A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"

Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."

An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey.  At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure."

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/

Survey detail in this link:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/05/rel11e.pdf

What's surprising?

All it shows is that, on average, there are more people who aren't prepared to give Obama time than there were Bush - given the coverage from the right-wingers over there, that's not a surprise at all.

Unfortunately the PDF didn't break down those percentages into Republican/Democrat - but you can pretty much guarantee that the overwhelming majority of that 37% who say Obama's first six months are Republicans, and that most of 'em would be saying he's a failure even if he'd turned the economy around and routed the Taliban bare-handed by himself.

I wouldn't consider the first 6 months of Obama to be a failure, but then again, I wouldn't consider the opinion of the masses to be of much worth anyway.

Most people are ignorant of the political process, economic theory, and foreign policy.

If you want to see the failure of democracy firsthand, look at the pathetic state the California budget is in.

When policy is left up to the people, it usually collapses horribly.  Similarly, most people aren't intelligent enough to understand the complexities of economic cycles and such, so their criticism of Obama is about as empty as it was for Bush on many topics.

Unfortunately the PDF didn't break down those percentages into Republican/Democrat - but you can pretty much guarantee that the overwhelming majority of that 37% who say Obama's first six months are Republicans, and that most of 'em would be saying he's a failure even if he'd turned the economy around and routed the Taliban bare-handed by himself.


And likely the same thing could have been said on the Bush survey of the Dems.

I wouldn't bother with a CNN poll.  Success versus failure depends on what you were expecting in the first place. 

I'd say I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
:(

I'd say I'd be part of the 11%.

But I don't see Obama winning in 2012 though.

We heard about this in Canada, and the reporter (CDN) who did the story was shocked at the results as (it seems to us here in CDA) that we've only heard good things about him and that he's doing a great job and "several" steps up from the previous administration
Guess I should watch American news more often. (as long as it's not Fox news)

I'm just curious. . .why did you feel the need to say "African Americans are overrepresented in the poll" ? ? ?

I must have missed something, because I didn't see that.  Something tells me you would be part of the 37% if you believe that. . .



Also, just my opinion, does the general public still use the term African Americans?  I only ask because one of my friends, Iesha (I don't know how to spell it) said that she hates being called an African American, she wasn't born in Africa.  She prefers black when necessary.  I thought about it and she has a point.  I am not a "German American", my family tree doesn't go back to Germany for four generations. . .it's an interesting question, is it appropriate to still say "African Americans" when we are all just Caucasian.  The only people I hear say "Irish American" and such are people who moved here from those countries/continents. . .

Just to note I'm not trying to invoke anything here, but simply questioning that part of your statement and the second part is a mere discussion piece to see if me and Iesha are the only ones that think that way.

I'm just curious. . .why did you feel the need to say "African Americans are overrepresented in the poll" ? ? ?

I must have missed something, because I didn't see that.  Something tells me you would be part of the 37% if you believe that. . .



Also, just my opinion, does the general public still use the term African Americans?  I only ask because one of my friends, Iesha (I don't know how to spell it) said that she hates being called an African American, she wasn't born in Africa.  She prefers black when necessary.  I thought about it and she has a point.  I am not a "German American", my family tree doesn't go back to Germany for four generations. . .it's an interesting question, is it appropriate to still say "African Americans" when we are all just Caucasian.  The only people I hear say "Irish American" and such are people who moved here from those countries/continents. . .

Just to note I'm not trying to invoke anything here, but simply questioning that part of your statement and the second part is a mere discussion piece to see if me and Iesha are the only ones that think that way.


Well, the funny thing is, I knew a guy who was a native Nigerian studying at the university here.  "African American" made him confused because he was a citizen of Nigeria born there, so he was Nigerian, or African-African....

It's a touchy subject. 
:(

The only people I hear say "Irish American" and such are people who moved here from those countries/continents. . .



So not true.  How many people in the all the Saint Patricks Day parades around the country have ever been to "the old sod".

There isn't anyone who raises the question down at the "Irish American", over at the "Italian American".  They are clubs you will find at most cities of more than maybe 50,000.  Most of the people who belong have never even been to Ireland or italy, there parents haven't been to Ireland or Italy, even there grandparents.  For some reason nary an eyebrow is raised when they identify themselves as Irish or Italian(leaving out the American part until it is useful in a patriotic sense).

I always (also) wonder about those "Kiss Me I'm Irish" bumper stickers.  I would say 99.9% of the people who put them on their cars have never been to Ireland, and have never been kissed(hence the need for a bumper sticker), and 99.9999% of the "Italian Stallions" have never been on a horse(or share any similarity to any part thereof)

I'm just curious. . .why did you feel the need to say "African Americans are overrepresented in the poll" ? ? ?

I must have missed something, because I didn't see that.  Something tells me you would be part of the 37% if you believe that. . .


Dave, that was cut-and-pasted from the leadin to the priginal article, as well as the CNN document.  I literally cut/pasted the entire article of the below link for my post.

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/

So not true.  How many people in the all the Saint Patricks Day parades around the country have ever been to "the old sod".

There isn't anyone who raises the question down at the "Irish American", over at the "Italian American".  They are clubs you will find at most cities of more than maybe 50,000.   Most of the people who belong have never even been to Ireland or italy, there parents haven't been to Ireland or Italy, even there grandparents.  For some reason nary an eyebrow is raised when they identify themselves as Irish or Italian(leaving out the American part until it is useful in a patriotic sense).


Well, Danoota, if you hear, say, the description of a suspect in a crime, you will usually hear "African American", "hispanic" or "white".  They usually don't say "Hey this Irish American dude was seen holding up a liquor store".  They say "white guy" or "caucasian".

When I fill out official forms, the box I fill out says "white" or "caucasian" (although if there is a Native American box, I check it off since I was born here).  When an official form has an option for black people, it very often says "African American".

About 12% of the USA population is Irish American (roughly the same as African American) and yet you do not hear the term "Irish American" a tenth as much as you do "African American".  (Unless you are at a Notre Dame football game or it is St Paddy's Day).

The whole "African American" thing is a continued exercise in people trying to politicize speech.  It gets to its height of ridiculousness when an American politician does a tour of Africa, an the TV commentator talks about the visits with "all the African American officials that were met there".  ::)

Teresa Heinz was ridiculed for referring to herself as an African-American, despite the fact that she was born in Mozambique .  And I suppose that Egyptian-American and Libyan-American are similarly mocked for referring to themselves as African-Americans.

Terminology for the races has been subject to politicization for years.  When I was a child growing up, there was a very nice lady who took care of us and was a part of our extended family for 25 years until she passed away.  I can remember, maybe I was 7 or 8, she mentioned something about some other "colored folk".  We asked her "what do you prefer?".  She said that n-word was offensive, black seemed too harsh, negro was OK, but to her "colored" was the respectful term.  And so it was.  Didn't really matter to us kids, although we knew if we had called her the N-word our parents woulda whipped us something awful.  So when it was relevant or appropriate, we referred to her as "colored" as a term of respect.  :)

Yet today, if one were to use the word "colored" it would be considered by some as the next worst thing to the n-word.

By the way, most of the people you see at those St Paddy's Day parades are not even of Irish descent, let alone ever visited The Emerald Isle.  ;D

Why not just call them PEOPLE??!!




Cat

Why not just call them PEOPLE??!!




Cat


cause people like to self-segregate. In my town the blacks hung together, the Italians hung together, the hunkys hung together, the Serbs hung together, and so on.  Their families taught them to do this.

My family had enuf mix in terms of religion, labor status, and ethnicity of friends that I never saw the need to self segregate. But in my town that put me in the minority.

The whole "ethnic pride" thing never appealed to me. Why should I be proud of what my ancestors did? I did not know them, I did not participate in their conquests. "identifying" based on ancestors birthplace is the lazy way out I think

People is people I think.

Getting back to the topic at hand IS Obama's first 6 months failure in some ways it is and some way it isn;t:

His foreign policy and the way he has handled the economy has been positive I think for the most part.

The stimulus bill, the handling of the US deficet, dealing with the US automotive industry, health care(so far), and the Henry Louis Gates thing have been negatives for Obama.

I give Obama a C- grade for the job he has done so far. I like Obama but he has gotten too overexposed he needs to be less on TV.

Why not just call them PEOPLE??!!




Cat


I agree, I'm a mutt, I have a little bit of (almost) every culture.

God made us who we are, but it's Satan who want to fudge us up!

We're not living in Cormac McCarthy's The Road.  So the first six months have been pretty good.

The Paulson/Bernanke/Geithner gambit appears to have worked, and even if it doesn't work out in the long term, it delayed the inevitable by at least a year or two.

God made us who we are, but it's Satan who want to fudge us up!

At the risk of derailing this thread completely... ain't it a massive cop-out to an all-powerful can-do-anything-he-likes God gets all the credit for creating us, then blaming Satan for the things that go wrong?  If God is the omnipotent beastie you think he is, he takes all the blame for anything nasty Satan does, too: after all, he could stop it at any time, if he wanted to.

At the risk of derailing this thread completely... ain't it a massive cop-out to an all-powerful can-do-anything-he-likes God gets all the credit for creating us, then blaming Satan for the things that go wrong?  If God is the omnipotent beastie you think he is, he takes all the blame for anything nasty Satan does, too: after all, he could stop it at any time, if he wanted to.


I hate to get theological, but read the book of Job.  Theologians and philosophers have struggled with "the problem of evil" (loosely:  "sh*bleep*t happens.  Why?") since the invention of writing.  The story behind the book of Job predates the Bible itself; even the people piecing together the books that would ultimately make up the Bible (or the Torah) never claimed they were ordered chronologically.

To skip forward a bit, the book of Job it's the story of God making a cosmic bar bet with Satan, over how much crap (everything from wiping out his money, killing his family, and making him pick his scabs while sitting on a pile of p00p while his friends say "Dude, you musta really pissed God off, or He wouldn't have hit the SMITE button you so hard!") one poor Chuck named "Job" can take before he finally freaks out and flips God the proverbial bird.  Job asks God, and gets a theological smackdown, the long-and-short of which is "I made you, I can break you."  "Yeah, you got a point, God."  "Glad you see it My way.  It's all good.  Sorry your friends were even douchier about it than I was.  Here's a few bucks (and oxen, and wiven) to make up for what a Douchebag I had to let Myself be to win the Bet.  You know Me, I had to win it straight up, I could't Welsh on a Bet... anyways, are we cool, Job?"  "Yeah, we cool, God."  "Sweet.")

The King James Version of Job 38, commonly known as "Then the Lord answered Job out of the Whirlwind" is some of the most eloquent English poetry ever penned.  Shoot, it ain't even half-bad translated to LOLCAT. 

But read the whole book. 

Our segue into theology complete, we now returne you to the braying of barnyard animals. :)

I hate to get theological, but read the book of Job.
Have done on occasion... however, ISTM that the story of Job contradicts the "God's the cause of everything good/all the bad stuff is Satan" Christian view that I was commenting on... the OT God is just as likely to be the sort bastrich (a word guaranteed to get past board censorship: a cross between a bastard and a sonofabitch) to "His" people as Satan.. probably even more likely, as God knows he's not going to get into trouble for it.

Have done on occasion... however, ISTM that the story of Job contradicts the "God's the cause of everything good/all the bad stuff is Satan" Christian view that I was commenting on... the OT God is just as likely to be the sort bastrich (a word guaranteed to get past board censorship: a cross between a bastard and a sonofabitch) to "His" people as Satan.. probably even more likely, as God knows he's not going to get into trouble for it.



Exactly.  My argument is that the doctrine you cite isn't a Christian doctrine.  It's something a bunch of religious types dreamed up because they could make a buck using it to sell BS to suckers. Ponder, for a moment, the douchebag Joel Osteen and the prosperity gospel he preaches?  Nothin' in any Bible I ever read about that.  Shoot, I don't even think he bothers to have one on the stage when he does his act. 

In my Bible, there's a bit when the disciples asked Jesus how they should pray, we got the Lord's Prayer.  "Give us this day our daily bread" is a far cry from "Give us this day a Rolex, a Bentley, a 4000-square-foot house, two chicks at once, and a pony."

http://russellsteapot.com/images/comics/2007/Image043.jpg

(Click to embiggen and laugh.)

If I'm gonna worship a God, let it be the God of Job - the one who reaches down to you from heaven above to say "Dude, sh*t happens.  My universe, My rules.  Don't like it?  Build your own Universe.  Otherwise, just deal with it." - over Joel's prayer-operated celestial slot machine any day.

Getting back to the topic at hand IS Obama's first 6 months failure in some ways it is and some way it isn;t:

His foreign policy and the way he has handled the economy has been positive I think for the most part.

The stimulus bill, the handling of the US deficet, dealing with the US automotive industry, health care(so far), and the Henry Louis Gates thing have been negatives for Obama.

I give Obama a C- grade for the job he has done so far. I like Obama but he has gotten too overexposed he needs to be less on TV.


I would rate it about the same, maybe a D.  And in many ways, I think what he has had to face is a huge dose of reality.

When he came into office, it seems like he was coasting on his popularity, and the idea that he could throw money at a problem and it would go away.  He is now faceing several things, including the fact that a lot of people will blame the President, no matter if it his responsibility or not.

He is also getting heat because he quickly discovered that there were things he talked about doing, that he very quickly realized he could not do.  One of his planned cuts was Air Defense.  Patriot, THAAD, Multi-Phase Rockets, and all the other ABM systems.  During the campaign he frequently talked about cutting them all.  But once he got into office and was given a true rundown of US defense commitments and requirements, that quickly changed to the current "leave them alone, increase spending next year" direction.

But probably his biggest PR hit is the economy.  It seems like he thought he could spend his way out of a global recession, and that obviously has not happened.  Unemployment has continued to rise, the deficit has increased drastically, and some are uncomfortable with his handling of several issues.

Exactly.  My argument is that the doctrine you cite isn't a Christian doctrine.  It's something a bunch of religious types dreamed up because they could make a buck using it to sell BS to suckers. Ponder, for a moment, the douchebag Joel Osteen and the prosperity gospel he preaches?  Nothin' in any Bible I ever read about that.  Shoot, I don't even think he bothers to have one on the stage when he does his act. 

In my Bible, there's a bit when the disciples asked Jesus how they should pray, we got the Lord's Prayer.  "Give us this day our daily bread" is a far cry from "Give us this day a Rolex, a Bentley, a 4000-square-foot house, two chicks at once, and a pony."


Two chicks and a pony?
???



If I'm gonna worship a God, let it be the God of Job - the one who reaches down to you from heaven above to say "Dude, sh*t happens.  My universe, My rules.  Don't like it?  Build your own Universe.  Otherwise, just deal with it." - over Joel's prayer-operated celestial slot machine any day.

Exactly.  My argument is that the doctrine you cite isn't a Christian doctrine.  It's something a bunch of religious types dreamed up because they could make a buck using it to sell BS to suckers. Ponder, for a moment, the douchebag Joel Osteen and the prosperity gospel he preaches?  Nothin' in any Bible I ever read about that.  Shoot, I don't even think he bothers to have one on the stage when he does his act. 

In my Bible, there's a bit when the disciples asked Jesus how they should pray, we got the Lord's Prayer.  "Give us this day our daily bread" is a far cry from "Give us this day a Rolex, a Bentley, a 4000-square-foot house, two chicks at once, and a pony."
:)

..and :D + as much karma as I can give for the day for that cartoon
;D

In my Bible, there's a bit when the disciples asked Jesus how they should pray, we got the Lord's Prayer.  "Give us this day our daily bread" is a far cry from "Give us this day a Rolex, a Bentley, a 4000-square-foot house, two chicks at once, and a pony."


THanks for the laugh.  Although I have to admit, I chuckle inside every time I hear the "Lord's Prayer" recited.

And many people do not realize that the intent of Jesus giving the "Lord's Prayer" was part of his battle with the Pharisees and Sadducees.  Essentially, he was answering the question "what is more important, following tradition or rite, or following your heart?"

He gave what we know as "The Lord's Prayer" as a template, tellin people that they should pray from the heart, in the style that he then gave an example of.  And in Mark it is quoted "After this manner therefore pray ye".  (KJV)

So instead of giving people a blueprint of a way to pray directly from the heart to God, 2 thousand years of doctrine have instead invented just another rote prayer.  Spoken over and over again, with people rarely even thinking about the words they speak.

And just as our wonderful host has written about, the Lord's Prayer is commonly the source of Mondegreens.  Many times I have read about children who think that God's name is Harold.  And Monty Python did a lovely skit about that in The Life Of Brian.

Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers".
Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers?
Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Jumping on the wagon to speak up after 200+ days in office..I didn't vote for him and said would give him a chance with 'CHANGE'..

Well..last time I looked, the deficit has TRIPLED!!!! Oh, that's right, he 'inherited' it from the past administration...
(Seems to be his Mantra for it, and I am not looking the other way as many have made him into something akin to the 2nd coming!)

Medical/health plan...the 'PEOPLE' speak and he gives them an 'I KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU!'
Bush tried that once for one of his causes and the people said 'no' and he never got to signing.

Also realizing people weren't angry Bush ordered 'THE WAR', they were angry because BUSH ordered 'the war'.

With that said and out of my mind, I won't continue with Obama critiques..it'll play out and hopefully others will wake up to the ways to follow.     

Jesus was a liberal, to the far left.

As I see it, the reason Obama is in trouble is that he has failed to come to grips with "the party of NO".  He has tried to be non-partisan and include the Repugs in the legislative process but they have used their seat at the table to obstruct and delay every initiative in congress to give their leaders (Rush, Sean, Bilbo et al) time to stir up fears and paranoia among the ditto heads.  It is high time he told the Repugs that they are the minority party in both houses of congress, and that if they can't, or wont cooperate, they will be steamrolled.  NO MORE MR NICE GUY.   

Jesus was a liberal, to the far left.


Think again.  In some aspects Jesus was quite "liberal" as you say, particularly from an economic viewpoint.

But I doubt that you would see Him espousing things like abortion for all, no-fault divorce, sex out of wedlock and whatnot as simple "lifestyle choices".  I imagine (and of course that is all one can do) that he would preach love for people who do these things, but He would be adamant in saying, unequivocally, that they are fundamentally wrong.

It's part of what frustrates politicians about the Catholic Church, which generally speaking is economically liberal and morally conservative.

(Rush, Sean, Bilbo et al)
Bilbo?

...you just can't trust those hobbits, can you?

It's part of what frustrates politicians about the Catholic Church, which generally speaking is economically liberal and morally conservative.




I am not quite sure about that economically liberal part.

I am not quite sure about that economically liberal part.


Well, the Catholics don't think it's Christian to say "tough sh*t" to the homeless and hungry.  Maybe that has something to do with the "economically liberal" bit!

::)

Well, the Catholics don't think it's Christian to say "tough sh*t" to the homeless and hungry.  Maybe that has something to do with the "economically liberal" bit!

::)



The compassion and charity espoused by the church is a whole other thread  ::)

I am not quite sure about that economically liberal part.


It's a mixed bag.  The "Liberation Theology" branch of the church (which is still around but not as influential as it once was) is quite liberal - one could say radical, as exemplified by Dom Camilo Helder, the Brazilian bishop - "When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint.  When I asked why the poor had no food they called me a communist".  The dominant wing now is more conservative in all ways.

It's a mixed bag.  The "Liberation Theology" branch of the church (which is still around but not as influential as it once was) is quite liberal - one could say radical, as exemplified by Dom Camilo Helder, the Brazilian bishop - "When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint.  When I asked why the poor had no food they called me a communist".  The dominant wing now is more conservative in all ways.


That's one of my favorite quotes. 

The Vatican condemned Liberation Theology.  It is divine to give aide to the poor, but diabolical to use church doctrine to defy the slavemasters.

::)

That's one of my favorite quotes. 




Mine, too. In fact, I used to use that in my avatar.



Cat

That's one of my favorite quotes. 

The Vatican condemned Liberation Theology.  It is divine to give aide to the poor, but diabolical to use church doctrine to defy the slavemasters.

::)


I don't recall condemnation of the theology.  What I do recall was sanctions for some priests who went into politics, like Cardenale (?) in Nicaragua.  I could be wrong.