I keep thinking of that car modification firm, RUF. They were in the Gran Turismo series.
RUF Automobile GmbH
EDIT: I see it's already been answered/debated.
RufRTs Obama Windup
- Thread starter RufRT
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
I keep thinking of that car modification firm, RUF. They were in the Gran Turismo series.
RUF Automobile GmbH
EDIT: I see it's already been answered/debated.
After reading the first page I picture him as Tory Boy from Harry Enfield.
It seems the Mayo Clinic has its doubts about Obamacare as well...
Medicare and the Mayo Clinic
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 6, 2010
Medicare and the Mayo Clinic :: Jeff Jacoby
Send RSS
PRESIDENT OBAMA is a great admirer of the Mayo Clinic. Time and again he has extolled it as an outstanding model of health-care excellence and efficiency.
"Look at what the Mayo Clinic is able to do," the president proclaimed at a rally in September. "It's got the best quality and the lowest cost of just about any system in the country. . . . We want to help the whole country learn from what Mayo is doing." A few months earlier, in a letter to Senator Max Baucus of Montana and the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the president had singled out the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic for praise. They "offer the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm," he wrote. "We need to learn from their successes and replicate those best practices across our country." On the White House web site, you can find more than a dozen other instances of Obama's esteem.
So perhaps the president will give some thought to the Mayo Clinic's recent decision to stop accepting Medicare payments at its primary care facility in Glendale, Ariz. More than 3,000 patients will have to start paying cash if they wish to continue being seen by doctors at the clinic; those unable or unwilling to do so must look for new physicians. For now, Mayo is limiting the change in policy to its Glendale facility. But it may be just a matter of time before it drops Medicare at its other facilities in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota as well.
Why would an institution renowned for providing health care of "the best quality and the lowest cost" choose to sever its ties with the government's flagship single-payer insurance program? Because the relationship is one it can't afford. Last year, the Mayo Clinic lost $840 million on its Medicare patients. At the Glendale clinic specifically, a spokesman told Bloomberg, Medicare reimbursements covered only 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients. Not even the leanest, most efficient medical organization can keep doing business with a program that compels it to eat half its costs.
In breaking away from Medicare, the Mayo Clinic is hardly blazing a trail. Back in 2008, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported that 29 percent of Medicare beneficiaries -- more than 1 in 4 -- have trouble finding a primary-care doctor to treat them. A survey by the Texas Medical Association that year found that only 38 percent of that state's primary-care physicians were accepting new Medicare patients.
But if you think things are bad now, just wait until Congress enacts the president's health care overhaul. A central element in both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare is that Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and doctors -- already so low that many providers lose money each time they treat a Medicare patient -- will be forced lower still.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services, estimated last month that the Senate bill would squeeze $493 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years. As a result, it cautioned, "providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and . . . might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)." In short, the Democrats' idea of health-care reform -- more government power to set prices, combined with reduced freedom for individuals -- will only make medical care harder to come by: an Economics 101 lesson in the pitfalls of price controls.
Nearly six months ago, the Mayo Clinic tried to sound an alarm. Instead of making American health care better and more affordable, it warned, the legislation working its way through Congress "will do the opposite" and "the real losers will be the citizens of the United States."
Each year Medicare loses tens of billions of dollars to fraud and abuse. The program's long-term deficit is a staggering $38 trillion. Its expenditures have raced ahead of inflation from the day it was created: Medicare's price tag has skyrocketed from $3 billion in 1966 to an estimated $453 billion this year. Yet its reimbursement of medical providers is so meager that more and more of them cannot afford to treat Medicare patients. Whatever else Medicare might be, it is no model for rational reform.
Obama says he want the country to "learn from what Mayo is doing." What Mayo is doing is trying to provide high-quality medical care in the face of Washington's compulsively misguided interference. As 3,000 Mayo patients have just learned, government interference can hurt. Ratchet up that interference with ObamaCare, and the pain will only grow worse.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
Medicare and the Mayo Clinic
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 6, 2010
Medicare and the Mayo Clinic :: Jeff Jacoby
Send RSS
PRESIDENT OBAMA is a great admirer of the Mayo Clinic. Time and again he has extolled it as an outstanding model of health-care excellence and efficiency.
"Look at what the Mayo Clinic is able to do," the president proclaimed at a rally in September. "It's got the best quality and the lowest cost of just about any system in the country. . . . We want to help the whole country learn from what Mayo is doing." A few months earlier, in a letter to Senator Max Baucus of Montana and the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the president had singled out the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic for praise. They "offer the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm," he wrote. "We need to learn from their successes and replicate those best practices across our country." On the White House web site, you can find more than a dozen other instances of Obama's esteem.
So perhaps the president will give some thought to the Mayo Clinic's recent decision to stop accepting Medicare payments at its primary care facility in Glendale, Ariz. More than 3,000 patients will have to start paying cash if they wish to continue being seen by doctors at the clinic; those unable or unwilling to do so must look for new physicians. For now, Mayo is limiting the change in policy to its Glendale facility. But it may be just a matter of time before it drops Medicare at its other facilities in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota as well.
Why would an institution renowned for providing health care of "the best quality and the lowest cost" choose to sever its ties with the government's flagship single-payer insurance program? Because the relationship is one it can't afford. Last year, the Mayo Clinic lost $840 million on its Medicare patients. At the Glendale clinic specifically, a spokesman told Bloomberg, Medicare reimbursements covered only 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients. Not even the leanest, most efficient medical organization can keep doing business with a program that compels it to eat half its costs.
In breaking away from Medicare, the Mayo Clinic is hardly blazing a trail. Back in 2008, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported that 29 percent of Medicare beneficiaries -- more than 1 in 4 -- have trouble finding a primary-care doctor to treat them. A survey by the Texas Medical Association that year found that only 38 percent of that state's primary-care physicians were accepting new Medicare patients.
But if you think things are bad now, just wait until Congress enacts the president's health care overhaul. A central element in both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare is that Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and doctors -- already so low that many providers lose money each time they treat a Medicare patient -- will be forced lower still.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services, estimated last month that the Senate bill would squeeze $493 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years. As a result, it cautioned, "providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and . . . might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)." In short, the Democrats' idea of health-care reform -- more government power to set prices, combined with reduced freedom for individuals -- will only make medical care harder to come by: an Economics 101 lesson in the pitfalls of price controls.
Nearly six months ago, the Mayo Clinic tried to sound an alarm. Instead of making American health care better and more affordable, it warned, the legislation working its way through Congress "will do the opposite" and "the real losers will be the citizens of the United States."
Each year Medicare loses tens of billions of dollars to fraud and abuse. The program's long-term deficit is a staggering $38 trillion. Its expenditures have raced ahead of inflation from the day it was created: Medicare's price tag has skyrocketed from $3 billion in 1966 to an estimated $453 billion this year. Yet its reimbursement of medical providers is so meager that more and more of them cannot afford to treat Medicare patients. Whatever else Medicare might be, it is no model for rational reform.
Obama says he want the country to "learn from what Mayo is doing." What Mayo is doing is trying to provide high-quality medical care in the face of Washington's compulsively misguided interference. As 3,000 Mayo patients have just learned, government interference can hurt. Ratchet up that interference with ObamaCare, and the pain will only grow worse.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
BBC News - Barack Obama sets out US banking repayment scheme Got to say well done to him for trying to get it back. Wish Brown would do the same.
On top of the 50% tax on bonuses, those earning a bonus of £1million have to defer 60% for three years..
If you get a chance watch Schama's Obama's America. Second episode is on the iplayer and shows how scarily the previous depressions and the current follow the same pattern. BBC iPlayer - Obama's America: The End of the Dream?
As Thatcher once said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money
Many people would say it is the banks who have done that, it isn't exactly unreasonable for an industry saved from going to the wall by direction cash injections of hundreds of billions who only one year on are making big profits again whilst the economy is still suffering is it?
The thing is my read of the situation is that bailing the banks was more unpopular in the US than anywhere else, back in the Autumn of 2008 I was amazed how many people were happy when Congress failed to vote for the first rescue plan wih seemingly more people against than for it - sentiment certainly was, despite the incredible ramifactions of what would have happened if things did go under.
Banks were responsible to a point...but when Barney Frank and Bill Clinton decided that everyone who couldn't afford a house really needed one anyway (a socialist utopia of sorts), the whole deck of cards was doomed. Subprime mortgages flourished unchecked and it was only a matter of time before things collapsed. Its easy to target big banks, its political "easy meat"...its harder for guys like Barney Frank to look in the mirror.
The reason bailing the banks was unpopular was because citizens did not advocate using public money to bail out failing businesses....its not the "american way". I don't disagree that a financial meltdown of global proportions was averted with the actions taken, and the steps to recoup funds are admirable. TARP did its job...the stimulus package is another story...complete waste of money. The fact that the WH keeps changing the scorecard for job counting tells you that a) its primary purpose is political 2) It has been a waste of money and just another pork fest.
I don't disagree with any of that, I've defended the banks to a large extent that the rules of the game are dictated to them by sitting governments who deliberately loosened regulations to drive growth and spending irresponsibly.
The Stimulus package is a different matter though and it is unfair to compare its record to TARP. The aim of TARP was to prevent the collapse of the banks, it was a guarantee that the US government would have their backs and provided funds to continue their operations which if you are prepared to give them the money is a straightforward action to carry out. The stimulus package is an entirely different matter though, you cannot just produce economic recovery and growth on the whim of the government signing cheques like you can keep banks in operation by doing so, the billions provided by the package will need plenty of time to filter through the economic system, pass through many hands, many times developing the economy along the way. It has certainly had an effect on the US economy, not to many people's expectations but the US economy did do very well in the third quarter and presumably also in the fourth.
Well stated and a sound argument. The main issue I have with the stimulus package is the extent to which it was used to fund non-job projects...that is, so much spent on pet projects and programs that had little to do with job creation.
Any time 800 billion dollars is added to the deficit by ONE program, it better have "smashing results"...this stimulus has been limp.
What happened to the campaign promise of open transparent governance ?
It seems Union Leaders can get a seat at the WH and influence policy to save their "cadillacs" , but the general public is shut out from the viewing...what is there to hide ?
It seems Union Leaders can get a seat at the WH and influence policy to save their "cadillacs" , but the general public is shut out from the viewing...what is there to hide ?
I do agree with this all this healthcare stuff going on behind closed doors, Obama said it would be on C-Span
I haven't looked at a definative list of expenditures which I will do but it really wouldn't surprise me at all the sort of things that will have got money. Usually when such arguments are made you can put them to one side by saying it is a pretty low percentage of the money spent that finds its way into dubious projects but when that happens to be a low percentage of $800 billion it is a contradiction in terms considering that if 0.125% was spent in such a way it would amount to $1 billion.
Repeating what I said before, it may turn out that the stimulus will provide or at least contribute to more resurgent growth quicker than otherwise expected though it needs time to do, though whatever is said about it, it has worked so far better than Britain's efforts. The Treasury here through its 'quantitative easing' programme has pumped somewhere in the vicinity of £250 billion into the economy and still we are in recession as of the third quarter results whilst everybody else got positive growth in the second or third quarters of last year including the United States.
Why is RufRT behaving better than before? He's now actually responding reasonably instead of acting like a retard.
He is clearly intelligent, some of us have different opinions that most and come to loggerheads over some things, it doesnt mean the masses are smarter than the outcast though.
Your opinion of my behaviour is inconsequential...analagous to a fart in the wind
(Clearly, "change" is not my mantra
)Your opinion of my behaviour is inconsequential...analagous to a fart in the wind
(Clearly, "change" is not my mantra
I don't get the analogy but it made me laugh.
I believe the winds direction and size of the fart matter and are very consequential to the receiver
The fact that Tuesday's Senate contest in Massachusetts is even close lends credence to the title of this thread...brought to you months ago.
The fact that Obama is scrambling to Massachusetts this week in a last ditch effort to prop a democrat running for Ted Kennedy's seat (should be a slam dunk) speaks volumes...
Should be close on Tuesday...a Brown win would be seismic
"By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer Liz Sidoti, Ap National Political Writer – 27 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The ill winds of an angry electorate are blowing against Democrats, the warning signs clear in a closer-than-expected Massachusetts Senate race that may doom President Barack Obama's health care agenda and foreshadow the party's election prospects this fall.
Anti-incumbent, anti-establishment sentiment is rampant. Independents are leaving Obama. Republicans are energized. Democrats are subdued. None of it bodes well for the party in power.
"It's going to be a hard November for Democrats," Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman in the 2006 and 2008 elections when the party took control of the White House and Congress, told The Associated Press in an interview. "Our base is demoralized."
While he praised Obama as a good president, Dean said the Democrat hasn't turned out to be the "change agent" the party thought it elected, and voters who supported Democrats in back-to-back elections now are turned off. Said Dean: "They really thought the revolution was at hand but it wasn't, and now they're getting the back of the hand."
Just how much voters have soured since Obama took over a country in chaos is reflected in the president's late-game decision to rush to Massachusetts on Sunday to try to stave off an extraordinary Republican upset in the race for a Senate seat held by Democrats for more than half a century.
Obama faced a no-win situation as he pondered whether to campaign with Democrat Martha Coakley. Had he decided against going, he would have enraged the base and been blamed if she lost. But a Coakley defeat following a presidential visit would be embarrassing, raising questions about Obama's popularity and political muscle.
Once heavily favored to cruise to victory, Coakley is in a tight fight with Republican Scott Brown, a little-known state senator, for the race to fill the seat left vacant when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy died.
Losing the race would cost the Democrats their 60-vote coalition in the Senate. The president has been relying on that big edge to stop Republican filibusters and pass not only his health care overhaul but also the rest of his legislative agenda heading into the first elections since he took office.
A Suffolk University poll released late Thursday showed Brown with 50 percent of the vote and Coakley with 46 percent. The survey indicated that Brown's supporters — a mix of disaffected Democrats, a large number of Republicans and a majority of independents — are far more enthusiastic than Coakley's backers.
Voters are down on Washington. They are deeply divided over the health care plan in Congress and a majority thinks the country is on the wrong track. Nearly all remain anxious about the prolonged recession even though there are signs of recovery. Only about half approve of Obama's job performance. Excessive spending and big government irk them. They've lost faith in institutions.
It was that same brew that helped Republican Chris Christie topple Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in New Jersey, and Republican Bob McDonnell overtake Democrat Creigh Deeds in Virginia. Those victories coupled with Tuesday's vote in Massachusetts have Republicans and Democrats alike predicting a good GOP year in 2010 and a tough one for Democrats.
Democrats are likely to be punished more because they hold power. But the GOP also is feeling the effects, as seen in the "tea party" movement whose followers are challenging establishment candidates in primaries nationwide.
"Washington is just not in touch," Dean said. And now, he said, the tables have turned: "Republicans are unified against Democrats the way we were against them when Bush was president."
In the country at large, a new Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor survey found that the public's yearslong shift against institutions is in overdrive, fueling anti-establishment sentiment. It also showed that Obama has lost his luster — his job performance rating is at 47 percent — amid a belief that his administration's response to the recession has favored the wealthy and powerful over the middle class and average families.
The survey showed that people have little trust in any institution. They gave bottom-barrel ratings to government, major corporations, and financial entities. Many people say the country is heading the wrong way, levels similar to those during the George W. Bush years.
All that adds up to a warning for Democratic candidates — for politicians of any stripes, for that matter.
Passing Obama's legislative priorities would become much more difficult with fewer seats. If Coakley does poorly but ekes out a victory, moderate Democrats in Congress may think twice about falling in lockstep behind the White House.
The public's mood also could scare off establishment Democrats considering entering races, such as Beau Biden for Delaware's open Senate seat, or cause vulnerable Democratic incumbents, including Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, to retire.
Brown, a little-known Republican state senator with a limited record who had never before run statewide, shed his party markings and downplayed his conservative credentials throughout the monthlong campaign. He spent weeks campaigning not just against Coakley but against Capitol Hill.
He cast himself as a man of the people, fighting for them: "It's not the Kennedy seat. And it's not the Democrats' seat. It's the people's seat."
Coakley, the state's attorney general, comes right out of the establishment and has embraced her stature within the party. She has run a Rose Garden strategy, largely shunned retail politics, and dashed to Washington for an oh-so-insider fundraiser.
Now, with the race tight in its final days, Coakley's trying to appeal to an anti-Washington, pro-populism electorate by seizing the fight-for-the-little-guy mantle in hopes of thwarting a Republican victory. The White House and Coakley are hammering Brown for opposing Obama's just-announced plan to tax large Wall Street firms.
"I'm standing with Main Street on this one. Scott Brown stands with Wall Street," Coakley charged.
"There's only one candidate in this race who's a tax cutter — and it's not Martha Coakley," countered Brown, unwilling to cede his advantage among the angry electorate.
__
EDITOR'S NOTE — Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.
"
The fact that Obama is scrambling to Massachusetts this week in a last ditch effort to prop a democrat running for Ted Kennedy's seat (should be a slam dunk) speaks volumes...
Should be close on Tuesday...a Brown win would be seismic
"By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer Liz Sidoti, Ap National Political Writer – 27 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The ill winds of an angry electorate are blowing against Democrats, the warning signs clear in a closer-than-expected Massachusetts Senate race that may doom President Barack Obama's health care agenda and foreshadow the party's election prospects this fall.
Anti-incumbent, anti-establishment sentiment is rampant. Independents are leaving Obama. Republicans are energized. Democrats are subdued. None of it bodes well for the party in power.
"It's going to be a hard November for Democrats," Howard Dean, the Democratic Party chairman in the 2006 and 2008 elections when the party took control of the White House and Congress, told The Associated Press in an interview. "Our base is demoralized."
While he praised Obama as a good president, Dean said the Democrat hasn't turned out to be the "change agent" the party thought it elected, and voters who supported Democrats in back-to-back elections now are turned off. Said Dean: "They really thought the revolution was at hand but it wasn't, and now they're getting the back of the hand."
Just how much voters have soured since Obama took over a country in chaos is reflected in the president's late-game decision to rush to Massachusetts on Sunday to try to stave off an extraordinary Republican upset in the race for a Senate seat held by Democrats for more than half a century.
Obama faced a no-win situation as he pondered whether to campaign with Democrat Martha Coakley. Had he decided against going, he would have enraged the base and been blamed if she lost. But a Coakley defeat following a presidential visit would be embarrassing, raising questions about Obama's popularity and political muscle.
Once heavily favored to cruise to victory, Coakley is in a tight fight with Republican Scott Brown, a little-known state senator, for the race to fill the seat left vacant when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy died.
Losing the race would cost the Democrats their 60-vote coalition in the Senate. The president has been relying on that big edge to stop Republican filibusters and pass not only his health care overhaul but also the rest of his legislative agenda heading into the first elections since he took office.
A Suffolk University poll released late Thursday showed Brown with 50 percent of the vote and Coakley with 46 percent. The survey indicated that Brown's supporters — a mix of disaffected Democrats, a large number of Republicans and a majority of independents — are far more enthusiastic than Coakley's backers.
Voters are down on Washington. They are deeply divided over the health care plan in Congress and a majority thinks the country is on the wrong track. Nearly all remain anxious about the prolonged recession even though there are signs of recovery. Only about half approve of Obama's job performance. Excessive spending and big government irk them. They've lost faith in institutions.
It was that same brew that helped Republican Chris Christie topple Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in New Jersey, and Republican Bob McDonnell overtake Democrat Creigh Deeds in Virginia. Those victories coupled with Tuesday's vote in Massachusetts have Republicans and Democrats alike predicting a good GOP year in 2010 and a tough one for Democrats.
Democrats are likely to be punished more because they hold power. But the GOP also is feeling the effects, as seen in the "tea party" movement whose followers are challenging establishment candidates in primaries nationwide.
"Washington is just not in touch," Dean said. And now, he said, the tables have turned: "Republicans are unified against Democrats the way we were against them when Bush was president."
In the country at large, a new Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor survey found that the public's yearslong shift against institutions is in overdrive, fueling anti-establishment sentiment. It also showed that Obama has lost his luster — his job performance rating is at 47 percent — amid a belief that his administration's response to the recession has favored the wealthy and powerful over the middle class and average families.
The survey showed that people have little trust in any institution. They gave bottom-barrel ratings to government, major corporations, and financial entities. Many people say the country is heading the wrong way, levels similar to those during the George W. Bush years.
All that adds up to a warning for Democratic candidates — for politicians of any stripes, for that matter.
Passing Obama's legislative priorities would become much more difficult with fewer seats. If Coakley does poorly but ekes out a victory, moderate Democrats in Congress may think twice about falling in lockstep behind the White House.
The public's mood also could scare off establishment Democrats considering entering races, such as Beau Biden for Delaware's open Senate seat, or cause vulnerable Democratic incumbents, including Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, to retire.
Brown, a little-known Republican state senator with a limited record who had never before run statewide, shed his party markings and downplayed his conservative credentials throughout the monthlong campaign. He spent weeks campaigning not just against Coakley but against Capitol Hill.
He cast himself as a man of the people, fighting for them: "It's not the Kennedy seat. And it's not the Democrats' seat. It's the people's seat."
Coakley, the state's attorney general, comes right out of the establishment and has embraced her stature within the party. She has run a Rose Garden strategy, largely shunned retail politics, and dashed to Washington for an oh-so-insider fundraiser.
Now, with the race tight in its final days, Coakley's trying to appeal to an anti-Washington, pro-populism electorate by seizing the fight-for-the-little-guy mantle in hopes of thwarting a Republican victory. The White House and Coakley are hammering Brown for opposing Obama's just-announced plan to tax large Wall Street firms.
"I'm standing with Main Street on this one. Scott Brown stands with Wall Street," Coakley charged.
"There's only one candidate in this race who's a tax cutter — and it's not Martha Coakley," countered Brown, unwilling to cede his advantage among the angry electorate.
__
EDITOR'S NOTE — Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.
"
He's there to make sure the Health Care bill doesn't get derailed by a surprise win for the GOP candidate. It would be quite a shock of the Dem didn't win that seat.
Clearly, "change" is not my mantra
Hope?
Its quite a shock to the dems that its even close...
Yes, I "hope" Obama is a one term president
Why? He's doing exactly the same stuff as the previous 4.
How pathetic is this, it looks like Obama doesn't even get 4 years to screw things up. Why did they give Bush 8 years and Obama 11 months and change...?
Obama will get another 4 years unless something major happens. There is still 3 years to go and 2 before any challengers start coming out. Right now there is still no one from the repub side that could mount any type of realistic challenge.
Obama is odds on to get another term that is for sure, he is intelligent in that his healthcare changes wont take effect until the next term, so even if it turns out to be shit, it wont matter. He can still run on a platform of I passed this mighty healthcare bill
They're tipping John Thune of South Dakota to be the new Republican hopeful who might unseed Obama in '12. With Palin at Fox and Romney being a Mormon and all.
Romney will be a probable name. I think Huckabee will be another. Palin will probably still be an after thought unless somehow Fox can change her image which I doubt. It always seems like the next great repub comes off looking pretty bad when they get their big chance. Anyone seen Jindal lately? Thought not.
They will need a fresh face to step into the mix, just as Bush did in the late 90s. I still think Jeb Bush would give Obama the best challenge from the GOP side.
Heard on the radio the other morning that Obama's approval rating is 47%, the lowest of any president during his first year in office. Make of that what you will.
Before making an ass of yourself it's probably best to do a little research.
PostPartisan - Is Obama in trouble?
Obama's Approval Rating Dips to New Low - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
It's about the same on RCP as well. They show the polls and his numbers are down. In the end it doesn't mean too much. It's really just a snap shot that can change at any moment.
True. I personally don't approve or disapprove at the moment. I do think there are more important things to deal with immediately than this health care agenda, which I feel is being pushed by other influences than the president's personal desire.
Health Care was one of the central issues of his campaign, which explains why he's working hard to push it through. Even if its watered down, he can use it as a significant achievement going into the next election.
As for his approval ratings, i wouldn't read anything into it. He will spend the rest of his Presidency in the 45-60% range. He wont go as high or as low as Bush did.
the fact is any poll about the president now is not important.
The GOP is run by inbreds who are driving 'true' republicans away. But that may just suit the likes of you of course. The fact you are misinformed enough to say Health care is not a fundamental part of the problem shows your ignorance.
It was apparently important enough to take a swipe at Fox News until I brought facts to the table. I found it amusing your attempt to belittle me with your GOP insults, of which I, one, do not care for politics as I find it quite boring, and, two, do not align myself with the far right and found McCain's campaign rather frightening and indicative of the far right's internal problems that still exist today (for the record, I did not vote for McCain or Obama). My first post somehow struck a nerve it appears, as if you have some personal connection to Obama and feel anything negative is a personal attack on yourself.
You're correct in my view of health care as I do admit I don't follow political issues as much and probably see the past health care push from Pelosi, Clinton, etc., coincidentally members of the DNC, still at the forefront today. But I can admit my faults where as you resort to insults. Surely this should have been your initial response instead of using it as an attempt to wipe the egg from your face in your response to my response.
I found it amusing your attempt to belittle me with your GOP insults, of which I, one, do not care for politics as I find it quite boring, and, two, do not align myself with the far right and found McCain's campaign rather frightening and indicative of the far right's internal problems that still exist today (for the record, I did not vote for McCain or Obama). My first post somehow struck a nerve it appears, as if you have some personal connection to Obama and feel anything negative is a personal attack on yourself.
You're correct in my view of health care as I do admit I don't follow political issues as much and probably see the past health care push from Pelosi, Clinton, etc., coincidentally members of the DNC, still at the forefront today. But I can admit my faults where as you resort to insults. Surely this should have been your initial response instead of using it as an attempt to wipe the egg from your face in your response to my response.
tbf the last poll I saw had his approval at 55...that is why I 'insulted' you.
But I did some searches and I would agree his poll is below 50 on most. so I will grant you that. I never said I was without fault...bloody hell now That would be scary
fair enough you are not in up to speed on the health care debate.
Frankly I am not registered as a democrat. i have only voted once..that last time because I believed in Obama...I still do..so you may be right about my feelings of a personal connection...many of his words and writings remind me of people I grew up admiring...Gandhi, MLK JFK and RFK.
I think He is the best thing to have happened to the US in a long time. I still think he will accomplish much, though like many on the left he frustrates me....we are impatient.
But change takes time.
I do remember you saying you primarily vote GOP elsewhere...though I may be wrong.
My frustration is politicians on both sides Can solve the problems of this country...but they are more interested in scoring political points. Personally I am angry at the insane people on the far right who are more racists than anything else.
I have no problems with a republican who is a fiscal conservative. but not with these lot who cannot even think...they really are at the level of sub-humans...
I used to vote GOP up through 2004 but the last campaign put me off on the party. I don't care for the DNC either. My view is politics only represent themselves, big business and certain others (the super wealthy, elites, etc.)
There are plenty of people on the far left that should be shunned. Look at Harry Reid for example.
There are plenty of people on the far left that should be shunned. Look at Harry Reid for example.
- Status