Comments on: Deal Announced on Stimulus; Weekend Vote Likely, But Where Is Obama’s Army of Supporters?

By: LindaP

LindaP — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:58:37 +0000

And you wonder why the “Obama Media” is losing business. Obama did not win by an overwhelming majority. And many of those that did vote for him are sorry that they did. I guarantee you that those that didn’t vote for him, aren’t sorry that they didn’t.

If the Media and Hollywood want to save their businesses, they need to remember who they are selling to, not who they are selling out to.

Total Votes Cast for Obama in 2008 69,456,897

Percent of Votes Cast for Obama in 2008 Election 53%

Percent of Eligible Citizens (> 18 yrs old 223,655,582) Who Voted for Barack Obama 31%

Percent of Total U.S. Population (305,303,885) Who Voted for Barack Obama 23%

Percent of Total U.S. Population (305,303,885) Affected by Obama’s Policies 100%

By: LindaP

LindaP — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:44:13 +0000

Well. Dubya won.

By: r2d2

r2d2 — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:26:19 +0000

Obama army of supporters only work with the media, not with Congress. Not enough people have not been sold by a stimulus package that’s hodgepodge of spending without a clear path to get the economy spinning out of control and back to work.

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:10:23 +0000

I don’t know where that prof of yours came up with that assessment since the only Presidents that I can recall off hand who’ve had the unexpected adversarial problems with Congress were Democrats.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush I had to deal with Democratic-led Congresses through their administrations (though Eisenhower had a GOP-led Congress during his first two years in office) and Reagan had a divided Congress through most of his administration–the House was Democratic throughout his 8 years while the Senate was GOP for the first 6 years. With all those GOP Presidents, their party in Congress–almost to a man–stood behind their President (Nixon started feeling a lot of very intense pressure from his GOP Congressfolks after the Watergate investigation and hearings started and most certainly would have faced a unanimous impeachment vote if he hadn’t resigned). Of course, the major difference is that the GOP since Reagan’s era is a far different critter than the GOP before. There were, rather incredibly, Republicans who were downright liberal on social matters and incredibly moderate on fiscal matters–most of these folks hailed from the Northeast states, particularly New England, but many also represented the “Steel Belt/Rust Belt” states around the Great Lakes. At this time, the political scale ran (with most liberal on the far left and most conservative on the far right):
Lib Dem–Mod Dem–Lib Rep–Cons Dem–Mod Rep–Cons Rep (although the Cons Dem and Mod Rep could switch around depending on the particular issue).
After the “Reagan Revolution”, the “Liberal” Republicans virtually disappeared from not only Congress but the very social fabric of America and the “Moderate” Republicans absorbed those who were left (the vast majority of the Liberal Republicans either switched to the Democratic Party or went to smaller minority parties, especially the Libertarian; a few stalwarts, mostly from New York and New England, stayed in the GOP hoping to keep the Party from swinging too far to the extreme right, but often finding themselves tossed aside for more conservative Democrats–see Lincoln Chafee for a recent example).
Democratic Presidents, on the other hand, have faced serious challenges from their own party if not outright rebellions since Truman’s time, at the very least. (I know there were a lot of Democrats in FDR’s time who fought him but I’m not absolutely sure if he ever faced outright opposition to a point–other than his plan to expand the Supreme Court–where the Democrats deserted him that he didn’t win the battle. Truman, on the other hand, faced opposition from Congressional Democrats almost from the start, and, following the 1946 mid-term election where the Congressional Dems went from absolute dominance to minority party overnight, top Dems in Congress were among the leaders looking for a new face to put on the top of the 1948 Presidential ticket.) Kennedy didn’t face the same level of opposition since he’d literally risen through Congressional ranks (6 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate) and he’d gained some ability in how to judge when and where to fight his battles; of course, he was assassinated before he could really begin fighting his toughest battles. LBJ, on the other hand, wound up having to fight those tough battles, especially on civil rights. LBJ literally had to resort to blackmail in some cases to win over Southern Democrats on the matter. There was one Southern Senator who’d been having an affair with a black maid/housekeeper, of whom he was especially fond, and LBJ had hard evidence which he showed the man in a private meeting; the Senator, amazingly, made a turnaround and supported the Civil Rights package. Of course, LBJ knew he’d used up all his cards to ensure the passage of the Civil Rights bills and faced a very hostile contingent of Southern Democrats for the rest of his Presidency.
Then came Carter, and, while Southern Democrats were mostly happy to work with him, most of Carter’s opposition came from the “cultured and urbane” Northern and West Coast Democrats who never really liked the “hick from Plains”. Of course, the Southern Dems in Congress were generally more conservative than Carter (as were the voters who put them there, as witnessed by the large switchover in those states from Dem to GOP in the 1980 Presidential election–most of Carter’s Southern state wins had come from states that had gone to either Nixon or Wallace in 1968 and to Nixon in 1972) while the overall Democratic Party in Congress was more liberal than Carter so Carter was rarely, if ever, able to please either faction.
Then came Clinton in 1992. While Congressional Dems were glad to have the White House again, they were very reluctant to let Clinton get what he wanted, instead pushing THEIR goals at Clinton’s expense. Indeed, Congressional Dems seemed hellbent on standing in Clinton’s way at every step, whether on energy policy, gays in the military or health-care reform. Looking back, it’s almost “Through the Looking-Glass”-style bizarre how Clinton was able to work better with his GOP “opposition” than he was with his “own” party.
Then came Dubya. When Dubya took office in 2001, the GOP was in control of the House and had effective control of the Senate (the Senate was split 50-50 which left tie-breakers up to the VP). Then a few months later, Dubya made a serious political blunder and left GOP Sen Jeffords of Vermont out of a very high-profile publicity event (when a Vermont teacher was honored as “Teacher of the Year”), it seems that may have been the trigger for Jeffords to leave the GOP and become an Independent, caucusing with the Dems and giving the Dems control of the Senate. Then came 9/11 and a complete collapse of any serious party “opposition” on the part of the Democrats, something which lasted pretty much until 2005 when the Dems were the minority party; as to the GOP, its members in Congress largely gave Dubya a rubber-stamp for virtually everything he wanted. Then, when the Dems retook Congress in 2006, very little changed. Oh, sure, there were some high-profile fights here and there, but on the whole, what Dubya wanted, Dubya largely got.

By: knotfourhymn

knotfourhymn — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:37:49 +0000

I agree…I honestly could not picture this man being elected with all of his problems and his lack of experience. I still can’t smoothly say “President Obama” in conversation.

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:34:35 +0000

Well, ok, but if it hadn’t been for Collins, Snowe, et al, it would have been COMPLETELY the Nancy Pelosi show.

Be grateful for small favors.

By: knotfourhymn

knotfourhymn — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:33:56 +0000

Now I have a mental picture of a tiny car pulling up to the Capitol building and Pelosi, Reid, et al pouring out of it…

By: jwrjr

jwrjr — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:22:14 +0000

It will be an interesting time for historians 50 years from now. Problem is, we gotta live through it.

By: Jackie

Jackie — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:21:46 +0000

Total Votes Cast for Obama in 2008 69,456,897

Percent of Votes Cast for Obama in 2008 Election 53%
Percent of Eligible Citizens (> 18 yrs old 223,655,582) Who Voted for Barack Obama 31%
Percent of Total U.S. Population (305,303,885) Who Voted for Barack Obama 23%
Percent of Total U.S. Population (305,303,885) Affected by Obama’s Policies 100%

By: jwrjr

jwrjr — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:16:51 +0000

Once upon a time “the big picture” was the welfare of the entire country. To quote Inspector Clouseau – “Not any more”.

By: sandi78

sandi78 — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:12:18 +0000

They’ve got the “real” American Idol to focus on now. They don’t need the substitute any more.

By: Ted

Ted — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:36:02 +0000

No to “stimulus” bill. Here’s why:
Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court and Military Joint Chiefs to refrain from exercising WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addessed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.

By: Patrick Walker

Patrick Walker — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:16:06 +0000

“Why hasn’t Obama mobilized his army of millions to pressure their Senators and Representatives?”

Well, it’s quite simple. The army doesn’t exist. It’s like Saddam’s WMD. We were promised they were there but people should have opened their eyes to see it was a convenient illusion.

A good way to prove the lack of Obama’s Army is the realization that he managed only 52% of the vote in a two-horse race. Obama literally won by the skin of his teeth.

By: oowawa

oowawa — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:57:17 +0000

Interesting, Elizabeth. Thanks for putting this together.

By: Sassy

Sassy — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:20:23 +0000

Well, bring on your rotten eggs for I’m going to say something to rile everyone!
No more women will get my vote!
They don’t have the equipment for the job!
Snow and Collins undercut the entire Republican Party and their former Presidential candidate!
Who gave them the authority to cut the legs out from everyone who wanted to negotiate a better deal on this package?