so his numbers are falling and boone posts what the elections results from 2012 would look like if held today to make him feel better. how cute.

8/31/2009 1:13:37 PM

Elections are why approval ratings matter, no?

If credibility's a relative thing, Obama seems to have it gushing out of his ears.

8/31/2009 1:22:05 PM

he is our employee, polls simply show if the employers are satisfied

unfortunately we dont have the luxury of firing him for carelessly throwing our money around

8/31/2009 1:28:34 PM

Apparently "we" would prefer him over the other candidates for the position.

8/31/2009 1:44:58 PM

yea, we shot ourselves in the foot on that one

8/31/2009 1:47:29 PM

"prefer" is present tense

8/31/2009 2:30:17 PM

the election is in 2012 boone. A fact im confident you know.

8/31/2009 2:31:54 PM

And we're discussing his current credibility.

8/31/2009 3:01:21 PM

sure bc he is in office NOW. A fact im also sure you know. I would even venture to guess you have a tshirt or bumpersticker proving this.

8/31/2009 3:43:05 PM

So we agree that Barack Obama is the current President. Awesome.

8/31/2009 4:03:00 PM

who else would be boone? What are they teaching in schools now?

8/31/2009 4:58:08 PM

Bill giving Obama power to shut Web takes on new tone
August 31, 2009

Quote :

"Network World - The second draft of a Senate cybersecurity billappears to tone down language that would grant President Obama the power to shut down the Internet. The Senate bill, first introduced in April by Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), still includes language that gives Obama the authority to direct responses to cyberattacks and declare a cyber emergency. The bill also gives the president 180 days, as opposed to one year outlined in the bill's first draft, to implement a cybersecurity strategy from the day the bill is passed, which for now could be a long way off. But the language in the first draft of the bill, which has yet to make it out of Rockefeller's Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and onto the Senate floor, has been rewritten regarding the President's authority to shut down both public and private networks including Internet traffic coming to and from compromised systems. Critics contend sweeping presidential power isn't good news since private networks could be shut down by government order. In addition, those same networks could be subject to government mandated security standards and technical configurations. The original bill included the words: 'The President may....order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.' The second draft, which has not been released publicly, rearranges those words, according to text of the bill posted by CNet. The second draft contains more convoluted language concerning the president's control over computer networks and deletes references to the Internet."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137294/Bill_giving_Obama_power_to_shut_Web_takes_on_new_tone

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them--us--with bullshit.

8/31/2009 6:18:42 PM

shutting down the web = stopping traffic on federal networks?

for the record, hooksaw, i'm not expressing any opinion on the matter. all i've read about it is ^that. so settle the fuck down and just answer my question. thanks in advance.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 6:24:17 PM

^ I don't mind settling down--if you don't mind just reading the fucking excerpt I posted and bolded, for Gods' sake:

Quote :

"Critics contend sweeping presidential power isn't good news since private networks could be shut down by government order. In addition, those same networks could be subject to government mandated security standards and technical configurations."

With me now?

8/31/2009 6:47:54 PM

We all know you read that at Drudge first, so why not link directly from there?

8/31/2009 7:09:22 PM

^^no, actually, because it's never explained how this bill would lead to private networks being shutdown by the president. that's my entire fucking question. please, do explain.

is there some provision in the bill stating that the president will have the power to mandate private network shutdowns? where is it?

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 7:13 PM. Reason : /]

8/31/2009 7:12:10 PM

Seems reasonable to me.

Other than the internet, what aspect of life can't be quarantined in times of an emergency? You know darn well Raleigh would be quarantined if a zombie outbreak occurred; what makes the internet special in this regard?


PS-- does anyone believe hooksaw wouldn't have defended this had it been passed by the Bush administration?

8/31/2009 7:15:12 PM

i actually dont mind this bill. we are so universally dependent on the internet in all facets of our lives; from businesses, to banks, to education, to our government, to wall street, and national/international communication. cyberterrorism has only been flirted with, probably as a result of some computer genius's recreational endeavor. but we dont need to be only looking for bombs in the subway or hijacked planes in the air to avoid a terrorist attack that could hit us hard.

with so much private and personal information stored, millions of dollars funneled internationally on a daily basis, satellite/GPS reliance, our armed forces innovations that require web access, hospital's records stored, international travel and transportation, and no doubt plenty of other government/military/intelligence technology that we dont even know about .. if a terrorist organization wants to hit us hard, than the options are endless with cyberterror.

the president needs an off button to counter a significant attack, otherwise, unrepairable damage can be done overnight. as long as new security measures measures are continued to be developed, new ways to break those measures will also be sought.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/31/2009 7:44:49 PM

Quote :

"shutting down the web = stopping traffic on federal networks?"

If I read it right, it's not just stopping traffic on the federal networks. it is stopping traffic going to those networks. Some might constitute this as "shutting down private networks." I'd have to see more language from the bill to see what it would actually allow.

Having said that, I'm not comfortable with any bill that gives the President carte blanche power to shutdown an internet host. Just doesn't sit well with me.

8/31/2009 8:08:05 PM

But carte blanche power to blow up brown people is cool, right?

8/31/2009 9:13:13 PM

The trolling on TSB is out of control lately... on both sides.

8/31/2009 9:44:32 PM

9/2/2009 11:25:29 AM

i wasn't aware that the CIA was tasked with putting the fear of torture in the rest of the world.

9/2/2009 11:28:36 AM

You idiot, Sarijoul, the I stands for "Interrogation."

9/2/2009 11:31:57 AM

Republicans: Fighting for the right to torture since 2008

That should be their new campaign slogan

I wonder though what all the people who thought Obama was a nazi for trying to make healthcare more accessible think about the Republicans who want our official policy to allow for torture?

9/2/2009 12:21:17 PM

They appreciate it for two reasons: A.They're our enemies and not as good as us. Also known as American Superiority. B. It keeps us safe. Fear is a great motivator.

9/2/2009 12:31:28 PM

i thought this was appropriate:

Quote :

"[G]etting people to flip is primarily a psychological game rather than a material one. After all, the FBI is asking its targets to commit the ultimate act of disloyalty to their country—treason. Few people are willing to make this leap quickly, even in exchange for the most lucrative or attractive offer. It's an FBI agent's job to slowly win the target's trust and help him rationalize his decision to switch his allegiance. In my experience as a former FBI agent who both participated in and observed successful recruitments, it's much easier to do this when a target has, at some level, a sense of admiration and respect for the United States. A nugget of goodwill toward America offers an agent the chance to step in, gain the target's confidence, and convince him that playing for Team USA is worth the risk. Policies like the use of torture make it more difficult for the FBI to develop relationships based on trust. Even when torture is used on a few people and in another country, and by a different agency, it casts doubts on the U.S. government's overall willingness to act in good faith. Targets often project the skepticism about the United States that torture fosters onto individual FBI agents, who are often the only face of the government they see. In short, torture is fundamentally at odds with the image of the United States as a country that will play by the rules, and that is how the FBI must be perceived in order to do its job."

from former FBI interrogator Asha Rangappa http://www.slate.com/id/2227085

9/3/2009 10:37:57 AM

^ makes sense

Even if you feel torture is justified on some level, it is really dumb to shout that loudly. Someone like Cheney especially should realize this, and our intelligence agencies AND soldiers, need our politicians to take the moral high ground.

9/3/2009 11:05:51 AM

U.S. Economy Gets Lift From Stimulus

Quote :

"Government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades. But there's little agreement about which programs are having the biggest impact. … Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action [note to self: these are the same economists who screwed up in the first place probably]. … For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. "Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero," said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman. "

- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

9/3/2009 10:18:28 PM

Quote :

"....economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%..."

Now didn't Goldman Sacs get like $3 Billion from the bail-out? But I guess getting all that gov't money wouldn't overly influence their making this positive prediction of gov't success.

They're probably not gov't lap-dogs at all.

9/3/2009 10:53:31 PM

Another 216,000 jobs were lost in August

BETTER THAN EXPECTED! RALLY ON!


The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from -443,000 to -463,000, and the change for July was revised from -247,000 to -276,000.

9/4/2009 9:05:09 AM

Quote :

"They're probably not gov't lap-dogs at all."

uhh..... you've got that backwards

9/4/2009 9:41:07 AM

The stimulus article is practically worthless. For starters, less than 10% of the stimulus has been spent. Also, most economists will argue that fiscal policy takes between 18 months to 2 years before it's impact is felt. Finally, there is no real evidence that we're recovering. Sure, the same assholes that said everything was going to be fine a year ago are predicting we're on the way up, but their credibility is pretty much shot.


That being said, the more I think about it, the biggest driver behind Obama's current plunge in the polls is his complete inability to control his message or congress. Shit, how far are we into the Health Care debate and the President doesn't even have a formal proposal? Yes, most legislation a president submits is DoA in congress, but at least it is an indication of his policy desires. He's outsourced all the hard work to congress and run around the nation making speeches and looking good on TV. Meanwhile, the real work is being done in DC by a congress that is driving much harder to the left than most Americans are willing to accept.

Until the CIA flap, Nancy Pelosi was probably the most powerful person in Washington. She thankfully disappeared for a while but now she's out sounding like an idiot again.

We'll see what he says Wednesday night in his joint speech to congress, but so far his presidency has the appearance of being all style and no substance.

[Edited on September 4, 2009 at 10:30 AM. Reason : ^ and the incestuous relationship between GS and the Govt is no secret.]

9/4/2009 10:30:02 AM

^
You may have to refresh me, but was Pelosi's statement that the CIA lied to Congress that huge of a flap?

I understand that there were implications of her not speaking out about what she knew.

Is the problem that she said that? Or is it that she didn't say it when it would have mattered?

9/4/2009 12:29:01 PM

I don't think that it was Pelosi's statement about lying, it was her saying that she wasn't briefed at all by the CIA on the interrogation tactics, and then the CIA produced documents proving that the committee was informed.

She pretty much refused to answer questions about it.

9/4/2009 12:30:23 PM

Ah, that's right. My memory failed me.

9/4/2009 12:32:52 PM

^^^ The issue was that she accused an agency in the executive department of lying to the elected representatives of the United States Congress.

That is no small charge and, if true, should result in a comprehensive investigation and congressional hearings. I mean, that is one of the Constitutionally assigned duties of the US Congress. Instead, a few reporters asked her some questions, she looked befuddled as ever, and the issue was dropped.


Well did the CIA lie to congress or not? If they didn't she owes them an apology. If they did, the consequences are, quite frankly much graver. The fact that this was simply dropped by the press is a bit disturbing to me. Fortunately, I think she was backed into a corner and ran her mouth as she is prone to do.

When she refused to answer questions about the deal, about the only thing left for her to do was to disappear from the spotlight for a while.

9/4/2009 12:35:41 PM

I agree that she should have been more forthcoming once she let the cat out of the bag, but it's not as if the CIA has a historic record of not doing shady shit.

9/4/2009 12:51:18 PM

Reversing course, White House will release visitor logs
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/04/reversing-course-white-house-will-release-visitor-logs/

Quote :

"'For the first time in history, records of White House visitors will be made available to the public on an ongoing basis,' said President Obama in a statement Friday. 'We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history not only by opening the doors of the White House to more Americans, but by shining a light on the business conducted inside. Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process.' Traditionally, the White House has kept visitor logs private, arguing that the administration should be able to seek policy advice outside the glare of public scrutiny. During the Bush administration, advocacy groups sought to learn whom Vice President Dick Cheney was meeting with on energy policy. In the Clinton years, the identity of visitors on health policy was kept secret, despite efforts to release records. The policy change came as a result of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Under President Bush, CREW sought records of visits by Christian conservative leaders and a lobbyist who was accused of selling access to White House officials in exchange for contributions to the Bush presidential library. After Mr. Obama took office, CREW sued for records of White House visits by healthcare and coal executives. Under the policy, which takes effect Sept. 15, electronic visitor logs will be posted online three to four months after a visit takes place. But there will be exceptions: Visits related to national security or those the White House calls 'necessarily confidential' – such as potential Supreme Court nominees – will remain secret."

[Edited on September 4, 2009 at 4:22 PM. Reason : ]

9/4/2009 4:20:40 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/afghanistan/la-fg-afghan-reality6-2009sep06,0,772564.story
McChrystal changes strategy in Afghanistan:

Quote :

" … McChrystal said he has his own convoy move with the traffic, perhaps going even a bit slower. He never waves other vehicles off the road. "That is how I want this entire force to move," he said.One of McChrystal's first acts was a directive tightening rules on airstrikes to limit civilian casualties. Despite allegations that a strike may have killed dozens of civilians Friday, the new rules have sharply reduced the number deaths. Overhauling the way alliance troops treat Afghans in everyday interactions represents the next step in rebuilding trust, McChrystal said at the briefing. Aggressive behavior could undermine the larger mission, he said. "We send two messages: We send the message we don't respect the Afghans and we send a more subtle message that we are scared," McChrystal said. "This is a warrior culture. . . . If you walk around looking scared, they are not going to respect you.” … "

Seems a little odd and risky, but it might help things.

9/5/2009 11:44:01 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8249822.stm
US rejects Iran nuclear proposals

9/11/2009 12:26:06 AM

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5302288.shtml

9/11/2009 12:27:00 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_health_care_091109.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Quote :

"As is often the case in Presidential addresses, Americans who watched the speech were more likely to be from the president’s own political party. 42% of speech watchers identified themselves as Democrats, 27% were Republicans and 31% were independents."

at least they admit the bias

good job with another slanted poll, Boone. keep 'em comin'

[Edited on September 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM. Reason : tags]

9/11/2009 2:58:07 PM

9/11/2009 10:55:07 PM

Quote :

"Democratic Party activists have pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[10] Rasmussen Reports have also performed paid work for Bush opponents. For example, After Downing Street commissioned a poll on the impeachment of President Bush. [11]. According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, while there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or Rasmussen Reports making contributions to political candidates and its public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys."[12]. Rasmussen polling numbers of presidential approval ratings tend to be an outlier among samples taken from other polling organizations.[13] John Marshal of Talking Points Memo has said, "The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls."

Quote :

"conservative media frequently refers to Rasmussen, praising them for being the first to ask about a relevant issue or to ask questions that other pollsters do not."

-wiki

Not that this says anything about this particular poll, but it makes me recall every time I hear NPR reference a Cato Institute finding that says basically reads "breaking news: recent Cato Institute study discovers Libertarians are FTW"

9/11/2009 11:05:09 PM

^
Yes every party is going to use their favorite Poll-group I guess. I stick with Rasmussen mainly because, if I recall correctly, it was used by Lib posters a lot during the election to accurately highlight how Obama was gaining support.

National Results for 2008 Election:

McCain: Actual results 46% Final Rasmussen poll: 46%

Obama: Actual results 53% Final Rasmussen poll: 52%

9/11/2009 11:20:08 PM

^^^^ This is a different poll, smarty-pants.


The one cited above was R:24 D:37 I:39


^^^ [old]

[Edited on September 12, 2009 at 8:26 AM. Reason : ]

9/12/2009 8:25:54 AM

“I can make a firm pledge….no family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase…..not any of your taxes”-Barack Obama, September 12, 2008

"Oops, well, so much for that, as Obama imposes a 35% tax on Chinese tires, requiring higher prices be paid by the majority of Americans. This is a broad-based tax aimed at supporting one narrow American industry, as a payoff to the United Steel Workers who have been sad that the UAW has been getting all the political gravy of late."

9/14/2009 2:49:07 PM

Obama called Kanye a jackass off the record at a CNBC interview, which Terry Moran instantly tweeted.

i think we can all agree this is a +1

[Edited on September 14, 2009 at 10:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/14/2009 10:00:34 PM

^

Quote :

"+1"

9/15/2009 5:12:21 AM