Obama and the Democrats are getting crushed nationwide yet he has an 85% approval in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the whole premise of the OP is ridiculous-- Obama is at about 50% approval rating and Congressional Dems are still favored over Republicans (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Congress.aspx).

If you had to rank them in descending order of popularity it would probably go Obama, Congressional Dems, and Congressional Reps., so maybe it's the OP who's living in an echo-chamber.

That's right. I forgot. I've run into this OP before. Say anything to start a fight and above all be sure to bludgeon the liberals with a lot of self-pity so she/he can have a nice pity party. I should have known better than to be drawn into this.

[Anonymous]

I would give consideration to the following:

Mitt Romney (MA)
Bobby Jindal (LA)
Carly Fiorino (CA)
Jan Brewer (AZ)

Give me a combo pack with any of them and it's happening!

[Anonymous]

Honestly I think our "democracy" is fundamentally dysfunctional at this point, and it's not a matter of who is in office, but of the fact that the politicians care pretty much exclusively about gaining political advantage (and campaign dollars) and not at all about "governing" or the future welfare of the country. In the end they'll all be fine and the rest of us will be left holding the bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know that part of it comes from the fact that the demographics of the District means that there is a high African-American number in the sampling, and I understand the unwavering support, despite a first term of mistake after mistake. If Obama was white his approval would be far lower here, but that being said everyone in the District just seems to be oblivious to the fact that this seems to be Jimmy Carter II and even i as a moderate Democrat think that we're heading in the wrong direction.

And if he was white, we wouldn't have a tea party or as much opposition to him elsewhere. I'm not jumping into the boat that says all opposition to Obama is race based; I am one of the first to criticize the mistakes he has made. But there is no doubt that there are folks who were never going to support him, no matter what, solely or primarily as a function of his race.

[Anonymous]

I think you should wait to see whether there turns out to be any actual crushing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed with 11:40 - signed a Caucasian voter who would vote for him again today given the alternative. You, as a moderate Democrat, would have voted for McCain/Palin? You, as a moderate Democrat would have voted for Hillary in the primaries given the baggage that she seemed to carry at the time? Hindsight is 20/20 - and in politics always appears to be 20/10. I am saddened Dems can't do more, but I am happy that we've gotten two major pieces of legislation passed on two major priorities, that we had a Democrat choosing two of the Supreme Court Justices (and maybe three before all is said and done), and that we haven't gone even further to the right in political philosophy. Do I hate the jobless rate - yes. Do I wish we had a lower deficit, of course. Do I hope that we end the war in Afghanistan with something other than a severe loss? Sure. But I wouldn't change my vote in 2008, and it would have to be a very, very good candidate for me to change my vote in 2012.

I think that if the Journo-listers had been doing their job of vetting the candidate, instead of trying to clear the field for him, that Hilary would in fact have been the nominee and won the election. She DID have more popular support, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our "democracy" is fundamentally dysfunctional at this point, and it's not a matter of who is in office, but of the fact that the politicians care pretty much exclusively about gaining political advantage (and campaign dollars) and not at all about "governing" or the future welfare of the country. In the end they'll all be fine and the rest of us will be left holding the bag.

Our Democracy is broken because it's the stated policy of one party to break it. That's what they run on; that's what they do when they get elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... this seems to be Jimmy Carter II and even i as a moderate Democrat think that we're heading in the wrong direction.

Funny, even *I* as a hood-wearing racist and tax-protesting Christian militia member think Obama's doing a bang-up job!

Who woulda thunk it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our "democracy" is fundamentally dysfunctional at this point, and it's not a matter of who is in office, but of the fact that the politicians care pretty much exclusively about gaining political advantage (and campaign dollars) and not at all about "governing" or the future welfare of the country. In the end they'll all be fine and the rest of us will be left holding the bag.

Our Democracy is broken because it's the stated policy of one party to break it. That's what they run on; that's what they do when they get elected.

Oh, I call B.S. Wanting a smaller government is not broken democracy. Grow up. If you can't even be serious why are you here?

[Anonymous]

"Wanting a smaller government" is a pipe dream. If you want a smaller government, we should start by reducing the size of the military. Funny how the earnest "small government" types never seem to get around to that. It's all about zeroing out $1 million in funding for volcano studies.

You guys are like the lady who can't scrape together her mortgage payment, so she stops buying fancy face cream--but keeps the $800 a month car payment.

Grow up, indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our "democracy" is fundamentally dysfunctional at this point, and it's not a matter of who is in office, but of the fact that the politicians care pretty much exclusively about gaining political advantage (and campaign dollars) and not at all about "governing" or the future welfare of the country. In the end they'll all be fine and the rest of us will be left holding the bag.

Our Democracy is broken because it's the stated policy of one party to break it. That's what they run on; that's what they do when they get elected.

Oh, I call B.S. Wanting a smaller government is not broken democracy. Grow up. If you can't even be serious why are you here?

Which party supports smaller government? I am confused. I just see a high tax/ high spend party and a low tax / high spend party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our "democracy" is fundamentally dysfunctional at this point, and it's not a matter of who is in office, but of the fact that the politicians care pretty much exclusively about gaining political advantage (and campaign dollars) and not at all about "governing" or the future welfare of the country. In the end they'll all be fine and the rest of us will be left holding the bag.

Our Democracy is broken because it's the stated policy of one party to break it. That's what they run on; that's what they do when they get elected.

Yeah, it was amazing how Reagan ran against the federal deficit and then wound up quadrupling it once he got into office.

[Anonymous]

I'll take honest social democrats over proven failures any day of the week.

I've yet to see how GOP leadership of 2010 is any different from GOP leadership of 2004.

At least in 1994, Gingrich had recently taken power in the House and had several ideas that weren't "let government do it all" or "let them eat free market."

This time, it's the same freaking people that were in charge in 2004 and 2006, with nothing but vague "gubmint is EVIL!" screeds.