Over Half of Americans Say Obama Should Lose His Job

[BOOMSTICK]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/16/poll-more-than-half-say-obama-should-lose-in-2012/#ixzz1gidEG6Mm

WASHINGTON – President Obama's re-election prospects are essentially a 50-50 proposition as he enters 2012, with a majority saying the president deserves to be voted out of office despite concerns about the Republican alternatives, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.


Obama's overall poll numbers suggest he is in jeopardy of losing, even as the public's outlook on the economy appears to be improving, the AP-GfK poll found. For the first time since spring, more said the economy got better in the past month than said it got worse.

[Mister D]

This really will be the most important election of our lifetimes so far.

[Conley]

Without a doubt. Although to be fair I think that every time, since things seem to get progressively worse every four years with regard to how the country is run.

[MMC]

Like they said his approval ratings are down to 30% with Independants. We already know The Right is against him. This time he will not have all those Republicans voting for him. Like he did last time.

As far as the numbers on the economy improving.....it'a a crock of shit. They're fudging those numbers. Plus jobs overseas don't count IMO!

I don't think he will score 80-90% of black voters either.

[Mister D]

Without a doubt. Although to be fair I think that every time, since things seem to get progressively worse every four years with regard to how the country is run.

True. It really does seem that way.

[wingrider]

Like they said his approval ratings are down to 30% with Independants. We already know The Right is against him. This time he will not have all those Republicans voting for him. Like he did last time.

As far as the numbers on the economy improving.....it'a a crock of shit. They're fudging those numbers. Plus jobs overseas don't count IMO!

I don't think he will score 80-90% of black voters either.

agreed .. I think it will be ABBO and we will try and recoup the losses of the last 4 years

[jgreer]

Well we know what people think about congress and thats where Newt is coming from

congress has an even lower approval rating that prez

[Conley]

Newt hasn't been in Congress for a long, long time. Back when he was there people had a much higher opinion of the legislature. :yo2:

[Mister D]

Yeah, Newt's been gone since the mid 1990s, right?

[Conley]

I think so, I think he left around the same time or before Clinton.

[Mister D]

I think so, I think he left around the same time or before Clinton.

So let's say 1998. That's 13 years. Long time.

[Conley]

He quit in 99...I had forgotten the details. Not good:

"Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 elections—the worst midterm performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton) was deeply unpopular among voters.[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#cite_note-74) Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing a rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 5, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. Gingrich made this announcement only a day after being elected to an 11th term from his district. Commenting on his departure, Gingrich said, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is."[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#cite_note-75)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Resignation

[Mister D]

Well, we know the American voter has a short term memory. He has that going for him.

[jgreer]

Mitt will remind everyone of how Newt was a coward. He did a Palin, like her he is no leader

[Mister D]

Coward?

[jgreer]

He couldnt take the heat

[Mister D]

He couldnt take the heat

Ah, it's just your spin. Understood.

[jgreer]

WTH man. Read what conley wrote, he quit because of cannibals LOL

[Mister D]

WTH man. Read what conley wrote, he quit because of cannibals LOL

That's Wikipedia article.

Anyway, "coward" is your spin.

[wingrider]

WTH man. Read what conley wrote, he quit because of cannibals LOL


hmmmmm cannibals.... sounds like an apt description of radical leftwing headhunters.. newt did the right thing .. why give the left anymore ammo than they had..they were so pissed off at him for going after clinton for perjury, they would have crucified him if they could have found the hammer and nails.

[GRUMPY]

when was the last time that congress accomplished anything that conservatives could possibly hang their hat on......

[Mister D]

Good point. Welfare reform while Newt was Speaker is the last thing I remember.

[GRUMPY]

this will be his argument....look i am a big thinker and sometimes i think out loud, that said my track record is one of relevant accomplishment....i guess i would really like to see a newt/obama debate....regardless any and all are better than what we have, the only exception actually being paul....i say this despite his being in my opinion exactly what we need to down size this super sized govt, his world view is very dangerous, his attempts to draw analogy between the cold war and iran/terrorist proxies almost suicidal, and willingness to abandon israel morally repugnant.....i believe that we, this nation has a place on the world stage beyond being everybody's trading partner as paul would advocate....we should, we must stand in support of liberty, free peoples and representative govt whenever,where ever we can in concert with our national security interests.....

[Conley]

Key being in line with our national security interests. For much of the world democracy does not align with our interests, unfortunately. In the civilized world I'm all for it.

[Mister D]

I would love to see a Newt/BO debate. Agreed on Paul. I've never cared for libertarian politics precisely because once they start talking about something other than fiscal policy they sound insane. That said, I do think Paul is correct to criticize the neoconservative approach to advancing US ideology.

[Mister D]

Come to think of it I've always had my most heated arguments with libertarians.

[Conley]

I would love to see a Newt/BO debate. Agreed on Paul. I've never cared for libertarian politics precisely because once they start talking about something other than fiscal policy they sound insane. That said, I do think Paul is correct to criticize the neoconservative approach to advancing US ideology.

:rofl: That's kind of true :undecided:

[GRUMPY]

Key being in line with our national security interests. For much of the world democracy does not align with our interests, unfortunately. In the civilized world I'm all for it.

i believe that you never commit american armed forces in a combat theatre absent a clear and present national security imperative this demanding the consideration and approval of congress.....and in the event of an apparent threat demanding immediate attention the president must appear before congress within 24hrs, make his case for military action and congress must approve and subsequently hold him/her to the war powers resolution.....this i believe would be in line with the thoughts of the founding fathers on this issue.....today we are acting on a blanket authority granted post 9-11....given this president's unconstitutional war in libya it is time for congress to recind this broad/vague authorization.....exercising pre-emptive strikes on terror cells/encampments is one thing, waging war on a sovereign nation that presented no threat whatsoever is quite another....further, the actions of this president with regard to iran constitute an act of war, as did our supplying cartels with guns.....