in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan, this past week only a paltry 300 showed up at a Tea Party convention in Tampa, Florida, where GOP big
Meanwhile, in India, The Woman Who Will Never Be President disrespected America by dissing its president while on foreign soil, a trangression that almost cost the Dixie Chicks their careers when they said they were ashamed they came from Texas because of George W. Bush, during the Gulf War.
Sarah Palin's numbers are falling faster than a lead halibut in Bristol Bay. Here's the bad news for this narcissistic know-nothing. Read it and rejoice:
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was, as recently as last July, one of the GOP's most beloved figures. But since then, her "favorable rating" has been coming down and her "unfavorable rating" has been moving sharply north.
The latest data point of this trend is an ABC News-Washington Post poll. A story about (and details of) the poll can be found here.
Ms. Palin's shadow campaign for the 2012 GOP presidential campaign has been almost completely mismanaged. Her biggest problem -- that she lacks the experience and knowledge necessary to serve as president -- has gone unaddressed. She's embroiled herself in politically useless controversies. And she's been incoherent on hugely important issues (like the uprisings in the Middle East).
Americans support President Obama's Libya air strikes.
I'm not totally convinced this was a good thing, but cannot weigh in on the issue, since I know next to nothing about that area of the Middle East. I'm not sure this country can sustain another conflict, and I don't know if the president had the authority to do what he did. I'll reserve my opinion until I learn more. But here is a chart on how Americans support the president:
SOURCE
"CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.
Nearly seven in ten Americans support the use of military air strikes in Libya in order to protect civilians from attacks by Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, a new CBS News poll finds.
In a survey taken on Sunday and Monday, following Saturday's first round of U.N.-sanctioned missile and air strikes aimed at Libya, 68 percent of Americans said they approved of the military action. Just 26 percent said they disapproved.
Eight in 10 Americans want budget compromise
Fifty percent of Americans said they approved of how President Obama was handling the situation in Libya, and the president earned more support from Republicans on the issue than he did on domestic issues like the economy and the deficit. Forty-three percent of Republicans said they approved of Mr. Obama's handling of the Libya situation, according to the poll, and 41 percent disapproved. Sixty-six percent of Democrats approved, as did 43 percent of Independents."
30 comments:
say it isn't so shaw!!! if dear sarah continues to plummet in the polls, she might see the writing on the wall and choose not to run for president... then we'll only have bachman to pray for...
as for libya, i have found it interesting that some media types, and other very conservative bloggers were calling for Obama to do something, before he did, and now they are saying he had no business doing anything!
america will never see a better example of the idiocy of the right wing than this. clearly, they were for US/Obama intervention, before they were against it.
and where are the conservative leaders who just a few years ago claimed dissent against a president who had just sent troops into battle was treason?
if i did not make it practice to guard my tongue, i would have some great names for these weasels...
Palin tanking. Now, if only Bachman, Huckabee and Trump would follow suit.
As to Libya and the Obama intervention, the one that has the Neo Cons and progressives holding hands... a blunder pure and simple.
The only justification for military action is in response to an unprovoked act of aggression by a notion against another.
The issue is regional, Libya did not commit an act of aggression against the US, and it does not present a clear and present national security threat. Therefor Obama should have told the everybody to go p*ss off and done nothing. IMHO.
Now, I support our pilots (and will the troops should Obama end up putting American boots on the ground) but I won't support Obama if he does.
Obama, if he is as intelligent as some believe he is ought to have learned by his forerunners mistake.
But then again the MIC isn't making as much money when we're not engaged.
Posted on this at RN as well.
I'm not totally convinced this was a good thing, but cannot weigh in on the issue, since I know next to nothing about that area of the Middle East.
Well, the Middle East is my area, and I'm convinced it was a good thing. We have a lot at stake in the success of the Arab rebellions, in Libya and elsewhere.
If you could poll Libyans, you'd probably find support a lot higher than 68%. Right up until the airstrikes started, people in Benghazi and across Libya were practically screaming for the outside world to come and help them.
It's in line with our values, too. Today people look back at various massacres and atrocities of the past and ask, "Why didn't somebody do something to stop it?" Well, this time we did.
And.....300 sure isn't much of a convention! The huge rally in Madison was very heartening. Have you read Jack Jodell's "People's Party" posts? Walker seems to have catalyzed the awakening of a nascent mass movement in our country. I always thought the staggering inequality which has developed can't last. Perhaps this is the beginning of sweeping it away.
RN: “Libya did not commit an act of aggression against the US, and it does not present a clear and present national security threat.”
Explain that to the families of Sergeant Kenneth Ford, James Goins, and Nermin Hannay who died in the bombing La Belle disco on April 5, 1986. The bomb was brought to Berlin in a Libyan diplomatic bag.
Explain that to the 243 passengers, 16 crew members, and 11 people on the ground who died when a bomb brought down Pan Am flight 103. Total death toll: 270. Last month (February 24, 2011), resigned justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil revealed that Muamar Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.
Here are countries that DID NOT attack the U.S.A. or cause death or injury to our civilians but were nonetheless attacked by our military: Grenada (ordered by former Pres. Ronald Reagan), Lebanon (ordered by former Pres. Ronald Reagan, Panama (ordered by former Pres. George H. W. Bush). But I suppose these incidents were perfectly acceptable in your book because these were ordered by REPUBLICANS. Your partisan double standard is beyond OFFENSIVE.
RN: “Posted on this at RN as well.”
Notwithstanding your penchant for constant blog whoring, the reason why most of us do not visit your weblog: You are half illiterate, seriously misinformed, astonishingly hypocritical, and too stupid to know the difference.
Octo's right about Libya, and he deftly bypassed the pro-terrorist, pro-dictator defense of Khadaffy.
Octo - I could not care less that you don't visit my site.
As to your character:
It deserves NO comment actually. Other than individuals like yourself who hurl insults, misinformation about another, etc. do so because they have nothing to stand on.
Essentially they are intellectually bankrupt and or seriously unstable.
Take your pick squid man.
I'm betting you delete this comment forthwith. You certainly have a penchant for doing so.
RN: “ I'm betting you delete this comment forthwith.”
Not this time. Your comment stands as an eloquent testimonial from a vapid numbskull.
For other interested readers, here is an abstract of legislation that defines the president’s war making powers:
The Vietnam era War Powers Act (passed in 1973 over the veto of then Pres. Nixon) triggers a 60-day time limit that grants the president discretionary emergency powers up to 60 days, pursuant to section 1544(b), before consulting Congress. Some recent noteworthy cases:
1981: President Reagan deployed military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political move.
1982-83: President Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon to participate in peacekeeping efforts; while he did submit reports to Congress under the Resolution, he did not cite Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit.
1993-99: President Clinton sent armed forces to Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and conducted with member states of NATO. The President made a number of reports to Congress, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60-day time limit. Representative Campbell and other House members filed suit in Federal District Court, charging that Clinton violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
2001: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed Public Law 107-40, authorizing President George W. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
With respect to Kucinich and others who have criticized the President’s actions, case law has supported past presidential actions, and Kucinich seems to be engaging in grandstanding and political opportunism (read: simultaneous fundraising) but little else.
"Kucinich seems to be engaging in grandstanding and political opportunism (read: simultaneous fundraising) but little else."
He's probably gearing up for another joke/vanity campaign for President.
Probably. Way too much vanity in politics these days ... and in the blogosphere too.
The blogosphere's all about vanity, really. Politics shouldn't be.
By vanity candidates I think of the ones that run for President but have no chance of, or even any intent, of winning. But there's a little wanna be rock star in them. Since they can't play guitar, they mount up some mockery of a White House campaign and go around making speeches and getting campaign money which sometimes ends up in a personal slush fund.
Nader, Kucinich, Ron Paul, that nazi the Green Party ran last time, Pat Buchanan and the rest of those tiny ones.
(Yeah a lot of you are thinking Sarah Palin too, and .... gives it some thought, you are right! and..back on topic)
I thought Sarah Palin would have fallen into oblivion a year ago... I overestimated the collected intelligence of America. oops.... I am not sure about Libya. I'm really not. We haven't extricated ourselves from Iraq or Afghanistan ... hopefully it will parallel what Bush I did in Kuwait.... help out and then get the Hell out. OR... let's send Sarah on a Peacc Keeping Mission..... hmmmmmm
Wow! Conservatives are now peaceniks and liberals have become hawks!
It might actually help if Americans knew a little bit about the Middle East, and it would probably help a whole lot if our government knew a little more...
First off, these "terrorists" as they are being called are actually freedom fighters. Benghazi is the capital of Cyrenaica and it was the capital of Libya until the coup staged by Gaddhafi, thus the political infrastructure for self government is readily available and is functioning today. The head of the freedom fighters is a well respected civil rights attorney who was also the Justice Minister under Gaddhafi. So, the Libyans got their opportunity to regain their freedom and they are willing to die for it.
Seems to me, using the logic to justify the Iraq war, Libya makes a whole lot of sense. Second, a third of the Libyans are actually followers of Senussi Islam and Benghazi is actually their headquarters...that makes a world of difference in the world of the middle east.
The reality is we will have to get weapons and ammo to the freedom fighters and they need some serious training...but they can and will defeat Gaddhafi on their own and they can accomplish nation building real well on their own.
I am sure their will be some retribution against Gaddafi supporters but it will not be a blood bath...if we understood Senussi Islam and the bedioun mentality then it would be obvious.
Sometimes the French really amaze me...they have already recognized the transitional government in Benghazi as the legitimate government of Libya and they threw the first bombs in this fight....but they would have nothing to do with Iraq.
Libya is a no brainer....but we might want to start getting ourselves educated for the real battle and that will be Yemen and Saudi Arabia....
Tao said: "Wow! Conservatives are now peaceniks and liberals have become hawks!"
I just shows how much partisan politics get involved. What you described happened some when Clinton went to war against Serbia.
Actually... a minor point, Octo.
You said: "Here are countries that DID NOT attack the U.S.A. or cause death or injury to our civilians but were nonetheless attacked by our military:....Lebanon (ordered by former Pres. Ronald Reagan...."
Actually, the PLO was hosted by Lebanon from the 1960s through 1982. The PLO killed many American civilians during this period (highjacking, massacres of civilians, and other terror attacks). There were also many more injuries.
Personally Dmarks, I think the word "WAR" needs to be saved for those really special occasions....
WWI and WWII were wars...I guess we can call them classical wars.
Korea and Vietnam were something different, Iraq and Afghanistan were also different from the first four...
Then you can lump all the others into something akin to unexplained forays.
It looks like Libya is going to be in a class all its own considering how quick we are trying to hand that one off to our allies..
I just think if all the conservatives had used their current logic on GWB then Iraq would have never happened....of course they will claim that they learn from history....but then one would ask what took so long....
When all is said and done, I'm not losing any sleep over the bombing of Gadhaffi's stuff. I heard an unconfirmed report that one of Gadhaffi's sons was killed.
This guys a brutal asshole who did all that Octo said and more.
Whoever aimed the missle at his residence deserves a medal.
Dmarks: "Actually, the PLO was hosted by Lebanon from the 1960s through 1982."
Correction. Indeed there were PLO in Lebanon, but the Marine barracks attack was NOT the work of the PLO. In 1983, then Pres. Ronald Reagan ordered U.S. Marines to Lebanon. A double bombing killed 299 American and French servicemen. An organization calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing, but that organization is thought to have been a nom de guerre for Hezbollah - which received backing from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
re: Tao.... War or something different...?
//Korea and Vietnam were something different//
correction.... when the bullets and bombs are coming in your way.... there is no difference.... at all.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I've been distracted by a family matter and have not checked in as often as I usually do.
Dave,
A perfect example of being for a Libyan intervention and then opposing it as soon as President Obama did so is Newt Gingrich. The more he tries to explain his duplicity, the deeper he digs his hypocritical hole.
RN-USA,
I'm not so sure President Obama made a blunder. Libya and Iraq are NOT the same in any way. For starters, it is the Libyan people who rose up to overthrow the tyrant Ghadafi and who begged for help to do so. That was not the case in 2003--there are other non-comparisons, and Juan Cole, a Middle East expert [like our friend Infidel753], lists them.
Infidel753,
Thanks for the information and your informed opinion. There are many differences between Iraq and Libya, as stated above. I'm still learning more about the situation.
(O)CT(O),
As always, you've given us the facts to dispel the fictions. IMO, most of the opposition to how Mr. Obama has reacted to the Libyan crises is based on the fear that the president will succeed.
dmarks,
I don't think a person could run for the presidency unless she or he had a good deal of vanity.
okjimm,
Why oh why do people listen to what Palin has to say on foreign issues? The woman didn't have a passport until she was a grandmother! She doesn't know bubkis about international affairs, and proves it everytime she opens her mouth.
TAO,
Nice to see you again. Where did I read that we may not have another world war but will have to continue to be engaged in these regional wars forever.
MDL,
At least this country didn't have to lie about the reasons for going into Libya as it did about Iraq.
Shaw,
I have had this debate over at Democracy Central...
The reality is that the concept of Free Markets and globalization creates a reality of one world. If one were to argue that we face a future of regional conflicts then logically that leads to the need for a globalized military or a one world police force. Which is the role we currently play as the remaining superpower.
But the reality is that our ability to create revenue and or fund a worldwide military/police force is limited to our local economic system. So while our wealth is being extracted and reinvested all over the world and while we are expected to fund the deployment of a worldwide military we are doing so on revenue that is based upon national borders.
If we are going to continue down the road of free markets and globalization and if we are going to continue to be the worlds police force then logically its time that we think about a one world government.
TAO,
A one-world government is something that terrifies the right, and has been the subject of their paranoia for years.
IMO, we have a kind of "one world" government. I believe the world banksters and financiers decide most of what happens economically to nations and which wars need to be fought to keep them in power.
Fareed Zakaria has a thoughtful analysis on Mr. Obama and the US involvment in Libya. Here are the wrap-up paragraphs:
"In a wise book, How Wars End, Gideon Rose points out that American policymakers have often entered war with little thought given to the endgame — the political order they wish to see at its close — hoping that military action would create some kind of positive momentum and things would work out. Maybe that happens, but often things only get more messy. What we need to decide is, What is the realistic outcome we are working toward in Libya? We are not committing enough force to actually destroy Gaddafi's regime. Do we want a partitioned Libya, with Tripoli held by Gaddafi and Benghazi by the opposition, the latter sheltered by a permanent no-fly zone? That is the likely outcome given the resources we are currently putting to bear.
In the final analysis, however, the most significant challenge for Barack Obama is to keep America's military involvement limited. If Gaddafi does not fall immediately, it will take just a few days for people in Washington to start claiming that Obama lost, Gaddafi won, and America has been humiliated. The response should not be to escalate. The U.S. used its military in Libya for a specific, limited mission: to destroy Gaddafi's air defenses. That goal will be achieved; others might not. Gaddafi can be placed in a quarantine of sorts, isolated and ostracized until he quits. Slobodan Milosevic survived the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. There were Presidents who managed to keep military missions limited — Dwight Eisenhower — or even withdraw them when they were not working and live to fight another day: Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs; Reagan in Lebanon. They lived with partial success, stayed focused and husbanded America's power and global position. Those who didn't want to be seen as "losing a country" often ended up losing a lot more.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2061106,00.html#ixzz1HXsXibNT
Palin is a non-issue as far as Im concerned, so won't even waste time commenting about her.
But when I heard the news about Lybia, I have to confess that I welcomed it about as much as I would a case of the mumps. I don't think most people welcome military action of any kind, but the more I read the more convinced I became that Obama was doing what reluctantly needed to be done.
The two things that swayed me were Gaddafi's long history of murder, not only killing his own citizens but those from other nations, including our own. The time comes when tyrants like this have to be dealt with once and for all. Perhaps if we had acted sooner against Hitler, the number of concentration camp survivors would have been significantly higher.
Were the U.S. acting unilaterally, that would have been entirely different. Instead this is a U.N. sanctioned endeavor with many, many other nations involved. Not only do other nations support this, the majority of our own citizens support it.
I'm not too concerned about what Republicans have to say. They have proven time and time again to be lying flip-floppers of the first degree and have thus lost all credibility with me. I remember when . . .
Nor do I have any use for the hard left as exemplified by a political opportunist such as Kucinich who says Obama should be impeached. Not any different from what we're hearing from the far-right. These hard arses have also lost their credibility with me.
I have a friend from Benghazi. I talked to him when the unrest first started. It's certainly time to check in with him again.
Dmarks,
Please give us updates when you hear from your friend.
Shaw - Thanks for your response to my comment.
After considering the various viewpoints I continue to believe the intervention ill advised.
Thank you for the link.
Octo: I just dropped him another line. He came to the US to study about a month and a half before the unrest in Libya started.
He lived his whole life in Libya and coincidentally left just before all hell broke lose.
"Obama, still better than Bush." Wow, what a low bar you've set. And Obama is doing his best to be like Bush. Pro-war. Pro bankers. Pro torture. Ever hear of Bradley Manning? Whistleblower harassment in general, when he'd said that whistleblowers should be protected. Hard to believe Obama is supposedly a constitutional law scholar. I pray for a true progressive Democratic primary challenger. I'm done with voting for someone because they're somewhat/slightly better than a Republican. (I voted for Nader). Try reading Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com for some views sans rose-colored glass.
DavidW,
It's nice to be able to sit in your comfortable home and tell us what a crappy job Obama's doing.
You think he's just as bad as Bush?
Did Obama lie us into a multi-billion dollar war?
Did he pass DADT? Something that would NEVER happen under a GOP pres. Ending DOMA?
Obama got a health care bill passed that COULD be passed, not one that he or we wanted but one that he could get the votes for.
He damn well knew the blue dog Democrats would NEVER vote for a single payer system. Obama could have been unyielding on that, and we would have ended up with NOTHING.
He negotiated and got what he could without one vote from the Republicans, and wobbly support from the blue dogs, and we got an imperfect but workable health care bill.
Something presidents have been trying and failing to do since Teddy Roosevelt's time.
People like you want perfection, but you'll never get it.
A Kucinich or a Nader will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be president. But if you vote for them you guarantee another Bush-type or worse, a Palin-type presidency, and what you'll accomplish is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
IMHO, you're a tad naive when it comes to politics.
I'm pretty sure Mr. Obama knows what he's doing vis-a-vis the Constitution. Do you know something about Constitutional law that he and his lawyers and advisors don't?
Post a Comment