Friday, August 7, 2009

Dishonesty, distraction and endless debate

So instead of making much progress on my expanding to-do list yesterday, I got locked in a stupid Facebook argument over Obama's poll numbers with a former co-worker and a couple of his buddies.

I try to avoid political arguments with people with whom I'm not particularly friendly or familiar, but my archconservative former co-worker was clearly trying to bait someone when he posted this in his status update: New CNN poll show more people view Obama as a failure than Bush... poll included oversampling of black voter... I am just posting this national story and now ducking for cover from my generally humorless Leftward-leaning associates.

Silly me, I took the bait. Twenty-four hours and thousands of dead brain cells later, here's the transcript (I've dropped the real names the protect the innocent AND stupid):

Now, why would you assume no humor from The Left? But I wonder how that poll judging Bush as a "failure" looked after Aug. 2001? Tough to know for sure before because he was on vacation a third of the time before that. I assume Bush must have had a pretty spotless record over the next 7 years, no?
Yesterday at 5:34pm · Delete

Whatever opinion people from the left have about Bush, he was elected for two terms, and I know he could not have been elected on right wing voters alone, especially twice. You guys deserve at least part of the blame he's getting for electing him twice.
Yesterday at 5:46pm

Well, actually, more people voted for Gore than Bush. But that's a discussion for another day ... . Anyway, polls don't mean much right now, do they? Especially one like that one that doesn't offer much context. Bush inherited a surplus and relative prosperity; Obama inherited Bush's burning greasefire of a presidential legacy - Iraq, Katrina, a crumbling economy, an out-of-control banking industry, etc.
Yesterday at 5:58pm · Delete

and he's not improving anything much, is he?
Yesterday at 6:00pm

Yeah. I mean, 6 months compared to 8 years. That's a fair comparison.
Yesterday at 6:02pm · Delete

Even the press gives the new president 100 days grace period, but after that, it's no longer the Bush Administration. It's Obama's. Six months into his 4 year term and he was just recently given the lowest approval rating of his term so far. That's not Bush's fault.
Yesterday at 6:05pm

And by the way, Gore was in 2000, Bush was elected a second term in 2004.
Yesterday at 6:08pm

I'm sorry. What you said doesn't make a lot of sense. I wasn't aware of this press "100 days grace period." Where have you read that? And also explain how "approval ratings" correlate to performance? Obama is trying to undo the damage wrought over 8 years. A sensible person would understand that it might take more than 6 months. Or would they?
Yesterday at 6:08pm · Delete

I wonder what his approval rating will be in another six months.
Yesterday at 6:25pm

Taken from the following link:"During some part of their first hundred days, Congress and the press generally allow new presidents a "honeymoon period," during which public criticism is held to a minimum. It is during this totally unofficial and typically fleeting grace period that new presidents often try to get bills through Congress that might face more opposition later in the term."
Yesterday at 6:28pm

Oh come on, the national media still admits it gets a woodie when it thinks of Obama -- Chris Matthews and the "tingle up the leg" anyone? The man has a gaggle of groupies following him, not the same pack of ankle-biters Bush had to deal with. The National Media needs to get back to doing real journalism and get out of bed with the politicians it covers.
Yesterday at 6:33pm

Allan, Fred, you know 20 years from now any failing Dem politician will be digging up the political corpse of George W. Bush to kick it and bash it for their failures. Not saying he didn't have his shortcomings, but at least he didn't put GM out of business.
Yesterday at 6:34pm

thank you John!
Yesterday at 6:35pm

Yeah. Obama put GM out of business. I mean, that's beyond silly. You can't be serious. You think GM went out of business merely because of the policies of the past six months? Jeebus.
Yesterday at 6:37pm · Delete

@Allan: That's a really weak and tenuous link. But I'll acknowledge it. Either way, the press easing up on criticism of Obama for his first 100 days has nothing to do with substantive critiques of his performance. It's going to take more than six months, more than a year, to know hos this will all shake out. Maybe if he passes health care reform, and people's premiums go down and more people get insured, his approval ratings will go back up again. Who knows?
Yesterday at 6:40pm · Delete

A year? That's a fourth of his term! More than a year? Come on now! How long is he going to blame Bush for things he can't get done? Talk about "beyond silly"!
Yesterday at 6:43pm

Well, if we had judged Abraham Lincoln on only the first year of his presidency, we wouldn't have had much to go on, eh? Same with FDR. Or LBJ. Or Bush. I didn't realize we could put a president's place in history into context inside of a year. That's news to me. You should share that tidbit with historians and such.
Yesterday at 6:49pm · Delete

All I'm saying is once a president leaves office and the next one comes in, the new one has to take responsibility at some point. As I pointed out before, he's only got a four year term to prove what he's worth in history. When should that critique start?
Yesterday at 6:52pm

At this point, I also see we'll have to agree to disagree. I guess we'll need a few more months to determine whether or not Obama is the crazy, unqualified Kenyan socialist some on the Right imagine him to be. Let's check back on Jan. 20, 2010.
Yesterday at 6:54pm · Delete

John, I think Obama's numbers will actually be lower than they are now. And as for Obama putting GM out of business? I don't know about that, but the policies of his party (union supporters) certainly did.
Yesterday at 7:07pm

(Blackink's) first comment was why did I assume no one on the left has a sense of humor and then he put up a half-dozen posts proving my point. QED!
Yesterday at 7:08pm

Yesterday at 7:09pm

Exactly. I'm having real difficulty understanding why any American would want a president to fail, regardless of that president's political party. So much energy is spent criticizing the God, the things this country could achieve if, regardless of who's elected, we all got behind him/her and supported the programs on which he/she was elected by a majority of our country.
Yesterday at 7:10pm

The last and greatest leftie with a great sense of humor, I think, was Dick Tuck. Still alive, 94 years old! Was a big thorn in Richard Nixon's side. Once hired a Brink's armored money truck and a Chinese laundry van to follow the Presidential motorcade in D.C. Heck, you could have done that with any president since, even to the present dude, and it would be funny and on-target.
Yesterday at 7:15pm

JAP, what does humor have to do with this? Was that poll a joke? Or were you hoping no one called you out on the out-of-context bullshit that it was?
Yesterday at 7:18pm · Delete

I mean, if this was funny, I guess I'd laugh. But uh ... this wasn't exactly Richard Pryor material you were posting here.
Yesterday at 7:20pm · Delete

He was referring to your posts being humorous.
Yesterday at 7:21pm

Again ... wtf? He posted something. I didn't think it was funny, and responded as such. I wasn't trying to be funny. Which doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor.
Yesterday at 7:28pm · Delete

I don't see why this would be news. All presidents have a drop in ratings after a few months. Using that to discredit someone simply because you want them to fail may make you look sharp to fellow Obama haters, but it only serves to undermine your credibility to everyone else.
Yesterday at 8:24pm

Obama failing? It's not possible is it? That's not in the headlines!
Yesterday at 9:13pm

That's cute. But he's not failing. Now, if he let thousands of people in a great American city drown during a natural disasteror led thousands of soldiers to their death in the Middle East in a meaningless war or diminshed regulatory powers to the point that the banking and housing industries ran amok, that might be failure.
Yesterday at 9:32pm · Delete

The Leader never fails. He is faultless. Brilliant. Mankind's answer. The antidote to all ills. The Leader never fails.The Leader never fails.The Leader never fails. (I just graduated from the re-education camp. Seems after they email the White House with your name and number you get "the call.")
Yesterday at 9:35pm

Yeah. When you don't have the facts on your side, you try - meekly - with comedy. It's not working, dude.
Yesterday at 9:37pm · Delete

(blackink) no matter how much u want to blame HURRICANE katrina on bush it doesn't make it true
Yesterday at 9:50pm

Yeah. I guess the feds had the perfect response. We should bring Brownie back, I suppose.
Yesterday at 9:52pm · Delete

Seems to me you got a mayor and a governor who could take some of that blame pie.
Yesterday at 9:57pm

Tell y'all what: I'll support the new guy as completely and honestly as y'all backed Bush. That should be comforting. I want this COUNTRY to succeed, not whoever happens to be warming the seat for any particular four-year interval. Imperfect as it may be, this is the best damned country in the world and to hell with whoever would change that.
Yesterday at 9:58pm

That much is true. It was not a shining moment for Nagin or Blanco. They have paid or will pay their political price. But, in general, the federal government handles much of the response to huge natural disasters. And in that regard, the Bush House fell down on the job.
Yesterday at 10:00pm · Delete

Don't see it that way (blackink).
Yesterday at 10:05pm

I reject that. But maybe it's because I'm "hacked off" right now. Feel free to not support the President, just like Rush told you to. *For context, JAP - the former co-worker - had earlier posted a FB status saying that he had "posted a reply or two to thoroughly hack off some folks here on Facebook (you know who you are)"
Yesterday at 10:06pm · Delete

(Blackink), it's the cold hard truth. Bush did not aim a hurricane at New Orleans.
Yesterday at 10:13pm

ROFL, you think Rush tells US how to think? It's more the other way around. Still, live the delusion.
Yesterday at 10:21pm

@Fred: There's a difference between the "truth" and an opinion. Thought Bush handled the response pretty good, do you? That's telling.
@JAP: The only people delusional are the ones who think a poll in early August, six months into Obama's term, tells us anything about anything.
Yesterday at 10:24pm · Delete

Btw, this has gone on much too long. It was something similar to fun. But not really. Thanks for the memories.
Yesterday at 10:27pm · Delete

There IS a difference in truth and opinion, I've dedicated my life to truth. So, what makes your opinion true and mine just an opinion? THAT my delusional friend is telling.
Yesterday at 10:32pm

Dude, get real. You're not even making sense any more. And I've dedicated my life to the same.
2 seconds ago · Delete

There were no winners here. Everyone lost.

What a waste of time, eh? And I'm still working on that to-do list.


G.D. said...

It's not that these cats are conservative that's the problem; it's that they don't know what they're talking about. They haven't pointed to one policy related disagreement they have with dude.

Bush is easily one of the two or three worst presidents in the history of the Republic, and they've basically said that nothing that happened during his presidency was his fault. Nothing. And then they bring up Obama's poll numbers, but never mention that Bush's numbers hadn't been as high as Obama's current trough for the last FIVE YEARS of his presidency.

G.M. has been failing for decades, and its bankruptcy is suddenly Obama's fault. Amazing.

blackink said...

Absolutely. The intellectual dishonesty - or stupidity? - is really brazen there.

I mean, how do you even bother to argue the point about GM there? Is it even worth it?

And I'm always skeptical of using poll numbers - 100, then 200 days in - to prove much of anything. The only thing we need to know is that Obama won the election with roughly 53 percent of the vote and the relative success or failure of his policies.

There's concrete proof that Bush was an abject failure. I didn't need a poll to them me that, you know?

Bougie Applebum said...

This is exactly why I cannot get into discussions with some people about politics. I had no idea Obama was the reason GM failed. Wow. Live and learn. And was Katrina his fault too? D@mn - did Obama shoot the sheriff too? You know all this time people have been saying OJ did it...but now, I dunno. lol. Seems like everything is "blame it on Obama".

I cannot tell you how tired I am of jokers like this who try to defend GW's bullish presidency with bullish facts. That's exactly why we are in the shitzers now....

If McCain had won the election - would he feel the same heated lashes if he didn't repair Bush's crap in 100 days? I think not. I don't understand how these people try to act all surprised that it takes time (longer than 8 months) to correct 8 years of disaster.

Get that mess outta here blackink - oh I'm hot now! I am so glad I wasn't online to chat with this dude. I would have been calling for him to get right down to the 'real' issue and it has nothing to do with politics.