Who’s unpopular?

In a fit of wishful thinking that would make Tinkerbell blush, columnist E. Thomas McClanahan claims that Obama’s popularity has peaked and the Republicans are on the rebound (3/29, Opinion, “Obama’s big-government express is losing steam”).

We shouldn’t underestimate the well-documented ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Right now, though, Republican popularity is dropping faster than the economy, and there is no end in sight. The Republicans are in a free fall because their message — less government — conflicts with the public’s perception that this economic disaster was caused by lax government regulation. McClanahan’s intellectual ancestors wrote in 1933 criticizing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s massive government spending plans, and they were just as wrong then as McClanahan is today.
 
If Republicans insist on promoting solutions from the Herbert Hoover School of Economics, they’ll be rewarded in 2012 when they win as many states as Alf Landon did in 1936.

Steve Simon
Leawood

Comments

[GCYL]

“.....someone who isn't even here anymore and try to make it fit this thread.” - Jim

I’ve never thought you were ever completely here Jim but you’re correct we have noticed your typical hypocrite reaction when confronted by your own words.

[GCYL]

“Surely you're not being disrespectful of our president after 8 long years of decrying the lack of respect for our previous president. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.” – Jimmy

“I have no problem with people criticizing our president. I never have had a problem with that.” – Jimmy

Make up your mind Jimmy.

Oh, wait, you don’t have a problem with people being disrespectful of a President as long as you agree with them. Glad that works for you Jimmy.

[GCYL]

“There's no difference, of course....” – Pub 17

Of course one side of the coin would view it’s self as a vast difference from the other side.

So Jimmy is wrong, it’s not an issue of hypocrisy, it’s an issue of timing. Yeah, right Pub.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Not according to the Treasury Dept, the surplus was a myth. Clinton increased our public debt. This interpolated finance is bogus. You can be out of debt but in debt at the same time. Right, just like you can be pregnant but not really be pregnant.
You obviously smoke some of that Endo that really tweaks your brain cell.
You're just another deadbeat socialist.
Funny thng is I know many that were equally as poor if not worse off when Bill Jeff was in office, it's not like when he was in EVERYONE was instantaniously wealthy.
Bush had 6 good years of growth. Obama has SPENT more on already failed social programs that have nthing to do with people paying their mortgages and catering to lobbyists. he ahs spent more n less than 60 days than Bush did in 8 years. Cleaning up, right. 90% of us pay our mortgages, 91.9% of us are employed, according to academia, that is grade A.

[Smarter Than You]

Jimbo’s tired, repeated use of “talking points” reminds me of Rupert the Monkey Boy screaming “Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Oklahoma!” It’s funny for a while. . .

OK, let’s play. Bush was bad because he ran up debt sayeth our dear friends on the left. So how does running up more debt at a greater rate SOLVE the problem that rampant spending helped create. For the love of God, Lefties, please tell me your arguments are better thought out than that. Please tell me that you’re not Volkerite’s genuflecting at the altar of failed economic policy.

Obama’s numbers are dropping. That is a fact. Congress, the (currently) Democratic institution is a low as ever. Denying those simple facts shows how intellectually void of “truthiness” our DNCers are.

[Jim]

"Do we believe Jim or do we believe Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury..."

You don't have to believe either, the numbers tell the truth clearly. We went from 25% unemployment in 1933 to 10% in 1937. Conservatives in both parties convinced Roosevelt to reverse his policies and cut spending while increasing taxes, citing concerns over deficit spending. The economy took a nosedive after that.

New Deal revisionism is suddenly back in style among Conservatives, but there are no facts to back any of it up. Quoting someone with no context and ignoring those facts doesn't change the reality. Try again.

[Jim]

Arminius loves to accuse others of things he does all the time. When called on his dishonesty, he disappears. When challenged to back up his charges of dishonesty, he does the same.

[Jim]

"I’m entertained that those who believed that it was their right to address the former administration as they see fit are now having a hard time with those who are addressing the current administration as they see fit."

And I'm entertained by your constant need to twist people's words in order to pick fights.

I have no problem with people criticizing our president. I never have had a problem with that. It's when people take debunked talking points and run with them as if they're factual that I have a problem with.

It's when people refer to the president with stupid names like "messiah" or "chimpy," showing they actually have no argument, that I have a problem with.

I also have a problem with people who pretend to be political "independents" while simultaneously posting GOP party hack talking points, then accusing everyone else of being a party hack. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Now it's your turn to take some two-year old completely unrelated comment from someone who isn't even here anymore and try to make it fit this thread. Go ahead, smugly shoehorn something in and watch us all laugh at you.

[Pub 17]

Glad you're entertained. There's no difference, of course, between criticizing an administration that screwed up worse than any other administration in the history of this country over the course of eight long, miserable years, and criticizing an administration that's been in office just over two months and whose primary duty at the moment is sweeping up the trillion-ton pile of horse dooky left behind by the previous administration. None whatsoever. None.
Stay entertained, GCYL.

[whispering_to_kc]

McClanahan is one of our local, tinkerbell neocons.

McClanahan’s intellectual ancestors swung from trees.

[GCYL]

“Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.” – Jim

Speaking of hypocrisy that know no bounds, I’m entertained that those who believed that it was their right to address the former administration as they see fit are now having a hard time with those who are addressing the current administration as they see fit.

[Arminius]

Jim:

"What's the Republican solution this time around? Well, besides massive tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich, they want to dramatically cut spending, which is what Hoover did and what FDR did later."

Yet another lie from Jim. Hoover INCREASED spending.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/03/12/chuck-schumer-endorses-hoover-plan/

[Pub 17]

BZZT!
Oh, sorry, Mr. Nice Guy, your last road trip for Groendyke didn't improve your math skills or your reading comprehension. We had a surplus for the last couple years under Clinton. Too bad, wrong as usual, keep frothing, cop a bowl of phô up on Independence Ave and STFU. Or better yet, come back drunk and give us all a good laugh.

[Arminius]

"Arminius is back to re-writing history again. The New Deal was doing very well at bringing the economy back from catastrophic unemployment until the mid/late 30s, when Conservatives convinced FDR that he should cut spending and try to balance the budget. The economy took a nose-dive when he did."

This is hilarious! Do we believe Jim or do we believe Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, who witnessed the failure of FDR's policies firsthand and admitted that they failed? Gee, that's a REALLY tough one, espcially when you consider how honest Jim has been on this forum.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

and now government along with recurring public debt has increased even more than Bush ever thought about implementing.
It does not take a genius to write hot checks with their left hand, read a teleprompter or say buzzwordy rhetoric.
We have had a deficit since 1791 and will have until the end of civilization.
Until society understands simple math, you can not spend mroe than you have, we are screwed.

[Stifled Freedom]

Bush stole the Republicans right to campaign on small govt for a generation. No one will believe it any more than they believed McCain.

[Stifled Freedom]

Republicans are in a free fall because they are accurately perceived as insincere about thier political intentions and wildy hypocritical. We dont trust them. They campaign on small govt and then a guy like Bush swelled and expanded govt like no President (even a Democrat) ever has. I dont think Al Gore would have created the massive govt that we have now.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Economic distaster is for one thing a myth.
It's all relative to what you believe.
The majority of us are doing just fine.
There were unemployed and foreclsures long before the recent increases, however 90% represents the najority of working, tax paying citizens paying as agreed and living at the standard they have been.
Government spending more in 60 days than Bush did in 8 years is out of line and unless everyone wants to be a bridge worker, the stimulus will do nothiing but increase recurring socialist program funding. Obama is a clown, he has no experieince running an enterprise and has basically been nothing more than an Ivy League wefare monger.

[Kee]

Steve, BACK AWAY FROM THE KOOL-AID!

You gotta love these guys for comic relief!

[Jim]

"The Democrat in the race run on the Messiah's so-called stimulus plan and, like the Messiah, is weak on fighting terrorism"

Who is this Messiah you speak of? Surely you're not being disrespectful of our president after 8 long years of decrying the lack of respect for our previous president. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

How is the "messiah" supposedly "weak" on terror? I want some concrete examples, please. No more empty talking points.