How many of YOU who have voted for President Obama are happy with his

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 11 years ago

   
   presidency thus far?  Do you believe that President Obama is doing a good job as president?  If not, who do YOU wished you have voted for instead of President Obama? Why?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I believed then that he was the lesser of two evils. I still believe it now.
      
      I have two real driving issues that I am passionate about (gay rights and abortion rights). I could not in clear conscious vote for somebody who was actively pursuing the elimination of those rights. I dislike Obama as a politician but the Republican party left me no choice but to vote for him.
      
      I'm not happy with him... but I'd be less happy with any of his former challengers.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You have echoed my sentiments exactly.  The reasons why I voted for President Obama were also gay and abortion rights.  Those must be encouraged and maintained.  I did not trust Mitt whatsoever!

         replyreport
      2. 89

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Rather sad, isn't it?  It's been many years since I voted FOR a president rather than AGAINST their opponent.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am disappointed. I had great expectations for him and for the presidency that I believed he could craft.
      
      My hope is that President Obama is finding strength right now in his determined fight with the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party and that he will rewrite his presidency and be the president that he was elected to be.

      replyreport
2. 74

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Two of my pet issues as well.
   Along with healthcare, which I feel very, very strongly about.
   
   I reluctantly threw my lot in with Obama in 2008 when he unseated Hillary in the primary.
   I believe he has accomplished a lot more in his first term than he is given credit for.
   I think he is a HORRIBLE communicator, and it's hurting him. It hurts him in his ability to
   do business with his Congress. It hurts him in explaining things to the American people.
   I cringe so often when I watch him in speeches. "Why are you picking this example?" I ask.
   "Why must you state things in such academic, clinical terms?" I ask.
   
   
   As to 2012 ... I actually was open at first to considering Romney, when I thought he was a moderate. That was prior to the GOP primaries and definitely prior to his selling out to the hard right and becoming the worst Pinocchio etcha-sketch candidate in my memory. The RR ticket was beyond frightening to me.
   
   BTW, where the heck is Joe Biden? Is he doing anything these days?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I too was very open to Romney---primarily because of his record in Massachusetts (as governor) which included passage of universal health insurance WITH a mandate in that state and because of his generally rational social issues record coupled with a conservative fiscal record and conservative fiscal sensibility. I was very shocked by his hard and harsh turn to the extreme right; shocked by his abandonment of the principles which had made him a competent governor.
      
      And as for Mr Ryan---he was not (and is not) not ready for prime time and his extremism is stunning.
      
      And yes, where is Joe Biden???

      replyreport
3. 69

   Nicole Froioposted 11 years ago

   I'm not American so I didn't vote. In my honest opinion I think Obama is a great president. He is a real leader who is at least trying to work towards things I believe in. The American political system is very complicated so it's not as easy as "I COMMAND YOU TO LOVE THE GAYS" or "YOU GET HEALTHCARE, YOU GET HEALTHCARE"
   
   But as I say he is trying and he gets credit from me for that.
   
   He is at times politically weak. Backtracking, etc. But maybe this is a good thing, it gives him more room to listen to different opinions and decide for himself.
   
   I think the real disappointment should be focused towards the GOP who shut down the government. This is completely out of bounds. Millions of people without work. Yeah, makes sense - not.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Both parties are responsible.  Either side could have conceded!  But of course, if the D's do not get their way, they want everyone to suffer!
      
      
      
      House Democrats reject GOP plan to re-open some parts of government
      
      The latest proposal from House Republicans to re-open only certain parts of government failed Tuesday night as Democrats insisted they would not pick winners and losers among federal services, and the White House threatened a veto.
      
      The newest Republican plan was to keep open national parks, veterans services and the District of Columbia, an approach modeled on recommendations of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who has led the GOP’s strategy in the standoff that resulted in the first shutdown of the federal government in 17 years.
      
      “If the Democrats are really concerned about funding the VA, let’s fund it,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), as House Republicans emerged from an afternoon strategy session.
      
      But the three bills failed in the face of Democratic opposition. House Republicans used a procedure that required a two-thirds vote, hoping that would pressure House Democrats to vote for them, knowing the bills would fail without their support. All three, however, were rejected largely on party-line votes.
      
      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati … 1044.story

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Nicole Froioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I disagree, it's a small part of the GOP who is causing havoc. The majority doesn't actually want this. Also, they started it, it was THEIR decision to shut down the government. That's undeniable.
         
         And it wasn't necessary either.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         FACT: NO veteran's benefit and/or social security benefit will be curtailed during this shut-down.
         
         If the government is going to be shut down, then ALL of the government needs to be shut down. Republicans are not going to be allowed to "win" the public opinion war by selectively opening the government sites that they (the Republicans) wager or bet or hope that they can get the most political mileage from. This includes, obviously and shamelessly, the World War II Memorial.
         
         The Republican Party caused this because its leadership---read Speaker Boehner, has allowed what was once the Grand Old Party to be controlled and manipulated by Tea Party extremists.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Oh hell yes, if they cannot get their way than the people must be forced to suffer in everyway possible.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I think all Americans need to understand one thing:
               
               This shut-down is a shameless effort by some members of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress to promote their future political ambitions on a national stage.
               
               It will be interesting to see which way the wind blows and how quickly these self-promoters are either transformed into party darlings, or find as dear colleague of mine was fond of saying, discover that "the walk from the palace to the outhouse is a short one."

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Still thinking that there is any difference between the two parties and the whole scenario is not just an exercise in political theater.
                  
                  
                  
                  With a ten percent approval rating, the entire Congress should be heading to the outhouse!

                  replyreport
         2. 56

            retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The Capital Police are still funded.  The WWII Memorial is an open air site, just like the Mall.  Are the side walks shut down in Washington D.C.?  If there was someone there to rope off this open memorial and tell visitors no, than why weren't they able to not rope it off and say yes? If there is a propaganda effort it is either by both sides or none.  If the Republicans are managing the optics of this non-event better than the Democrats, so be it.  There is NO Constitutional responsibility to fund everything in one bill.  It is entirely within the power and rights of the House to finance government one program at a time.  Democrats are upset that Republicans have finally figured out how to work around the typical Democrat manipulations.  The most recent attempt was to blame Republicans for young cancer patients at the National Institute of Health being turned away from treatment when it was Senate Democrats who refused to pass funding for that program.  I understand, it stinks when your party is cast as the villain.  In this care they are.
            
            The bill offered by House Republicans would delay the implementation of Obamacare for one year.  It would have forced Congressional members into the exchanges without the subsidies to which they were not entitled.  It is the Democrats saying no to a reasonable bill.
            
            As for the effects of the shut down, the highway was just as crowded with commuters and trucks this morning as the day before.  I suspect that very few people, those who do not depend on a federal job or a handout, would notice if not for the panicked blather from the big media.  Isn't that the greatest fear of the Statist, that people may discover how little government they actually need.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Actually, many of the Memorials in Washington, DC are not open 24/7 and are in fact have posted hours.
               
               And yes, barricades and gates have been put in place to keep visitors out of the areas--including things like the Washington Monument, World War II Memorial, Lincoln Memorial.
               
               The sites are closed because the National Park police---responsible for security (the Capitol Police have NO responsibility at National Parks and National Memorial sites) have been furloughed.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't get this whole thing anyway...
                  
                  What is so hard to understand about "closed"
                  
                  They should have been arrested for trespassing and screw the politics of the matter. If someone breaks into anything else that says "closed" they go to jail...

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I hear you.
                     
                     My primary concern is for the 800,000 people who work for the government who are either (a) working and not getting paid (air traffic controllers, border patrol,   and other "essential" personnel OR (b) not working and not getting paid---indefinitely and all while members of Congress continue, despite the shutdown, to get paid AND for the larger economic damage that a sustained shutdown (which costs taxpayers and the economy millions of dollars per day) will do.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        +1

                        replyreport
                     2. 69

                        Nicole Froioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm with you on your primary concern!

                        replyreport
               2. 56

                  retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  On whose authority were they furloughed.  This is much like the White House tours being cancelled.  It is the Executive that has determined to make the biggest public show over this non-event when the Federal government is heavily over funded. Redundancies abound in programs, reckless spending, lost funds and abuses are commonplace. We are long past being broke and the Democrats are carping over a prudent measure that would delay Obamacare implementation for one year and the requirement that Congressmen be treated just like the rest of us and not receive subsidized insurance. 
                  
                  But that is okay, you see it through your lens.  I will see it through mine.

                  replyreport
4. 74

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   The demands are getting more and more inane, really.
   The Senate and POTUS are right in saying we cannot pick and choose which parts of the government get to open back up.
   We especially cannot let Ted Cruz, a loudmouthed narcissist who thinks he is the Speaker of the House (when he's actually in the other chamber), to dictate policy for the country.
   
   When people are hurting enough -- and it will be soon -- they will rebel.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly!
      
      And for all of Ted Cruz's working class sycophants and minions, here is a bit of trivia:
      
      While at Harvard Law School, Cruz refused to even study with other Harvard Law School students who had not attended Harvard, Princeton, or Yale for their undergraduate educations. This included people from what he called "lesser Ivy League schools" like Brown and Cornell.
      
      If that does not say it all...nothing can or will.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Nicole Froioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree 100%!! Teo Cruz is a child, nothing else, who is ruining lives.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Nicole Froioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Oops, TED**

         replyreport
5. 60

   nostradommieposted 11 years ago

   I voted for Romney last election and thought then as I do now, that he would be doing a much better job as president.  From the job Obama did in his first four years as president, I would have thought Ronald McDonald would even have had a shot at taking him.  Unfortunately, the Democrats plan of inflating the welfare and food stamp doles with destitute hordes waiting for a hand out worked.  The succeeded in their quest for adding so many additional people to the welfare roles, that they would dare not bite the hand that feeds them. 
   
   It was the strategy of the Democrats and Obama from the very getgo of his administration to sow the seeds of envy and propagate the "evils" of racism, discrimination, etc. in order to turn American's against each other.  It is now apparent he is trying to stack the books for the Democrats in all future elections by giving away the treasure of all the working stiffs that still believe in hard work, moral standards, smaller government is the way to prosperity.
   
   Let history be the judge and I'm sure that historians years from now will not look kindly upon the Obama presidency and instead write about how this was one of the most destructive, disrespectful, obstructive, arrogant, divisive, racist president ever to occupy the White House.  And that would, in my opinion, be accurate.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If it was a purely economic thing, the republicans would have won in a landslide. It's something along the lines of only 10 percent or so that are "fiscal liberals". It's not the people on welfare that beat the Republican Party... it was the viciously socially conservative Republicans.
      
      As long as the Republican party keeps thinking that the moderates (most of whom identify as socially liberal fiscally conservative) are going to vote for a candidate that is far-right leaning on social issues, they will continue to lose the presidency.
      
      If they want to win elections they might want to consider someone like Christie. He's not my favorite chap, but as a moderate I would have voted for him rather than Obama.
      
      IMHO, trying to get a ridgedly anti-gay rights candidate elected into the presidency now would be like trying to elect a Klansman into presidency during the civil rights movement. Christie isn't exactly the LBGT movement's best friend, but at least he's not screaming abomination...
      
      TLDR: It's not the loss of the Liberal vote you need to worry about, it's the moderate vote. And Republicans are too far right to get it.

      replyreport
6. 51

   AnalogousMethodposted 11 years ago

   Actually, very few Republicans are fiscal conservatives. Most of them are about as liberal as most Democrats. Both sides just have different pet projects they like to spend trillions on.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      True. Only they are not honest about it.
      They pretend to be all fiscally prudent and sh$t.
      Wars are mega expensive.
      Austerity is mega destructive to economies (reference: look at Europe)
      And government shutdowns. Billions of taxpayer dollars.
      Oh well.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         AnalogousMethodposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Endless stimulus is even more painful, but it's also delayed
         
         We are going to feel the pain eventually. At this point it's simple mathematics.

         replyreport
      2. 56

         retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Austerity is not destructive to economies, it is destructive to the welfare hammock that is created by Social Democrat governments.  Germans never enjoyed the range of social programs that weighed down the Portuguese, Spanish, French or Greek economies, when compared to economic out put and job creation.  Germans have always worked longer days and retired later than most of their EU fellows.  It is the laziness typified by the Greeks that makes austerity seem so horrendous.  The Greeks had been enjoying a welfare state they were incapable of supporting without constant borrowing.  Once the world economy was in decline, starting in 2007, the money dried up for all the welfare borrowers.  Germany had far fewer problems and less government austerity measures than any of the others.
         
         From where does government money come?  Governments are not the economy nor a boom to an economy.  Quite the opposite, the government is a threat to the economy, unless properly managed.  Right now we are witnessing the beginning of the end of American prosperity as the FED prodigiously inflates the money supply, the Federal government shackles a faltering economy with ever heavier regulatory chains and the President fumbles, stumbles and bumbles his cowardly course toward the collapse of the West.  Too bad he can't run again.

         replyreport
7. 61

   jstfishinmanposted 11 years ago

   I fear we are exactly where our forefathers told us we would be. Listen and read the arguments, we are fighting about party and what I want instead of what is best for the country.  The Revolution would never have been fought, if it was about party or me,me,me. We need to figure out what is best for the country, that will make it hard on all of us,because we are 17 trillion in debt and counting. Our house of cards will fall and our money will be worth less than our toilet paper. We only have to look at Greece to see our demise,unless we make drastic cuts in spending and giving away our treasury.
   Both parties are at fault for this mess,with the help of the media. We need to realize a president can only sign or veto a bill. All the real work is done in both houses and they have failed miserably. Let's vote them all out and start over,it can't get any worse,can it?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Two decades ago, I read the book GENERATIONS which predicted in the early part of the 21st century there would be a divide between conservative and liberal elements in America in terms of sociocultural and socioeconomic issues.   It is coming to fruition.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Good

         replyreport
8. 60

   nostradommieposted 11 years ago

   Listen to the people who say they voted for Obama because of his stance on abortion rights.  One even said that is something that needs to be "encouraged and maintained."  Do you people realize that it concludes in the ending of a human life?  Do you really want to "encourage" people to have more abortions?  Is that really the most important things in your lives...gay rights and abortion....really? 
   
   This is one of the reasons we have a pathetic leader like Obama in the White House-people are just clueless on the real issues and challenges that face this nation.  We are on the cusp of losing our standing as the economic superpower of the world, all because Obama's policies of punishing businesses and taxpayers.  I work in international finance and I can tell you first hand that international banks have no interest in working with American companies on funding projects.  If they do, they open themselves up to Obama's terrorist policies against banks and financiers.  These bankers are scared to death to even communicate with Americans about anything to do with financing. 
   
   Our nation and politicians is a joke to them, and I must agree.  We are now the laughing stock of the world.  Once feared and admired, we are looked at with scorn and disgust.  Forget about Bush giving America a bad name, Obama has done more than any other president to destroy our standing around the world.  And before someone socialist goofball from London or Germany puts in their two cents, I'm talking about intellectuals and business people, politicians and governments, these are the people that matter most, and they are laughing at us and Obama and his sheer ineptitude when it comes to leading this nation.  He is the perfect storm...a DISASTER!
   .

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      BAD.......WORSE.............WORST..........ABYSMAL CATACLYSMIC DISASTER.................
      

      replyreport
   2. 89

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "Do you people realize that it concludes in the ending of a human life?"
      
      No it doesn't.  A fetus is not a "human life".
      
      When are the prolifers going to learn that the issue isn't about murdering children, it's about defining what and when human life begins?  That your opinion on that issue doesn't make you automatically right and preferable to any other opinion?  That squalling about murdering children (or ending human life) is just nonsense to someone that does not recognize human life in a 2 month old fetus?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         nostradommieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You are joking right?  With technology that we have today anybody with an ounce of common sense and a conscience can see that a fetus is a human baby.  Don't make such ridiculous arguments.  Abortions can be performed 22 weeks or later in some states, do you think that fetus is a baby by then or just a clump of cells.
         
         If it is not "life", meaning something that is alive, can you please explain to me what it is?  Is it dead?  Is it inanimate?
         
         Here's the definition of life:
         
         "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."
         
         You can make up your own mind if  you believe it is human or not.

         replyreport
   3. 59

      MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You define a country's success by how scared other people are of us?
      
      I don't care if I live in a country that is an "economic superpower". I do care a presidential candidate presuming to tell me that any choice I make regarding my uterus is his business. I also care if that same candidate is telling me who I chose to take into my marriage bed is his business as well.
      
      No one should fear us, and we should have no desire to have them fear us. As far as respect, that's earned... and it's a two way street. Let's face it in our desire to be "feared" we certainly have done little to be respected.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         nostradommieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         That is such a feeble argument and a weak excuse for supporting Obama.  Abortion is a right protected under the Constitution.  No president can take that away. 
         
         Remember that comment about how you don't like a candidate telling you what you can and cannot do with your body.... you mean like them telling you what you can and cannot eat, what medical doctor you can see, what you can drink and how much?  Such hypocrisy from you on the left!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            If you think that POTUS cannot take away constitutionally-protected rights, read some history about Executive Order 9066.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, I'm a moderate.
            
            So far no one has told me what I could eat or drink... or what doctor I could see.
            
            Do you have people telling you those things? Do other people see them too?
            
            And technically, abortion isn't protected in the constitution. It's protected under case law and supreme court decisions. If it's so protected... why are there bills in almost every state in almost every year that are designed to curtail it or put limitations on it?
            
            But regardless, I'll not vote for a pro-lifer who has shown a history of actively supporting/introducing such bills. I don't care if he's wearing white robes and carrying a cross.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Nicole Froioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Melissa, I totally agree!

               replyreport