CBS News reports on their latest CBS/NYT polling:
Obama's approval rating drops to all-time low; Public split on jobs plan
Simultneously the NY Times (aka Obama 2012) presents the same poll results with this semi-smiley face:
Obama's Support Is Slipping Poll Finds But His Jobs Plan Is Well Received
That was revised in subsequent iterations and appeared on my dead tree edition as:
In Poll, Support For Obama Slips Among Base
So in TimesWorld Obama's support is slipping; the fact that ity has set a new low does not merit a headline. And the public support the jobs bill! Well, sort of - here is their puffery:
The president’s effort to seize the initiative on the economy was well received by the public, and clear majorities support crucial pieces of his new job-creation program....
[Big Skip and...]
The poll found that most Americans are familiar with the American Jobs Act, the president’s $447 billion proposal to create jobs. Almost half of the public is confident the plan would create jobs and improve the economy. A substantial majority of Americans support the main proposals aimed at creating jobs, including tax cuts for small businesses, improvements in the nation’s infrastructure and payroll tax cuts for working Americans.
And what did CBS see differently?
As for Mr. Obama's latest proposal to lower unemployment, the American Jobs Act he presented to Congress last week, the public is split. While 64 percent say they have heard about the bill, Americans are divided as to whether the plan will actually create jobs. Nearly half of Americans are at least somewhat confident that Mr. Obama's proposals will create jobs and stimulate the economy --12 percent are very confident and 36 percent are somewhat confident. But about the same amount -- 47% -- are not confident his plan will do that.
Let's go to the poll! At Question 61, p.19, the topic is Obama's jobs speech. As noted by CBS, 12% are "very confident" that Obama's "proposals will create jobs and improve the economy"; 36% are "somewhat" confident; 23% are "not very" confident; and 24% are "not confident at all".
I would say the public is split. [A Bloomberg poll had the public skeptical of the jobs bill by 51 to 40.]
Both news outlets provide some lighter moments. Here is CBS reporting on public sympathy for the grave burden Obama bears:
But half the public sees economic conditions as generally out of a president's hands - 53 percent now say the condition of the national economy is beyond any president's control and 41 percent of Americans have faith that the economy is something a president can do anything about. As a comparison, when this question was asked back in October 1992, 59 percent said the economy was something a president could do something about (35 percent said no).
In other words, just before Bush 41 was dumped 59% of the public agreed with Democratic Presidential nominee Bill Clinton that Bush ought to have been doing more to boost the economy. By way of comparison, in early August 2008, 67% of respondents thought the President could "do a lot", while only 26% thought the economy was beyond Bush's control (Question 21, p. 10). I'm only guessing that the press is more inclined to clamor for the President to "do something" when the President is a Republican. Fueling my parnoia are columns like this from Nick Kristof, ruminating about whether the media missed the big story on unemployment.
And what about He Who Must Not Be Named? CBS and the Times offer perspective on Obama's approval rating. From CBS:
With just over a year before Mr. Obama faces voters again for re-election, it should be noted that Mr. Obama's overall approval rating is similar to that of Bill Clinton's (43 percent) and Ronald Reagan's (46 percent) about a year before their presidential elections when they won re-election. Conversely, George H.W. Bush had a 70 percent approval rating about a year before the presidential election but then lost his bid for re-election.
And the Times:
The poll found a 43 percent approval rating for Mr. Obama. It is significantly higher than Jimmy Carter, who had an approval rating of 31 percent at a similar time in his presidency, according to the Times and CBS News poll, which showed Ronald Reagan with an approval of 46 percent and the elder George Bush at 70 percent.
So Obama is better doing than Carter and about the same as Clinton or Reagan. Not so bad! And we all know Bush 41 went on to defeat. Odd that both outlets overlooked the man Obama blames for all his difficulties. Since you ask, here is a Times story from Sept 23 2003 reporting on a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll:
The poll also found that Mr. Bush's overall approval rating was the lowest since he became president, falling to 50 percent. In August, the poll found that 59 percent of American's approved of his job performance, and in April the figure was 71 percent.
"he who must not be named" !!! Love the Rumpole reference, Tom. So clever.
Posted by: peter | September 17, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Brilliant!!!!!
Posted by: Clarice | September 17, 2011 at 12:50 PM
You know, in the long run, W 43's reticence may pay off. Icarus can't run against him this time.
Posted by: peter | September 17, 2011 at 12:50 PM
"he who must not be named" !!! Love the Rumpole reference, Tom. So clever.
H Rider Haggard.
What are they teaching kids these days?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM
October 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/politics/main649964.shtml
"The good news for President Bush in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll is the razor-thin lead he gets in the horserace.
The bad news in the poll is that his approval rating is in the low 40s, more Americans feel the country is on the wrong track and more voters dislike him than like him. "
Polls, moles and voles. They operate without the light of day.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 17, 2011 at 01:11 PM
"Brilliant!!!!!"
"She, who must be obeyed"
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 17, 2011 at 01:14 PM
Another day, another NPR blasphemy as some idiot compares Obama [favorably of course] to Jesus.
No doubt Kathy Kattenberg or whatever her name is will show up shortly to blast this irreverence.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 17, 2011 at 01:17 PM
What, everyone forgot about Voldemort already,
Posted by: narciso | September 17, 2011 at 01:19 PM
((Icarus can't run against him this time. ))
Within the last day or two I read a headline that running against Bush again is exactly what he is planning to do. I'll try to find it.
He should perhaps read the story of Lot's wife
Posted by: Chubby | September 17, 2011 at 01:20 PM
Drudge has the headlines that report Kennedy's and Mondale's daughters have passed away, both aged 51.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 17, 2011 at 01:24 PM
--Polls, moles and voles. They operate without the light of day.--
Your alliteration is counterfactual.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 17, 2011 at 01:26 PM
"Self awareness is not his strong suit"
http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2011/09/which_is_why_you_dont_elect_le.html#disqus_thread
Posted by: narciso | September 17, 2011 at 01:30 PM
From narciso's link
'You know, Peter, we're really home alone.' Over the past few months, Summers had said this, in a stage whisper, to Orszag and others as they left the morning economic briefings in the Oval Office. ... 'I mean it,' Summers stressed. 'We're home alone. There's no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.'"
No wonder everyone on the economic team has abandonded ship.
Posted by: Ranger | September 17, 2011 at 01:53 PM
here ya go, peter
Top Dem: Obama Plans to Run Against Bush Again in 2012
((Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, a chief surrogate of Barack Obama and leader of all Democratic governors, today said that the president's 2012 campaign will run against a familiar face: George W. Bush.
Charging that Bush and fellow Republicans socked the economy, destroyed the middle class and built a historically high deficit with tax cuts for the rich, O'Malley said that Obama and other Democrats will ask for more time to fix what they inherited ....
etc etc etc)) LUN
Posted by: Chubby | September 17, 2011 at 01:59 PM
BARF
CBS/AP) CINCINNATI — A tea party activist is challenging U.S. House Speaker John Boehner in the 2012 Republican primary. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that David Lewis announced his candidacy on Friday. Lewis, 26, is the father of a 2-year-old girl, and says he plans to run on a single issue — Boehner's support of a federal budget that includes funding for Planned Parenthood, which he calls "the largest killer of unborn babies in America."
Posted by: Clarice | September 17, 2011 at 02:16 PM
Oh, great plan. Let's give 'em more time to "fix" what they "inherited."
It's about time to refurbish an old saw: how do you ask a populace to give their last dollars to a mistake?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 17, 2011 at 02:17 PM
Some unintentional humor for the day:
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/42475
Posted by: narciso | September 17, 2011 at 02:19 PM
--O'Malley said that Obama and other Democrats will ask for more time to fix what they inherited ....--
Good luck with that strategy, guys.
It's be a step forward if they'd just stop making it worse.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 17, 2011 at 02:29 PM
Seeking out Bob Shrum's opinion on Presidential races is like asking El JEFe about creating jobs.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 02:32 PM
Knowing the base that supported him in 2008, a lot of them probably don't even remember who Bush is.
Posted by: peter | September 17, 2011 at 02:34 PM
To refute all the trolls that accuse of us of engaging in group think, I don't see anything wrong with Boehner, or anybody, facing a primary challenge.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 02:37 PM
To qualify my comment, I think running on a single issue is kind of stupid.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 02:38 PM
So much for my campaign, CH.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 17, 2011 at 02:42 PM
I'd probably vote for you over Michele Bachmann, TK. I hate saying negative things about Repub wimmenz after what's been done to Palin; but Michele needs to stfu stat.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 02:45 PM
Here's the money graf in that Shrum article, and likely to be the center of the Democrat propaganda program:
Which is pretty persuasive, if only you're a complete dolt. Nobody with a brain thinks raising taxes on small business and increasing costs to hire new workers (whilst simultaneously extending unemployment insurance) is going to create jobs. But the Administration has no problem calling it a "jobs bill" and demagoguing the carp out of it. The fact that they can't even count on their own senators to spout the party line is a bad start. The fact that they already had a "recovery act" that did nothing of the sort is even more convincing. Anything that passes out of that stupidity--hopefully not much--will actually impede job creation.On the actual jobs production front, Harry Reid has finally been shamed into setting up a vote on the trade preferences bill. Watch the Dems fall all over themselves trying [in vain] to avoid passing it. How they spin that one will be illuminating.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 17, 2011 at 02:45 PM
NYT looks at poll results like these, and the call goes out for volunteers. "Hey, who's going to put some lipstick on this pig?"
Strange thing is that person making the call gets trampled in the rush to help out The Lightworker.
Posted by: Comanche Voter | September 17, 2011 at 02:47 PM
I'm starting to get the sense that the Ron Suskind book is the start of a new narative to blame the 4 year failure of Obama on his personal flaws in order to protect "progressivism" from taking the blame for prolonging the recession and recreating the stagflation of the Carter years.
This little item seems to be an effort to "blam it on Chicago." (via RCP):
Does Obama Have a Chicago Problem?
Of course, the challenge the Progs have is convincing the press to get on board with a 'blame the guy we told you was 'the One'' narative.
Posted by: Ranger | September 17, 2011 at 02:56 PM
Isn't today supposed to be the liberal "day of rage" that the libs were gonna show the capitalists what a real protest looks like and scare the congress into supporting Obama? Fail. Again. I haven't even seen any mention of it on the web except to mock the hash tag for it #takewallstreet Almost as big a mocking as #attackwatch.
Posted by: Stephanie | September 17, 2011 at 02:58 PM
peter, complacency worries me.
however, one of the morals of the story of Lot's wife is that constant looking back means not being able to move forward. If Obama overplays his looking back at Bush card, forever crying salty crocodile tears, while the Republicans focus on the trainwreck of the present, Obama will not advance, electorally speaking.
Posted by: Chubby | September 17, 2011 at 02:58 PM
Who here thinks Zero has the political skills of Clinton or Reagan? Who here thinks the economy will resemble what either of them had when running for reelection? Seeing no hands, I will then point to RASMUSSEN having it at 55 45 against, which if I am not mistaken is just a hair short of Reagan victory. And then call that a landslide. Whoops for a bunch of Senator Democrats, but after Weprin surely even idiot Democrat Senator know that. Sucks to be them though.
Posted by: Gmax | September 17, 2011 at 03:01 PM
Melissa Lee of CNBC asks an innocent enough question on Friday:
"...it looks like the support for the American Jobs Act is unraveling a bit from both sides of the aisle for that matter. Could the writing be on the wall for President Obama’s presidency?”
Posted by: Gmax | September 17, 2011 at 03:09 PM
((Who here thinks Zero has the political skills of Clinton or Reagan?))
who thought he would beat Hillary in the Democratic Party primaries? I thought H. was going to be a shoo-in
Posted by: Chubby | September 17, 2011 at 03:09 PM
Muffer started off being a terrible campaigner, and her predator husband's endearing traits like always showing up late for stops didn't do her any favors. But she got better as the campaign season went on but El JEFe's supporters snookered her with the super delegates and winning in every contrived caucus garbage state contest.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 03:18 PM
Anybody watching the Auburn/Clemson game? Urban Meyer is doing the color commentary along with Chris Speilman and sounds great.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 03:21 PM
Yes, Bachmann has proven not to have the 'deftest touch' to be charitable but Ace and a certain blogger at Pajamas Media, have 'blown the transaxle' IMHO.
Posted by: narciso | September 17, 2011 at 03:25 PM
"'blown the transaxle'"
I swear I saw that very thing at the corner of Polk and O'Farrell.
Posted by: MarkO | September 17, 2011 at 03:28 PM
I am watching Auburn Clemson with my Auburn grad daughter and Auburn clad granddaughter. The daughter isn't too pleased but she is married to a Clemson grad. She says if anyone is going to beat Auburn it might as well be Clemson.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | September 17, 2011 at 03:32 PM
Yes Hillary won more delegates in primaries, she got fragged in the caucuses by the hope and change crowd.
Posted by: Gmax | September 17, 2011 at 03:34 PM
Ace is so vag-phobic I'm surprised he's not blogging from Provincetown.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 03:34 PM
Chrotopher Caldwell at the Weekly Standard provides an excellent synopsis of the crossroads the Euroweenies find themselves contemplating, one which Barry seems determined he will force us into as well.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 17, 2011 at 03:54 PM
If the fraud had been eliminated from the Iowa Democrat caucus Obama would not be President today, IMO. Over at American Thinker there is an article on GOP attempts to rein in voter fraud.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/gop_pushback_on_dem_vote_fraud.html
Meanwhile The Democrats go into court after court and argue that their party members are too incompetent to get a photo ID and the court buys it.Yet the Democrats are the first to demand all be allowed to vote. The nation watched the fraud in the Democrat 2008 caucuses and yet there will be caucuses in 2012. The mail in ballots are wide open to fraud and yet states like Washington have gone to complete mail in systems. The asinine stupidity that military ballots can't be delivered in time to be returned for proper counting. All of these indicate to me that there is progress being made but that the 2012 elections will not be fraud free.
Posted by: pagar | September 17, 2011 at 03:55 PM
From someone at CNN on Twitter:
No joke. For $15, the Obama campaign will give you a dog leash that reads "Barack's best friend." Dog/cat collars also avail.
I had an immediate vision of all the MFM sycophants in DC and NYC being walked on the avenues with leashes and collars around their neck. I mean, who else would these be for?
Posted by: centralcal | September 17, 2011 at 04:26 PM
--I mean, who else would these be for?--
From their point of view I imagine they're meant for us.
Were they choke chain collars?
Posted by: Ignatz | September 17, 2011 at 05:00 PM
So if liberals think it is absolutely necessary that the government insist on giving 12 year olds shots to prevent HPV; do liberals also believe the government has the responsibility to give shots to induce impotence in gays to prevent the spread of AIDS?
Posted by: Pops | September 17, 2011 at 05:13 PM
Of course the Republicans could call the Presidents bluff and pass a bill that rescinds the endangered species act for any and all government funding or contracted activities....just to create jobs don't ya know...
Posted by: Pops | September 17, 2011 at 05:16 PM
May want to also thrown in rescission of any and all unionized work force requirements, so we can see if the Democrats are really for jobs, or lizards and union bosses...
Posted by: Pops | September 17, 2011 at 05:20 PM
Ho hum...
Another high profile wife of a Dem Politician is also ashamed of America. (Are there any other kind?)
"Yet where was Mr. Weiner during this race? Well,The American Spectator has had its investigative team following him and they report from posh Positano, Italy, along the Amalfi coast, that last week he dined with his wife Huma Abedin and a very cosmopolitan party at a very upscale restaurant, La Sponda. Mr. Weiner appeared subdued, but Huma was rather vociferous and denouncing the prudery of America to her polyglot companions. She objected to the provinciality of America, talking about the country as though this were 1924 and Anthony Comstock were burning licentious books."
"...should Huma be speaking ill of the country she serves in a public setting abroad, at least a public setting that was not a nudist camp or a recovery point for sex offenders? And will she be reporting her grand dinner on her financial reports to the State Department? At the hotel where she was staying, Le Sirenuse, even a short stay can easily run several thousand dollars. Then too, it costs hundreds of dollars for a couple to dine out there, and they started at the Champagne and oyster bar! Who was paying for them?"
Good question.
"Anthony is out of work, though he was a great scold to the entire Republican Party when in office. Was it the Democratic National Committee paying to get Mr. Weiner out of the country for the election or was it someone else? A foreign power?...We shall await Huma's filing."
Posted by: daddy | September 17, 2011 at 05:38 PM
I had an immediate vision of all the MFM sycophants in DC and NYC being walked on the avenues with leashes and collars around their neck. I mean, who else would these be for?
I'm guessing they'll also be big in the Castro and Provincetown.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 17, 2011 at 05:55 PM
"The Science is Settled "Update:
BBC: The coldest summer for 18 years has been blamed by conservationists for an 11% fall in butterflies seen during this year's Big Butterfly Count.
Posted by: daddy | September 17, 2011 at 05:56 PM
This is definitely Obama’s style ...
SolyndraPosted by: Neo | September 17, 2011 at 06:01 PM
Great one, Ccal.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 17, 2011 at 06:10 PM
"Over the past few months, Summers had said this, in a stage whisper, to Orszag and others as they left the morning economic briefings in the Oval Office. ... 'I mean it,' Summers stressed. 'We're home alone. There's no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.'
Narciso or Ranger (or anyone else),
Are any of these professors making these comments the same guys who said Barrack Obama was the smartest student they ever had back at Harvard? I can't remember which Prof said he was so amazingly brilliant back in Grad School, but wouldn't it be funny if it's one of the same guys now whispering that there's nobody home?
Posted by: daddy | September 17, 2011 at 06:12 PM
I have no dog in the fight about the vaccine, but bear in mind that the power of the states to require them as a matter of public health has been undoubted for over a hundred years.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 17, 2011 at 06:13 PM
imo Bachmann's messaging about Perry and Gardisal is confusing because she is conflating two separate and different issues:
(1) Crony capitalism
(2) government intrusion into areas of life that should be private
it would be better handled as one or the other, not both imo, even though both may have been at play
Posted by: Chubby | September 17, 2011 at 06:26 PM
Hitler find out about AttackWatch.Com being the laugh of the internet
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 17, 2011 at 06:29 PM
from conservative treehouse -
Posted by: Janet | September 17, 2011 at 06:42 PM
I have no dog in the fight about the vaccine, but bear in mind that the power of the states to require them as a matter of public health has been undoubted for over a hundred years.
I'd been meaning to say something about that myself, thanks. When I entered UNC -- in my late 30's -- I ended up getting an MMR vaccination because one could not otherwise enter school. Now, I'd had all three before vaccination was even possible, but it didn't matter.
Here in Boulder, we've got the highest incidence of pertussis -- whooping cough -- of anywhere in the state, and one of the highest in the country, because parents are opting out of what was a mandatory vaccination.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 17, 2011 at 06:43 PM
because parents are opting out of what was a mandatory vaccination
I wondered why they were showing commercials about whooping cough. I guess that explains it.
Posted by: Sue | September 17, 2011 at 06:55 PM
How do I love Solyndra?
Let me count the ways:
--Crony capitalism
--The whole Green energy folly
--Violation of a federal statute
--Part and parcel of the Failed Stimulus
Let's hear it:
Solyndra, Solyndra
Sis boom bah
Solyndra, Solyndra
Rah rah rah
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 17, 2011 at 07:01 PM
Charlie (Colorado), Perhaps the cause is no parent opt out, but in fact illegal aliens who were never vaccinated.
California is in the middle of the worst outbreak of whooping cough in 60 years. According to the state health department, there are now 6,257 confirmed, probable and suspected cases of the disease. Ten people have died.
"Unfortunately and tragically we have had 10 deaths, all in infants under 2 years of age," said Dr. Kathleen Harriman, California Department of Public Health. Nine of the 10 infants were Hispanic and several had family members with "cough illness," according to Harriman.
-----------------------------
Posted by: Pops | September 17, 2011 at 07:03 PM
So I haven't heard a word about the million protest march on Wall Street. Has anyone else?
Posted by: ` | September 17, 2011 at 07:10 PM
"Perhaps the cause is no parent opt out, "
Uh, vaccinations protect the children from infections arising
from the UNvaccinated..........
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 17, 2011 at 07:12 PM
""...the power of the states to require them as a matter of public health has been undoubted for over a hundred years...."
Actually here in Virginia you can opt out.
I would think the courts could find a basis to uphold a law for vaccines for communicable diseases that you could catch from someone in class.
But would courts require children to be vaccinated against sexually transmitted diseases on the basis that they may have sex in class?
Posted by: Pops | September 17, 2011 at 07:15 PM
Perceptive story about Mr. Erdogan whom the author notes may shortly start WWIII and is certainly making exceedingly aggressive maneuvers all over the mid east while Barry and Hillary cluck their tongues at Eric Cantor and Gaddhafi in his tent.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 17, 2011 at 07:27 PM
""Uh, vaccinations protect the children from infections arising
from the UNvaccinated""
Uhhh Yes, Ben, but 9 of the 10 deaths from whooping cough in California were HISPANIC babies. Thus the main culprit that would infect a Hispanic baby is a HISPANIC older sybling who wasn't vaccinated.
Its not rock science...
Posted by: Pops | September 17, 2011 at 07:28 PM
I can't remember which Prof said he was so amazingly brilliant back in Grad School
I believe that was the great Constitutional scholar, Lawrence Tribe, daddy, who thought of Obama more as a colleague than a student, and therefore too good for the usual mundane legal dog work he normally gave out to his students.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 17, 2011 at 07:33 PM
"Perhaps the cause is no parent opt out, "
That's an obvious typo. In context, it has to be "not," inasmuch as Chaco's description of the program explicitly stated that there is a parental opt-out and that parents are using it.
I'm just here to provide context, and to prevent subsequent posters from making fools of themselves with misplaced snark. Alas, too late this time.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 17, 2011 at 07:34 PM
Pops,
It is for Ben. He doesn't pay attention to anything not reported in the MFM or the academic journals where what you report would be racist.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 17, 2011 at 07:35 PM
CH,
Hee, hee. Are you watching the O against the U? This could be a great game.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 17, 2011 at 07:38 PM
I think it kind of says alot that we have to have separate, apparently very quiet Vaccine Courts that essentially buy the silence of everyone hurt or killed by a vaccine.
For people who preached openness and transparency, they sure want vaccine lawsuits to not be seen, nor heard by the public.
I follow the news and I had barely heard of the Vaccine Court, which is basically a no-fault pay-out machine to buy the publics silence on possible vaccine related injuries and/or deaths.
Posted by: Pops | September 17, 2011 at 07:45 PM
I received an offer on a high-tech management job this week, and was told by the head of HR about how stable and growing the offering organization is. As I was hearing this, I was wondering about Solyndra, and whether a certain class of employees might have a good legal case against Obama.
The Solyndra production workers probably can't say that they took their jobs based on Obama's statements of how well the company was doing and what a great future it had, since they're not typically in such great demand based on their own résumés, but the high-end engineers, managers and middle managers are a different story. Some of them could have gone with other, better companies, and some of those might be able to produce offer letters from those other companies to prove it.
Obama told these people that Solyndra was a "going concern" with a great future, and now a year later they're out on the street. Shouldn't they have a legal case to bring against the federal government?
Posted by: Extraneus | September 17, 2011 at 07:52 PM
Crazy bachmann clones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gCVCP8BFrU&feature=related
Posted by: Pops | September 17, 2011 at 07:53 PM
You mean the probation bowl, JiB? No (no cable) I'll be watching the Okla/Noles contest in a few minutes. I'm a bit disappointed that my Terps dug themselves too deep of a hole against the Mountainqueers to climb out of but I'm still pretty pleased with coach Edsall.
None of the televised early games were that good in terms of being close. Amazing meltdown going on at Penn State's Scout board as they were *extremely* lucky to beat Temple. How did Georgia Tech manage to run it up on Kansas as much as they did? Could the ACC actually be (gulp) good at football? DoT's anchor clankers are hanging tough against the Ol' Ball Coach.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 07:54 PM
Short versio, Ext., is that you can't sue the president.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 17, 2011 at 07:57 PM
Successfully sue. I'm working on a B.
Posted by: MarkO | September 17, 2011 at 08:02 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/radical-leftists-hold-day-of-rage-protests-in-manhattan-plan-sleepover-in-the-streets/
Posted by: pagar | September 17, 2011 at 08:02 PM
--"Summers stressed. 'We're home alone. There's no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.'"--
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 17, 2011 at 08:06 PM
Ext: What about the poor schlubs who were hired the week before the company officially declared they were kaput? I heard one of the employee interviews where he said they didn't have a clue what was happening since the company was hiring right up to the very end.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 17, 2011 at 08:06 PM
DoT,
Now watching Navy and they are giving South Carolina all they can handle. Including a fumble near the goal line Yike!
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 17, 2011 at 08:08 PM
Damn the crowd at the Doak looks jacked. I'd really love to see a game there.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 08:13 PM
Ignatz
thanks very much for the David Warren link.
Posted by: Chubby | September 17, 2011 at 08:14 PM
Mids lead no. 10-ranked SEC powerhouse South Carolina 21-17, late in the 3rd quarter at Columbia.
Two of my brother's grandkids are students at S. Carolia, so he and a nice contingent are at the game. Wish I could be there.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 17, 2011 at 08:15 PM
Now back to THE GAME - FSU against Sooners. So far, Sooners look like the team to beat but never count out a Florida team -speed and athletes.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 17, 2011 at 08:19 PM
Shouldn't they have a legal case to bring against the federal government?
They will all be filing workers comp claims.
Posted by: ` | September 17, 2011 at 08:26 PM
Free Shoes is getting worked by the Sooners. I love the Noles (if I went to a game I'd need rotator cuff surgery from doing the chop all game) but they're already getting banged up.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 08:28 PM
It seems some of the references were somewhat successful for Tribe:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124094017
Posted by: narciso | September 17, 2011 at 08:30 PM
Ok, I get that they can't sue Obama personally, but couldn't they sue the gov't for certifying that it was a stable, growing company, when they knew it wasn't? If Andrew McCarthy is right, this is fraud.
Does it require a prosecutor for a fraud charge to be adjudicated, or are there civil litigants who could bring the same basic charge?
Posted by: Extraneus | September 17, 2011 at 08:36 PM
The general rule is that you can't sue the government for stuff it does in the course of governing.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 17, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Back to the poll numbers, I'm guessing those percentages are out of those who are familiar with the bill. So another interpretation is that 36 percent aren't interested in what the JEF has to say, while only about 31 percent (64 pct of 48) show any support.
show any
Posted by: jimmyk | September 17, 2011 at 08:46 PM
Go Navy! Great catch!
BTW, Yeah Irish!
Posted by: Holly | September 17, 2011 at 08:55 PM
ARGGHH! Good game for Navy.
Posted by: Holly | September 17, 2011 at 08:59 PM
How did Georgia Tech score 66? By the middle of the 3rd quarter Tech's ave time per drive was under 80 SECONDS. Kansas spent much of the game wandering between the 20s. Triple option baby!
Posted by: Stephanie | September 17, 2011 at 09:00 PM
Holy shit did that Nole receiver get crunched; I hope he's ok
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 09:01 PM
An action under the Federal False Claims Act?
Wouldn't that open up a whole new vista of litigation!
Posted by: RichatUF | September 17, 2011 at 09:01 PM
Can someone stuff a sock in Musberger's mouth. Herbie? He call herbstreit Herbie? Seriously. Plus he's a nincompoop. Plsthx.
Posted by: Stephanie | September 17, 2011 at 09:04 PM
I'm watching with the sound muted because of Brent, Steph; too bad because I like Herbie (that moniker has been used for a while) because he *really* does his homework on every school.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 09:08 PM
Damn Wort is good.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 17, 2011 at 09:13 PM
Ignatz, that Erdogan story is an alarming wake-up call. The sinister forces of the world are growing bolder, while the American watchdog focuses instead on plundering his own domain.
Posted by: OldTimer | September 17, 2011 at 09:20 PM
Charlie (Colorado), Perhaps the cause is no parent opt out, but in fact illegal aliens who were never vaccinated.
Perhaps.
It's not. We're talking about Boulder, where you pay about a 50 percent premium to be in town, and 100 percent to not commute from, say, 6 miles away.
But thank you for playing.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 17, 2011 at 09:24 PM
Oh, and actually illegals have to prove they've been vaccinated too.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 17, 2011 at 09:25 PM