Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LOL
Obama could have a 35% approval and still stomp whatever stiff the Republicans choose to run against him
LOL
Obama could have a 35% approval and still stomp whatever stiff the Republicans choose to run against him
Wouldn't it be nice if people could just look at what's happening and see it for what it is?
Political parties protect us from the horror of a population that thinks.
Who's in charge -- generals or Obama?
By: David Rogers
December 6, 2009 10:34 PM EST
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, goes before Congress this week, and with him comes this question: Whos really in charge here, the generals or President Barack Obama?
The long-awaited hearings, beginning Tuesday before the House and Senate Armed Services committees, are a bookend of sorts to Obamas address last Tuesday at West Point committing 30,000 more troops to the war effort in Afghanistan. Implicit in the presidents decision is an effective cap of about 100,000 for the American force, but top Democrats fear that unless Obama is more assertive, the military chain of command will undermine his July 2011 target to begin some U.S. withdrawal.
The presidents decision is already being softened and made mush of, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told POLITICO. And within the House and Senate Appropriations committees, senior Democrats themselves veterans of past wars have grown increasingly concerned by the political clout of a generation of younger, often press-savvy military commanders.
McChrystal and his strong ally, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, are quotable stars in todays modern media; their wartime budgets not only are large but also give them exceptional discretion that is the envy of their foreign policy partners in the State Department. ...
There's reasons: jobs, climate, hubris, but his main job is CIC:
Who's in charge -- generals or President Obama? - - POLITICO.com
Who's in charge -- generals or Obama?
By: David Rogers
December 6, 2009 10:34 PM EST
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, goes before Congress this week, and with him comes this question: Whos really in charge here, the generals or President Barack Obama?
The long-awaited hearings, beginning Tuesday before the House and Senate Armed Services committees, are a bookend of sorts to Obamas address last Tuesday at West Point committing 30,000 more troops to the war effort in Afghanistan. Implicit in the presidents decision is an effective cap of about 100,000 for the American force, but top Democrats fear that unless Obama is more assertive, the military chain of command will undermine his July 2011 target to begin some U.S. withdrawal.
The presidents decision is already being softened and made mush of, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told POLITICO. And within the House and Senate Appropriations committees, senior Democrats themselves veterans of past wars have grown increasingly concerned by the political clout of a generation of younger, often press-savvy military commanders.
McChrystal and his strong ally, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, are quotable stars in todays modern media; their wartime budgets not only are large but also give them exceptional discretion that is the envy of their foreign policy partners in the State Department. ...
IMO ............... during the first 6 months of the coming year, his numbers are going to tank.
He will do one of two things, either rally himself around the flag or become a Blue Dog in hopes of saving himself.
Mike
Barry sucks.
I said it from day one, didn't need a 'poll' to tell me he was a fucktard.
It looks like America has become more racist since the election.
How sad...
LOL
Obama could have a 35% approval and still stomp whatever stiff the Republicans choose to run against him
Its still a party split. 47% isnt that bad really.
Its still a party split. 47% isnt that bad really.
Its still a party split. 47% isnt that bad really.
For the bipartisan uniter?
Its still a party split. 47% isnt that bad really.
It isn't that good - and no modern president has ranked this low at this point in their presidency...
Its still a party split. 47% isnt that bad really.
It isn't that good - and no modern president has ranked this low at this point in their presidency...
Who cares about what the past has been in this regard?
He has roughly support from exactly half the nation. The polarization in this country is not his fault. Hes a democrat. Republicans are not going to support anything he puts up. Its not his fault if they refuse to give him the time of day.
If people in general want to see things work they have to work together. Both sides have to work together.
Its not going to happen if one sides bends the facts all the time or straight out lies about issues. This goes for both sides.
47% isnt bad because its exaclty half.[/QUOTE]
_____
It isn't that good - and no modern president has ranked this low at this point in their presidency...
Who cares about what the past has been in this regard?
He has roughly support from exactly half the nation. The polarization in this country is not his fault. Hes a democrat. Republicans are not going to support anything he puts up. Its not his fault if they refuse to give him the time of day.
If people in general want to see things work they have to work together. Both sides have to work together.
Its not going to happen if one sides bends the facts all the time or straight out lies about issues. This goes for both sides.
47% isnt bad because its exaclty half.[/QUOTE]
Why the
