Election Central Morning Roundup
Poll: Obama Approval Rating Reaches 79%
A new CNN poll shows Barack Obama's honeymoon approval reaching new heights, with 79% of Americans approving of him and only 18% disapproving. "That's the sort of rating you see when the public rallies around a leader after a national disaster," said CNN's Bill Schneider. "To many Americans, the Bush Administration was a national disaster."
Obama And Biden Meeting With Gore
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are meeting today in Chicago with none other than Al Gore, to discuss energy issues and climate change. The meeting is scheduled for 1 p.m. ET.
White House Internal Memo: Bush Maintained "The Honor And The Dignity Of His Office"
The Los Angeles Times reports that Bush Administraton officials have been given an internal memo containing talking points to use in their public appearances, praising President Bush's record as he left office. Among other things they are to discuss how he "kept the American people safe," helped the economy through his 2001 tax cuts, fought AIDS in Africa, and "maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."
Big Business Likes Obama's Infrastructure Plans
Barack Obama's policies are now receiving some support from big business, with U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of the Manufacturers asking members of Congress to support Obama's big infrastructure plan. Essentially, the more roads and building that are made, the more opportunity there is for business to receive government contracts.
NRA Gearing UP To Fight Obama
The Hill reports that the National Rifle Association's is preparing to do battle with Barack Obama, saying he can't be trusted on his statements about respecting the Second Amendment. "We have no doubt that he's going to break his promise to the American people that he made during the campaign, and we're prepared to fight him every step of the way," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's political arm.
Inauguration Could See 10,000 Buses -- Or More
The transportation business expects an astonishing 10,000 chartered buses to bring tourists to the big event, while D.C. officials think the number could go even higher. "It's best in planning for this event to try to plan for bigger than anything we've planned for before," said city administrator Dan Tangherlini.
Fran "The Nanny" Drescher Declares Interest In Hillary's Senate Seat
Forget about Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo. A spokesperson for actress Fran Drescher -- best known for starring on the sitcom The Nanny -- has told CNN that she is putting her name into contention for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, putting forward as her credentials her experience as a women's health advocate.
Well I wonder what Jane Hamsher will have to say about Fran Drescher wanting Hillary's seat? She's thrown a fit over Caroline Kennedy.
Wonder if she prefers The Nanny -
December 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I guess that says a lot about the state of the Presidency if the current level of honor and dignity expressed by the President is the status quo!
Oh and Senator Fran? The Nanny State is upon us!!
HA!
December 9, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!! (the Nanny State)
I can't even speak to that "honor and dignity of the office" shit.
December 9, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one disappointed that Al Gore dosen't want to be in Obama's cabinet to be the Energy Secretary? I guess he really has no intrest in being in government and that he rather push his concerns for global warming on the private sector.
December 9, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
December 9, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm coming from you Wallace that must means the answer must be no.
December 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
...more than likely...lol
December 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
How pathetic is it that Bush tells his people what to say about him?
December 9, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I with ya!
Bush has always been a proponent of leading by example. Unfortunately for the rest of us, his example was horribly bad. To cover for that he now has to revise history as quickly as possible and I guess the only way he sees to do that is to get everyone to tell us to what he wants us to know. This has been a pattern of behavior for him for years. I think that's why his administration was so hung up on secrecy. Not for protection of the National Interest but for _his_ interest. The less we know, the more he can lie about.
bitch.
(him, not you sweetie ;-)
December 9, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
O it was never about "national security" - are you kidding? It's their philosophy of governing - all we're supposed to do is vote and shut up, as far as the Bush Repugs are concerned. He spent all these years claiming his "legacy" meant nothing to him.
All he has done since the election is whine about his legacy.
The secrecy is Repug SOP.
December 9, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
How far we've fallen when people think that a president who sits in the oval office personally deciding which prisoners will be tortured is maintaining "the honor and dignity of the office".
December 9, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
What "people", Schrodinger's Cat? Besides Bush and his admirers?
This is Bush being so insecure he is telling his people in the White House what to say about him. It's not like the public agrees. Cause it doesn't - or Obama wouldn't have a 79% approval rating and Bush wouldn't be leaving office with record low approvals.
December 9, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me, Tena, I agree with you that the majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done to this country and I know that this is just another Rove-style propaganda campaign; however, I see people here in GA driving around everyday still proudly displaying their "W" stickers. Do they approve of "torture"? Probably not if you ask them like that....but I guess that most of them a)don't believe that it happened (the lack of coverage this has gotten in the MSM is appalling); b)think that Bush did what he had to do and are buying into the "frat prank" Limbaugh crap; or c)justify it by saying "they'd do the same thing to us". That even 20 - 30% of Americans think that way saddens me very deeply.
December 9, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought that those with old campaign stickers on their cars were just lazy. Really lazy.
December 9, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Around here? Not so much.
December 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the so called "angry left" in that 18% disapproving of Obama's transition...LOL!
December 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Seething Left! :-)
December 9, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought they had been demoted to the 'bitching left'.
December 9, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, the "bitching left" is the part trying to drivel up a story over on HuffPo. The "seething left" are those of us mocking them here. Or at least this part of the seething left is.
December 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta get those distinctions straight in my head. Ok. Got it. (I think.)
December 9, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice line, Schneider.
December 9, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The NRA seems to think that we are still fighting culture wars. The economy is so bad and we are fighting 2 wars right now that there is no way in hell will Obama try to bring up anything such as gun control. One thing we all can agree with is that Obama is pretty politically astute or else he wouldn't have a 79% approval rating for his transition and a 76% favorability rating right now.
I think the NRA are just sad that they will be irrelevant during the Obama presidency.
December 9, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read that. Is that stupid, or what? When did Obama ever even talk about gun control?
December 9, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
He hasn't. I'm pretty sure this is all has to do when he was in the IL State Senate when he voted againist a ban on assault weapons. That's right although he praised the SCOTUS for overturning the DC hand gun ban, the NRA is making a big deal about Obama voting for a ban on guns such as Uzi's and AK's.
December 9, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What I said was that I believe Second Amendment as being an individual right and have said that consistently. I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety. I don't think those two principles are contradictory and in fact what I've been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today."
I would hardly call that "Praising" the court's decision. The NRA (and other's concern) comes from Obama's record. He proposed a federal law against gun dealers operating within five miles of a school or park. Sounds reasonable...until you draw 10 mile diameter circles around every scool and park on the map and realize you have to drive to the cornfield 2 counties over to exercise that "individual right' he's so fond of protecting.
December 9, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it amusing that gun advocates flip out about having to drive out of their way to buy a gun....that this somehow "infringes" on their 2nd amendment rights...but they don't seem to have any qualms about employing those same tactics to restrict women's access to healthcare.
December 9, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
...just trying to explain what's up with gun sales...I personally don't own one...never have.
December 9, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I was thinking. It sounds to me like the NRA fundraising is taking a hit and they need a little attention.
December 9, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is what I was thinking. The NRA's fundraising is down a little. More importantly gun sales, which were at an all time high right around the election, must have fallen a little in the past few weeks. Nothing like whipping up the faithful to improve the gun industry's bottom line. If they don't convince a lot of folks to spend grocery or house payment money on a new firearm a lot of manufacturers are going to be in trouble especially in this economy.
December 9, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are freaking out about his past voting record.
HERE are the details as to why they are against him.
For the record, they gave McCain a grade of F as recently as 2006.
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
December 9, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. The NRA sounds like a little kid in the back of the room throwing spit balls for attention. Nobody cares about the NRA now. In addition, their case is so weak: we're coming after Obama because we don't believe what he said during the campaign." YAWN.
December 9, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, basically, the NRA's has determined, based upon an extrapolation from next to no actual data, that Obama is going to act in a way contrary to his positions during the campaign and it is rightously indignant about it and calling the troops to arms.
Meanwhile, Hamsher, Sirota, Greenwald, Stoller, and a number of blog commenters, have all determined, based upon an extrapolation from next to no actual data, that Obama is going to act in a way contrary to his positions during the campaign and it is rightously indignant about it and calling the troops to arms.
The only difference I can see is that even though some prominent blog voices on the left are clearly doing it, the official CW among the blogging left is that it either isn't happening, or that, if it is happening, its okay and good and healthy because they're doing it from the left.
December 9, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, they're setting the table for being able to spend the next four years bragging about how they "stopped" Obama from outlawing handguns and putting all gun owners in prison.
On a related note, I am announcing my national campaign to stop Fred Thompson from running for president again. Send donations immediately to kyyellowdogthinksyouarestupid.com.
December 9, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
BLAGOJEVICH TAKEN INTO CUSTODY - FOR REAL. YIKES!
December 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow what a shock, it was just a matter of time before this would happen.
December 9, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I should say if anybody wants to tape my conversations, go right ahead, feel free to do it," he said. "I appreciate anybody who wants to tape me openly and notoriously, and those who feel like they want to sneakily, and wear taping devices, I would remind them that it kind of smells like Nixon and Watergate."
LMAO, I guess he doesn't realize he's Nixon in this one...
December 9, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm convinced the NRA has a deal with gun manufacturers to stir up a frenzy about Obama to drive gun sales up.
December 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, I am adjusting my tin foil hat to receive the same frequency, Kenneth. ;)
I've heard rumors of affluent whites buying guns since the election. I think they're just rumors, but ya never know. There may be some wealthy caucasian Americans who are that idiotic.
December 9, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many of them are here in UT. Is was the "big" post-election story here about how guns were flying out of the gun stores. Idiots.
December 9, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's always the same story, which makes me wonder if it isn't really just another urban legend in the making.
December 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I can't remember where I saw it or read it - maybe HuffPo - but the spike in gun sales aren't due to Obama's win. If gunshop owners knew that they are not going to tell their customers.
December 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
How utterly pathetic if firearms production ends up being the one area of our economy that thrives.
December 9, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's something to that because I think gun sales go up when the economy goes down.
Crime goes up when the economy goes down -
December 9, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gun sales always shoot (heh) up after a Democrat wins a presidential election. The NRA is the original practicioner of the fearmongering paranoia-stoking tactics adopted by the Republican Party as a whole under Bush/Rove. For the last thirty or forty years, at least, the NRA's entire financial viability has depended upon keeping several million gun owners convinced that the evil libruls is gonna pry all their guns out of their noble cold dead hands and then, once everyone is disarmed and helpless, impose a comma'nist dictatorship. Oh, there'll be internment camps and unions and everything. It'll be just awful.
So of course they go out and stock up on extra guns and ammo everytime a Democrat wins. Its integral to the induced psychosis that keeps Wayne LaPierre's trough filled.
December 9, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how many of those 79% are aware that Obama isn't the President yet. Also, I believe Bush's approval rating is somewhere in the mid-20s, so that means there is some segment of the population (about 5%, I'd guess) who approves of Bush AND Obama. Try to wrap your head around that!
On another note, what in the world is the NRA gearing up for? Even if what they say is true and Obama really does favor requiring child locks or banning assault weapons, he isn't going to make any moves in that direction for a long time if ever. He has more important matters to worry about.
December 9, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I approve of both...Obama hasn't done anything to garner my disapproval...unlike the majority here, I don't disapprove of a guy just because he beat my guy.
December 9, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'd do a lot better in comments if you'd quit making shit up, Wallace.
How do you come up with the idea that people here disapprove of politicians just because they beat Democrats?
That's wack. You've spent enough time here to know that, too. People here have good reasons that they aren't shy about posting at length about why they don't like Repugs.
December 9, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush was hated by the left the day he won...period.
December 9, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's probably because people around here don't regard losing the majority of the popular vote as "winning."
December 9, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
...then you should repeat your 8th grade civics class, this time pay attention when the teacher says "electoral college."
December 9, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll make you a deal: I'll do that if you can come up with a reasonable, fact-based rationale for approving of Bush and the job he has done in office.
December 9, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
There has not been another terrorist attack on us since 2001...there's a reason the people who hate us are hitting London, Spain, India, Indonesia...they can't hit here. Hate him if you want but no one thought that would be a possibility on September 12th 2001.
December 9, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget Iraq. They're also hitting Iraq a lot.
Oh wait, lots of OUR people are in Iraq. No wonder the terrorists aren't bothering to hit us in the United States. We've conveniently presented ourselves much closer to their home turf.
And that's not even getting into the issue of the Iraq invasion actually creating more terrorism in the world because it's such an effective recruiting tool for al Qaeda.
December 9, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't forget Iraq. They're also hitting Iraq a lot.
Oh wait, lots of OUR people are in Iraq. No wonder the terrorists aren't bothering to hit us in the United States."
Did you just subscribe to the "we're fighting them there, so that we don't have to fight them here" policy?
December 9, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I subscribe to the "they're tying us down for years in Iraq so that we don't have any effective or plausible means of projecting military force wherever else we might need to and incidentally it's also draining our treasury and lowering our world prestige" point of view.
But don't let me stop you from putting words in my mouth. I know I won't.
December 9, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
These were your words:
Don't forget Iraq. They're also hitting Iraq a lot. Oh wait, lots of OUR people are in Iraq. No wonder the terrorists aren't bothering to hit us in the United States. We've conveniently presented ourselves much closer to their home turf.
December 9, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You've spent enough time here to know that, too. People here have good reasons that they aren't shy about posting at length about why they don't like Repugs."
Which proves my point, you disapprove because of the party they're in, not for any policy they impliment...they start in the "disapproval" column.
December 9, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Wallace, either a party stands for a political philosophy and has a platform that one either agrees or disagrees with, or it's nothing.
Most if not all of us disagree with the entire Republican Party and its platform and governing philosophy.
Is that so hard to figure out?
December 9, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all, but you said above that you didn't disapprove of a politician just because he beat your guy. That is false. Any Republican at any level is a default racist and instantly in your disapproval column. I'm just saying that Obama's the enemy (politically) but hasn't earned my "disapproval" yet.
December 9, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are default racists because their platform is racist, their philosophy is racist and the Republican Party has spent 40 years honing their racist message and running on it in the south.
December 9, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's your opinion and you are entitled to hold it...just admit that a Republican doesn't have to do anything but exist to be on your disapproval list. I try not to prejudge people and allow them to earn my disapproval.
December 9, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because Republicans belong to the Republican party, by definition they will implement certain policies. And that is why people disapprove of them. So actually, you're wrong. People do disapprove of Republicans because of the policies they implement. That's not too hard to understand, is it?
December 9, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that Wallace. From what I been reading mostly everyone here still is behind Obama regardless of what he has done. Sure there are some critics here but for the some part the people here has been supportive
December 9, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should start a pool on how quickly you begin to disapprove. I have "Five seconds into his inauguration speech". :)
December 9, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I wonder how many of those 79% are aware that Obama isn't the President yet".
God, I hope not too many. That will be pretty sad is the majority of Americans aren't aware that Obama won't be President until Janurary 20th. But then our country is in so bad of a shape that Obama loock and acts much more of a leader then the guy currently occupying the WH.
December 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Honor and Dignity campaign is right up there with WMD intellegence!
December 9, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
O very well said.
December 9, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: "praising Bush's record as he left office." Is this just a typo, or is even the official memo conceding that Bush has essentially stopped coming to work?
December 9, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you noticed? He's MIA. He's not the slightest bit interested in doing anything, really, except wringing more money out of us as he leaves.
December 9, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll grant that the "honor and dignity" thing is risible, but it was the "helped the economy" line that made me spit my coffee.
Earth to Bushies: the Bush economy is probably something you should not be touting right about now!
December 9, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"... they are to discuss how he "kept the American people safe," helped the economy through his 2001 tax cuts, fought AIDS in Africa, and "maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."
This gives "spin" a whole new twist right into unequivocal lying.
December 9, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's just how pathetic the man is - he's a Stalin wannabe. He wants to change the way he's seen. NOW. He didn't give one shit about what we thought of him until after the election, when it finally got through to that diseased little brain that he wasn't president for life.
December 9, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"maintained"? I thought he was going to "restore" the honor, etc.
Maintain makes it sound like he kept it just the way Clinton had it.
Except for no blow jobs, of course.
Too bad - maybe if he'd concentrated on maintaining a long line of hookers in and out of the WH he wouldn't have felt the urge to fuck up Iraq.
December 9, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
O/T Looks like Associated Press has come up with a story to generate a little angst -- a purported conflict between Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/cracks-appear-in-obama-fo_n_149486.html
December 9, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that and rolled my eyes for real.
The media just will not let go of the idea that there is tension because of the Clintons.
December 9, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a totally ridiculous story. I read it through twice and couldn't find evidence of any "crack". It's all built around the fact that Rice wants a transition team of her own in the State Dept. and that she supported Obama over Clinton. They're totally trying to dredge up a story from nothing.
December 9, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was my take, too. But AP needs to find news to stay in business -- they just don't care where the stories come from or how accurate they are. The only item in this story that might hint at a possible rift is Rice wanting to set up her own team in the State Department when the norm is to have only one team in New York.
December 9, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like it might take a while for Obama's seat to be filled:
CHICAGO (Reuters) โ Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been taken into federal custody at his home, the Chicago Tribune reported on Tuesday citing unnamed sources.
The newspaper said on its website that the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago would not confirm the information.
Blagojevich was the subject of a federal corruption probe.
December 9, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, the investigation appears to have included Blagovich's process in choosing Obama's successor:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rod-blagojevich-1209,0,7997804.story
December 9, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which, given this particular DOJ, makes me deeply suspicious.
December 9, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!!
December 9, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on...Patrick J. Fitzgerald is running this...he was the "Arm of the Lord" when he was after Scooter and Rove...
December 9, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, with Fitzgerald running the show, it's highly unlikely to be political.
December 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/rod.blagojevich.charged.2.883170.html
Stick a fork in him...
December 9, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally. They apparently have him on tape talking about giving the Senate seat to the highest bidder. Frickin' idiot.
December 9, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fitzpatrick is the U.S. Attorney handling the case. He's nothing if not a straight arrow, albeit possibly excessively so.
December 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er, Fitzgerald. Obviously, I have Kennedyialia on my mind because of the whole thing about Caroline and Hillary's Senate seat.
December 9, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sincerely hope the George W. Bush library has a fiction section, that's where this stuff needs to go.
December 9, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's "Honor and Dignity" is right up there with FOX's "Fair and Balanced."
December 9, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or "shock and awe".
December 9, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a question RE: NRA -
Do we really want people who are this paranoid having access to guns?
Just wunnerin'
December 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
First thought upon hearing the "Bush kept the American people safe" talking point is that the sumbitch always wears a condom. We sure don't need anymore of THAT dynasty, eh?
CONDOM = Party hat for dickheads
December 9, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oftentimes, the truth is found in what ISN'T said.
Another Bush Talking point:
"Maintained the honor and dignity of his office... as though he were serving as a piano player in a whorehouse."
December 9, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Bush says that he "kept the American people safe" he doesn't mean that, since we were attacked on 9/11 and every day since we got to Iraq. Since Bush became President, more than 8,000 Americans have been killed by terrorists, most recently THIS WEEK.
December 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink