60...60...60...60...60...60...60...60

[bush_cheney2004]

In a move to boost re-election chances, Senator Arlen Specter indicates that he has switched parties, creating a filibuster proof majority of 60 once all the dust settles for Al Franken.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

Be careful what you wish for......

Edited April 28, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[stevoh]

In a move to boost re-election chances, Senator Arlen Specter indicates that he has switched parties, creating a filibuster proof majority of 60 once all the dust settles for Al Franken.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

Be careful what you wish for......

This will be an interesting test for "bipartisan" Obama. Now that he doesn't NEED any votes to pass his initiatives, will he continue to reach out?

[August1991]

In a move to boost re-election chances, Senator Arlen Specter indicates that he has switched parties, creating a filibuster proof majority of 60 once all the dust settles for Al Franken.

If this were Newfoundland politics, everyone would be asking how much Obama had to pay Specter.

[jdobbin]

If this were Newfoundland politics, everyone would be asking how much Obama had to pay Specter.

What do you mean just Newfoundland politics?

Right wingers asked that about Stronach by saying she was bribed. They were less curious about Emerson.

[jdobbin]

This will be an interesting test for "bipartisan" Obama. Now that he doesn't NEED any votes to pass his initiatives, will he continue to reach out?

Do you think some Republicans might now reach out as well?

[stevoh]

Do you think some Republicans might now reach out as well?

I doubt it.

They seem to be more interesting in shoring up party lines and showing how everything Obama is doing is wrong rather than actually having reasonable input into new policy. The three republicans who did participate in a bipartisan matter in the stimulous package, making changes more in line with conservative policy, have been vilified by the republican party (no small part of Spectors consideration as well, I am sure).

Its pretty difficult to participate in a bi-partisan manner when there are no gray areas, only black and white. Compromise is not part of the Republican way.

[jdobbin]

They seem to be more interesting in shoring up party lines and showing how everything Obama is doing is wrong rather than actually having reasonable input into new policy. The three republicans who did participate in a bipartisan matter in the stimulous package, making changes more in line with conservative policy, have been vilified by the republican party (no small part of Spectors consideration as well, I am sure).

I suppose some of them could rage impotently against a supermajority or they might try to get things they want by working with the Democrats.

I think Obama will try to work with Senate and the Reps even if it isn't always necessary.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Its pretty difficult to participate in a bi-partisan manner when there are no gray areas, only black and white. Compromise is not part of the Republican way.

Faced with this reality, the best strategy is to give the Democrats as much rope as they need to hang themselves. As when the Dems were on the outside looking in, bad news is good news.

[sharkman]

Faced with this reality, the best strategy is to give the Democrats as much rope as they need to hang themselves. As when the Dems were on the outside looking in, bad news is good news.

The Dems are going to have their way in every single issue with such a majority, but I like your thinking. They ignored Obama's dropping approval ratings and the way Europe bitch slapped him. They won't be able to ignore the midterms when mad voters finally get to say that this is not what they voted for.

Obama is a smart guy, however. See how he gave his closest competitor(Hilary) the job that keeps her out of the way? Another cagey move is to have the bulk of the stimulus billions not dropped from the sky until 2010, nearer the midterm elections. This could fool some voters, but if the economy is still in the dumps like many are predicting, throwing money around won't fix it in time for the voting.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Obama is a smart guy, however. See how he gave his closest competitor(Hilary) the job that keeps her out of the way? Another cagey move is to have the bulk of the stimulus billions not dropped from the sky until 2010, nearer the midterm elections. This could fool some voters, but if the economy is still in the dumps like many are predicting, throwing money around won't fix it in time for the voting.

Damn right he is smart....the consumate politician....although I have never seen one come out of character to correct the teleprompter. Perhaps this is an indicator of his confidence (and arrogance).

We will have to see if a repeat of the great "jobless recovery" repeats itself a la Bush Administartion (2001 - 2003), and if the same political price is paid.

[BubberMiley]

They won't be able to ignore the midterms when mad voters finally get to say that this is not what they voted for.

I would have thought you would have given up making predictions by now, given there hasn't been a correct one made yet. Or will I be waking up to President Giuliani?

[jdobbin]

Or will I be waking up to President Giuliani?

Or Senator Coleman?

[waldo]

Faced with this reality, the best strategy is to give the Democrats as much rope as they need to hang themselves. As when the Dems were on the outside looking in, bad news is good news.

right out of the Rush Limpballs playbook... hoping for and relishing in the thought of Obama failing.

The Dems are going to have their way in every single issue with such a majority, but I like your thinking. They ignored Obama's dropping approval ratings and the way Europe bitch slapped him. They won't be able to ignore the midterms when mad voters finally get to say that this is not what they voted for.

timely 100 day poll: latest New York Times/ CBS News poll

But Mr. Obama’s 68 percent job approval rating is higher than that of any recent president at the 100-day mark. Mr. Bush had the approval of 56 percent of the public at this juncture.

[punked]

timely 100 day poll: latest New York Times/ CBS News poll

But Mr. Obama’s 68 percent job approval rating is higher than that of any recent president at the 100-day mark. Mr. Bush had the approval of 56 percent of the public at this juncture.

Don't bother we have been trying to explain to sharkman that going up mean inclining not declining but it seems simple math is beyond him.

[sharkman]

I would have thought you would have given up making predictions by now, given there hasn't been a correct one made yet. Or will I be waking up to President Giuliani?

What, no facts or something besides opinion to back up your comments like you kept insisting I needed to do over in the pot thread?

DC, I must be doing something right when I get 4 lefties objecting to my post!

Waldo, if you want to make an actual comparison with Bush's numbers, you need to get his approval rating at inauguration to go with his rating at 100 days. Then do the same with Obama and compare. And, no, I'm not going to do it for you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Waldo, if you want to make an actual comparison with Bush's numbers, you need to get his approval rating at inauguration to go with his rating at 100 days. Then do the same with Obama and compare. And, no, I'm not going to do it for you.

Better still, let's see if Mr. Obama can tie or break the "record" for highest approval rating ever....held by none other that President George W. Bush.

[waldo]

Better still, let's see if Mr. Obama can tie or break the "record" for highest approval rating ever....held by none other that President George W. Bush.

Historical Bush Approval Ratings

ya ya... "bring it on"... "you're either fer us or agin us"... "we'll smoke em out"... who can forget those Bush glory days after 9-11. (btw - anyone seen Osama BinForgotten?)

the highest... and (one of) the lowest ratings ever... and that graphic certainly tells the story of Bush and the GOP. Care to boastfully forecast whether Obama can match that Bush lowest of the low approval rating... that 22% Bush approval rating that equaled the lowest ever approval rate (22% Truman).

Waldo, if you want to make an actual comparison with Bush's numbers, you need to get his approval rating at inauguration to go with his rating at 100 days. Then do the same with Obama and compare. And, no, I'm not going to do it for you.

trust in Gallup!

At 100 Days, Obama Approval Broad as Well as Deep

Obama's Approval Equal To or Better Than Bush's, Clinton's ... now if you'd like to quibble about a few weeks here or there in poll dates, I'll start you off with representative Bush inauguration approval rates:

=> ABC News/Washington Post: 2001 inauguration - 55% Approval Rate // 2005 inauguration - 50% Approval Rate

=> Fox News/Opinion Dynamics: 2001 inauguration - 46% Approval Rate // 2005 inauguration - 50% Approval Rate

... I've been your monkey boy up to now... you can offer-up the 100 day Approval Rates for Bush after both the 2001 and 2005 inauguration dates. C'mon - you can do it... waiting..........

[bush_cheney2004]

ya ya... "bring it on"... "you're either fer us or agin us"... "we'll smoke em out"... who can forget those Bush glory days after 9-11. (btw - anyone seen Osama BinForgotten?)

Tap dance as you might....the numbers are plain as day. And there is nothing you can do about it. Read 'em and weep.

the highest... and (one of) the lowest ratings ever... and that graphic certainly tells the story of Bush and the GOP. Care to boastfully forecast whether Obama can match that Bush lowest of the low approval rating... that 22% Bush approval rating that equaled the lowest ever approval rate (22% Truman).

We call that dynamic range.....over two terms no less.

[BubberMiley]

What, no facts or something besides opinion to back up your comments like you kept insisting I needed to do over in the pot thread?

I never said there was anything wrong with opinion--just that opinion is worthless when you're unwilling to defend it and you haven't an argument to base it on.

I also said that I am always happy to back up my posts when called on to do it.

The leading contenders on the Dem side are a woman and a man who has a Muslim background. Does either have a realistic chance of being voted in by the American public? Especially with America's Mayor probably winning the nod from the Republican side.

Now scurry away.

[waldo]

Tap dance as you might....the numbers are plain as day. And there is nothing you can do about it. Read 'em and weep.

oh pleeese! While the idiot was wetting his pants reading "My Pet Goat" before school children, your country rallied to the presidency - the position... whoever held it. Cause we all know Cheney was the real boss and the idiot Bush just followed the Cheney/PNAC playbook. The real tap dance is your overall assessment of Bush/GOP over those 2 terms. "Dynamic Range"! Ha - and here I thought you were ready to be usurped by KrustyKidd as the biggest MLW Bush apologist... not a chance - you still rule!

We call that dynamic range.....over two terms no less.

[sharkman]

I never said there was anything wrong with opinion--just that opinion is worthless when you're unwilling to defend it and you haven't an argument to base it on.

I also said that I am always happy to back up my posts when called on to do it.

Now scurry away.

Wow, I'm impressed. That must have wasted 10 minutes of your time to find that comment, and I was half right at that. But things changed greatly after Nov. 07 and as poll after poll showed Obama holding a commanding lead, it became obvious he could win.

But please note: I never denied I've made wrong predictions, so you didn't need to prove anything, I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy and that opinion by itself is in fact fine.

[Shakeyhands]

Wow, I'm impressed. That must have wasted 10 minutes of your time to find that comment, and I was half right at that. But things changed greatly after Nov. 07 and as poll after poll showed Obama holding a commanding lead, it became obvious he could win.

But please note: I never denied I've made wrong predictions, so you didn't need to prove anything, I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy and that opinion by itself is in fact fine.

Half right how?

[bush_cheney2004]

oh pleeese! While the idiot was wetting his pants reading "My Pet Goat" before school children, your country rallied to the presidency - the position... whoever held it.

The "idiot" has the highest approval rating for all presidents and "pants wetting" events for such recorded ratings. If that be the standard for your wannabe contest, then face the music and stop whining.

Edited April 29, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

The "idiot" has the highest approval rating for all presidents and "pants wetting" events for such recorded ratings. If that be the standard for your wannabe contest, then face the music and stop whining.

no whine offered - not necessary

that "Bush 9-11 approval rating" was an anomaly extraordinaire... totally in reaction to your country having to "deal with them over here - instead of over there"... patriotism run wild! Nothing more than a blip on the otherwise "dynamic range" downhill slide of GW... and the GOP. In the face of the total defeat of the Republicannots, we can all offer a toast to BushCo for a job well done. Have another look at this graphic:

bush_cheney2004, face the music... stop apologizing for Bush... and stop your incessant whining

[BubberMiley]

Wow, I'm impressed. That must have wasted 10 minutes of your time to find that comment, and I was half right at that.

No trouble. I can work the google machine with expert precision. But you were half-right that, at that point, Obama and Hillary were in the lead? Yeah, way to go with the keen analysis.

But please note: I never denied I've made wrong predictions, so you didn't need to prove anything, I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy and that opinion by itself is in fact fine.

You believe that if a person cannot back up their opinion with reason, considered judgement, and real-world examples, their opinion is just as valid as someone who can? Perhaps that's the key difference between a liberal and a conservative.

But, again, not to drift the thread, but what makes me a hypocrite? That I would ask you to explain your opinions? Was there ever an instance where I was asked to explain one of my opinions and I refused?

Don't call people names when you cannot back up your accusation. It's very bad form.

Edited April 29, 2009 by BubberMiley