nick283:

Obamalover - Do you ever look at how laws work in the real world or do you just assume that naturally everyone is going to be covered perfectly. An employer who has 4 roughly equal people applying for a job but knows that one of them is disabled will be able to not hire the disabled person and it would be rather hard for the disabled person to file suit and win.

Read Charles Abernathy's work on the subject of unintended consequences to those meant to be helped by laws whether civil rights or other. He was one of the most brilliant professor's I had in law school and also an expert in the field. The point is you have to look at the consequences of laws and how they play out in the real world. For instance, tough drug laws were originally designed to help limit drug use that was ravaging poor communities. Instead they ended up leading to a high incarceration rate and the problems that come with it. I'm sure it is easier for you to just paint with a broad brush than to actually look at the effects of the laws you are defending, but maybe instead of just looking at the intent of the law you should look at the results. Sorry for the essay, but I dont appreciate being called depraved for taking more than a superficial look at a complicated issue.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Not that this is related, but Jan Brewer really is pissing me off. I read this article just a little while ago.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) told the Arizona Republic that her signing of a tough immigration law has opened her up to what she says were "unanticipated personal attacks."

Said Brewer: "The Nazi comments... they are awful. Knowing that my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany, that I lost him when I was 11 because of that... and then to have them call me Hitler's daughter. It hurts. It's ugliness beyond anything I've ever experienced."

One problem: The Arizona Guardian reports Brewer's father worked during the war as a civilian supervisor of a naval munitions depot and died of lung disease in California in 1955.

Well if she truly hates what the Nazis did and trying to find "final solutions" to solve their problems, why does she have to go in that direction? I don't think she plans to kill anyone, however the tactics she is using are certainly not in line with a Democracy. Most countries who pass immigration laws do it from the federal government.

If she didn't want people to compare her to hate mongers, she didn't have to sign the bill into law.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I watch those World War 2 movies and the first thing the Nazi officers ask a family trying to get out of Austria or Hungary for a neutral country, they say in that sinister town "papers please". Than the Nazi officers whisper to each other and if they think the family looks Jewish, they start questioning them.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR