Thursday, January 07, 2010

Carter vs. Obama in December of First Year

In December of their first year in office, according to Gallup:

Approve:
Carter: 57%
Obama: 49%

Disapprove:
Carter: 27%
Obama: 46%

Approve - Disapprove Spread:
Carter: +30%
Obama: +3%

25 Comments:

At 1/07/2010 9:29 PM, Blogger brodero said...

Reagan was under 50% from December
1981 to November 1983. Reagan posted an approval rating of 35%
in January 1983.

 
At 1/07/2010 9:40 PM, Anonymous Badger said...

The difference is that Reagan sacrificed political capital for the common good. Obama sacrificed the common good for political gain, and lost political capital anyway.

 
At 1/07/2010 9:43 PM, Anonymous morganovich said...

the rassmussen polls show him with much lower approval.

i know it's currently vogue to bash rasmussen for this and call their methodology biased, but keep in mind - they were the most accurate pollster in the past presidential election...

 
At 1/07/2010 9:51 PM, Anonymous Benny "Tell It LIke It Is Man" Cole said...

This would make a great post.

We have an anti-energy program, accomplishing nothing--it is called ethanol.

Rice University Study and Policy Paper Find US Biofuels Policies Flawed, Recommend Fundamental Overhaul
6 January 2010
The United States needs to fundamentally rethink its policy of promoting ethanol to diversify its energy sources and increase energy security, according to a new research paper and accompanying policy paper by Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The papers question the economic, environmental and logistical basis for the billions of dollars in federal subsidies and protectionist tariffs that go to domestic ethanol producers every year. They also question whether mandated volumes for biofuels—including advanced biofuels—can be met and whether biofuels are improving the environment or energy security.

My guess is that federally supported and subsidized ethanol program-boondoggle, will not become a right-wing whipping boy, the topic of constant derision. There are even protectionist tariffs, a fave of Dr. Perry.

Why not?

The so-called "right-wing" in the USA is just a front for snufflers at the public trough, same as the left-wing.



The R-Party drinks ethanol.

 
At 1/07/2010 10:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What would happen if, in the 2012 presidential election, we had Barrack Obama vs. Sarah Palin? That would be a hoot: a spineless coward who is all bark, and no bite, against a trailer trash broad who has quit at everything she's ever done. It would prove to be a dark comedy, especially from an outside perspective, but from the inside track, it will unfortunately represent the tragic and sad state of politics we live in.

They say every democracy gets the government it deserves. The Americans had a change to elect a good man in the name of Ron Paul; they didn't, and as such, they deserve such folly.

Ike was truly a prophet when he warned about the "military-industrial complex."

 
At 1/07/2010 10:31 PM, Blogger OA said...

USA Today has a graph where you can compare the Presidents from day 1. At one point it disappeared but seems to be back again.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

Pick the "Comparison" view.

 
At 1/07/2010 10:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This awful showing by Obama reminds me of Clark and Lois Lane on their wedding night. Upon rolling over, Lois exclaimed: "Gee Clark, I knew you were faster than a speeding bullet -- but I didn't know that you were that fast!"

In a similar speedy manner, Barack Hussein Obama has done shot his wad with the American public. People are weary of not only hearing his empty words but watching a face that is becoming more unbelieveable......

 
At 1/08/2010 12:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My guess is that federally supported and subsidized ethanol program-boondoggle, will not become a right-wing whipping boy, the topic of constant derision.

The right-wing has been against farm subsidies for a very long time. They were some of the loudest critics of the Bush farm bill. And even Bush tried to phase out agriculttral subsidies all together:

Gleneagles, Scotland -- President Bush said he wants to work with the European Union (EU) to end agricultural export subsidies for U.S. and EU farmers by 2010, a move that would help farmers in developing countries better compete in the global market.

Addressing the press July 7 with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush said, “I think it’s very important for the world to hear very clearly the position of the United States and that is we want to work with the EU to rid our respective countries of agricultural subsides.

America.gov

But you can't blame the right-wing for ethanol subsidies. No, Benny, that was your party:

As the international disaster of ethanol begins taking its toll on the planet -- and, maybe more important, as press outlet after press outlet finally begins recognizing it -- will the media remember that Vice President Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate requiring this oxygenate be added to gasoline?

News Busters

Democrats have always been big on subsidies for agribusiness:

Washington - — As Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton toured the land denouncing special interests, giveaways to the rich, home foreclosures, job losses and a middle-class squeeze, back in Washington House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats met behind closed doors on a plan to raise taxes and cut food stamp money to protect billions of dollars for agribusiness, a sector of the economy that is booming.

The negotiators agreed Tuesday to find $10 billion in extra money in a last-ditch effort to save the farm bill, once seen as an opportunity to reform commodity programs and divert scarce funds to conservation, nutrition, organic research and California fruit and vegetable growers who are locked out of the Depression-era programs. The money is needed to appease these interests while still maintaining the commodity subsidies. Yet in proposals so far, those areas get trimmed to keep the subsidies flowing.

SF Gate

And your hero, Obama, is no exception:

Since entering the Senate in 2005, Obama has been a staunch supporter of ethanol -- he justified his vote for for the Bush Administration's 2005 energy bill, which was favorable to the oil industry, on the grounds that it also contained subsidies for ethanol and other forms of alternative energy, and he has sought earmarks for research projects on ethanol and other biofuels in his home state of Illinois, the second-highest corn-producing state after Iowa. Obama's support for ethanol is shared by many farm state senators (even Hillary Clinton came around after an ethanol industry took root in upstate New York) but it contrasts sharply with John McCain, who has for years been so critical of the subsidies that he decided not to compete in the 2000 Iowa caucuses.

Washington Post

 
At 1/08/2010 1:29 AM, Anonymous Lyle said...

To anonymous at 12:57 Obama was representing his state which was his job. Ill is a major corn state and ethanol creates demand for corn, getting him support in downstate Ill. To oppose ethanol from Ill would be like a MI senator favoring Toyota over GM or a WA senator favoring Airbus over Boeing. AZ does not grow much corn so that there was no downside to McCain opposing ethanol, look where his opposition to ethanol got him in 2000. You can be correct or you can be elected it has always been that way and always will be. Read about how the site for Washington DC was selected, the North wanted somewhere in PA. Hamilton and Madison did a deal behind closed doors at Jeffersons house where Madison agreed to support federal assumptions of state debts in exchange for Hamilton supporting a capitol on the Potomac. So Logrolling is goes back to the second session of congress, and is part of any representative democracy. They have washed all reality out of high school civics because politics is so much like making sausage, you don't want to see what goes into it.

 
At 1/08/2010 3:09 AM, Blogger W.E. Heasley said...

Entering 2010, the 6th year of the Carter Administration and the unfinished years of the Nixon Administration: Barack Millhouse O’Carternomics.

 
At 1/08/2010 3:37 AM, Blogger Chuck said...

Possibly the only thing worse than politicians are the pollsters who advise the politicians. It's the race of imbeciles trying to find a finish line. Don't worry about Obama getting re elected. I forecast he will retire with a nice government benefit package in 2012 and be replaced by the trailer trash broad sister Sarah. She will be elected on the basis of Stimulus package 12 or 13 ? This will provide a bridge/tunnel tollway from Alaska to Russia. The future revenues will be sold to the Chinese under a "Free Trade Agreement" worth trillions of dollars to offset the balance of payments deficit to China. The revenues will be used to create an expanded State Park System in Alaska surrounding the new oil drilling and pipeline projects. Rest areas and feeding stations will be provided for the wildlife to get a buy in from the Conservationists. However the money will all be spent by the new Republican Congress before the projected project completion in 2025.

 
At 1/08/2010 5:01 AM, Blogger brodero said...

If the unemployment rate is 7.5%
on October 2012...who will be President in Jabuary 2013???

 
At 1/08/2010 5:12 AM, Anonymous John Carmack said...

Any day now Jimmy Carter is going to fall permanently off his high horse. Carter recently turned 85 so it won’t be long before flags fly at half-mast and the nation eulogizes Carter.

 
At 1/08/2010 8:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you read the complete article to the end, you will see that Gallup actually compares Obama's approval to Reagan's under similar economic circumstances.

Strange you would choose Carter given what the article says.

 
At 1/08/2010 10:05 AM, Anonymous morganovich said...

the funniest part of the slide in obama's approval is this:

he continues to think it's because he hasn't explained his ideas well enough - that the public just doesn't understand, when, in fact, it's is precisely that they ARE understanding and hate what they see. every time he goes into detail on his ideas, his popularity drops further.

 
At 1/08/2010 10:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous at 12:57 Obama was representing his state which was his job. Ill is a major corn state ...

The article I linked to points out that Illinois is the second largest corn producing state. I was simply pointing out to Benny, who constantly brings this up, that his party - the Democrats - strongly supports subsidies for argibusiness. It's not the "rigt-wing".

 
At 1/08/2010 11:39 AM, Anonymous Benny "Tell It LIke It Is Man" Cole said...

Actually, I support Ron Paul.

I am only warning right-wingers if you think you will ever get a balanced federal budget from the R-Party, you are dreaming.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Nalal theorists inside the U.S. Navy (Paul Cohen, for one) have known for five decades that surface ships are sitting ducks. "USS Sunkfast" or USS "Bottomdweller," or "USS Davy Jones Locker" --these are the derisive appelations put upon surface ships by some.

Subs are much better, and we could keep shipping lanes open (not that anyone even wants to close them) with subs.

But, we will bever get rid of surface ships, or federal ag. supports.

If you like what the feds did to our ag and defense sectors, then you will love what the feds do to out health care sector.

 
At 1/08/2010 12:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

... if you think you will ever get a balanced federal budget from the R-Party, you are dreaming.

The Republicans, under Newt Gingrich, balanced the budget after they took control of Congress in 1995. Read the Constitution, all spending bills must originate in the House. Clinton was just a bystander, too busy playing with interns and groping middle aged women to know what was going on.

 
At 1/08/2010 3:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I support Ron Paul...We have met the enemy and he is us.

Benny,

We know exactly who you support.

 
At 1/08/2010 10:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

> The Republicans, under Newt Gingrich, balanced the budget after they took control of Congress in 1995.

From Wikipedia:

Tom DeLay recounts the event in his book, No Retreat, No Surrender, saying that Gingrich "made the mistake of his life." He goes on to say the following of Gingrich's handling of the shutdown:

"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child..The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."


The guy is a genius. Please run him in the next election.

 
At 1/09/2010 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wikipedia?

Whose the author, you.

I'd love to see Newt tear apart the moron whose running the show now.

 
At 1/09/2010 12:54 PM, Blogger Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

To be fair, the two major parties have gone back and forth on farm subsidies. Both generally favor subsidies, but differ as to the amount and type.

The goal, of course, is to win the support of agri-funding for campaigns -- at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.

The ironic part is to look at the votes for farm subsidies from URBAN Congresscritters of both parties -- votes that are clearly harmful to the underinformed voters in their own districts.

 
At 1/09/2010 9:49 PM, Blogger bobble said...

there's s simple explanation for the low obama polls: with the exception of health care reform, the details/benefits/costs of which are totally incomprehensible, obama's policies are pretty much the same as george w bush.

 
At 1/09/2010 10:57 PM, Blogger bobble said...

anon 1240:"The Republicans, under Newt Gingrich, balanced the budget after they took control of Congress in 1995. Read the Constitution, all spending bills must originate in the House."

apparently any republican tendencies to fiscal restraint are limited to when a democrat is president see heritage foundation chart years 2001-2006

 
At 1/09/2010 10:58 PM, Blogger Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

Yeah, in many ways, Obama IS like Bush -- Bush on steroids.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home