On June 30th, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Son of a barrelmaker said:
Ahh, Firefox. Finally something upon which conservatives, moderates & liberals can all agree!
On June 30th, 2009 at 01:03 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Hey, what do you know. Sixty Senators in the Democratic caucus.
Thank you, America!
On June 30th, 2009 at 01:23 PM, Depression Redux (not verified) said:
Hey, what do you know. Sixty Senators in the Democratic caucus.
Hey thanks for the news--I was wondering why the stock markets were tanking today. Hello economic malaise. I'm still hoping for that change we were promised.
On June 30th, 2009 at 02:25 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Except, of course, the market dropped at the beginning of the day and held steady from there.
But you probably knew that and just wanted an excuse to whine about those darn Democrats and the way the darn people of America have backed them so darn strongly.
On June 30th, 2009 at 02:50 PM, Depression Redux (not verified) said:
The markets initially dropped after consumer confidence numbers dropped on the realization that the economy is not improving under the "leadership" of Democrats. It worsened later in the day, no doubt weakened by the news that Franken's senate theft will strengthen Dem control , sending the economy even lower.
Tell me, how many new jobs have Obama and his cohorts created? The numbers worsen monthly.
People backed the change message during the elections last year, but with these results, I wouldn't be so smug that the support remains as strong now.
However, since the Republicans are so feckless (see the GOP governor thread and the Mark Kirk thread), we'll no doubt be stuck with more Dem incompetence for the forseeable future. That's certainly nothing to look forward to.
On June 30th, 2009 at 03:25 PM, Annoying Mike said:
Let's not forget the backsliding on the "no tax increases for those making under $250K a year" pledge by the chief Democrat himself.....
P.S. I didn't believe him then, I'm not surprised now.
On June 30th, 2009 at 03:30 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Gallup has Obama at 60% approval rating. There's not a single day in Bush's second term he could claim a number so high.
On June 30th, 2009 at 03:34 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Headline on the WSJ: "Small Loss Caps Strong Quarter"
On June 30th, 2009 at 03:52 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"Gallup has Obama at 60% approval rating. There's not a single day in Bush's second term he could claim a number so high."
At this point in his first term (Pre-9/11), Presiden't Bush's job approval ratings were in the same neighborhood as President Obama's now.
Cherry-picking: Bush also had approval ratings into the 90s at points during his first term. But Bush's ratings also cratered post-Katrina in his second term.
On June 30th, 2009 at 10:16 PM, A is for Anonymous said:
Bush was both the most popular and the least popular president in American polling history. More popular than Kennedy ever was. Less popular than even Nixon at his nadir. That's gotta make Trivial Pursuit someday.
But he was only popular for a minute, and he was unpopular for a long, long time.
That's what a war of choice will do for ya.
On June 30th, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Dan Fielding said:
"But he was only popular for a minute, and he was unpopular for a long, long time."
It seems to me he was popular both times it mattered.
On July 1st, 2009 at 06:13 AM, A is for Anonymous said:
He lost the popular vote (and most likely the election) in 2000, and barely won in 2004 against one of the worst Presidential candidates fielded since George HW Bush in 1992.
On July 1st, 2009 at 07:46 AM, Dan Fielding said:
I stand corrected. Now let's discuss the great accomplishments of the Gore administration, shall we?
On July 1st, 2009 at 08:02 AM, IlliniPundit said:
"He lost the popular vote (and most likely the election) in 2000, and barely won in 2004 against one of the worst Presidential candidates fielded since George HW Bush in 1992."
That would be quite a debate, deciding whether Bob Dole, John McCain or John Kerry was the worst Presidential candidate of the past 20 years.
On July 5th, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
I have also just upgraded to the latest version of Firefox and am very happy with it.
On July 6th, 2009 at 09:11 AM, A is for Anonymous said:
George W. Bush's popular-vote margin over John Kerry is the lowest ever recorded by an incumbent president -- slightly less than 2.5 percent of the more than 120 million votes cast, including absentee and provisional ballots that have now been tallied. Since 1824, when the national popular vote was first recorded, 14 presidents have been elected to serve again. Woodrow Wilson held the previous record for the closest popular-vote margin by a sitting president, 3.2 percent in the 1916 election.
This is why I would argue that Kerry was the worst since 41. 43 was ripe for a killing and Kerry allowed him to sneak past (well, unless you believe the Ohio stories). Dole was facing Clinton, who was an excellent candidate. McCain had to try to pick off Obama, whose technique and discipline were outstanding.
But a Dole/McCain/Kerry debate? Wow. That would be the ultimate cure for insomnia. :)
I am so happy to see Chancellor Herman getting thrown under the bus at the Mikva Commission hearings!
Just installed FireFox 3.5. Much faster performance so far.
IP--I just check my FireFox and the only update available is 3.0.11. Where does one find this 3.5 version?
Pattsi Petrie
Try this.
Ahh, Firefox. Finally something upon which conservatives, moderates & liberals can all agree!
Hey, what do you know. Sixty Senators in the Democratic caucus.
Thank you, America!
Hey, what do you know. Sixty Senators in the Democratic caucus.
Hey thanks for the news--I was wondering why the stock markets were tanking today. Hello economic malaise. I'm still hoping for that change we were promised.
Except, of course, the market dropped at the beginning of the day and held steady from there.
But you probably knew that and just wanted an excuse to whine about those darn Democrats and the way the darn people of America have backed them so darn strongly.
The markets initially dropped after consumer confidence numbers dropped on the realization that the economy is not improving under the "leadership" of Democrats. It worsened later in the day, no doubt weakened by the news that Franken's senate theft will strengthen Dem control , sending the economy even lower.
Tell me, how many new jobs have Obama and his cohorts created? The numbers worsen monthly.
People backed the change message during the elections last year, but with these results, I wouldn't be so smug that the support remains as strong now.
However, since the Republicans are so feckless (see the GOP governor thread and the Mark Kirk thread), we'll no doubt be stuck with more Dem incompetence for the forseeable future. That's certainly nothing to look forward to.
Let's not forget the backsliding on the "no tax increases for those making under $250K a year" pledge by the chief Democrat himself.....
P.S. I didn't believe him then, I'm not surprised now.
Gallup has Obama at 60% approval rating. There's not a single day in Bush's second term he could claim a number so high.
Headline on the WSJ: "Small Loss Caps Strong Quarter"
"Gallup has Obama at 60% approval rating. There's not a single day in Bush's second term he could claim a number so high."
At this point in his first term (Pre-9/11), Presiden't Bush's job approval ratings were in the same neighborhood as President Obama's now.
Cherry-picking: Bush also had approval ratings into the 90s at points during his first term. But Bush's ratings also cratered post-Katrina in his second term.
Bush was both the most popular and the least popular president in American polling history. More popular than Kennedy ever was. Less popular than even Nixon at his nadir. That's gotta make Trivial Pursuit someday.
But he was only popular for a minute, and he was unpopular for a long, long time.
That's what a war of choice will do for ya.
"But he was only popular for a minute, and he was unpopular for a long, long time."
It seems to me he was popular both times it mattered.
He lost the popular vote (and most likely the election) in 2000, and barely won in 2004 against one of the worst Presidential candidates fielded since George HW Bush in 1992.
I stand corrected. Now let's discuss the great accomplishments of the Gore administration, shall we?
"He lost the popular vote (and most likely the election) in 2000, and barely won in 2004 against one of the worst Presidential candidates fielded since George HW Bush in 1992."
That would be quite a debate, deciding whether Bob Dole, John McCain or John Kerry was the worst Presidential candidate of the past 20 years.
I have also just upgraded to the latest version of Firefox and am very happy with it.
More on Bush's so-called popularity "when it mattered":
This is why I would argue that Kerry was the worst since 41. 43 was ripe for a killing and Kerry allowed him to sneak past (well, unless you believe the Ohio stories). Dole was facing Clinton, who was an excellent candidate. McCain had to try to pick off Obama, whose technique and discipline were outstanding.
But a Dole/McCain/Kerry debate? Wow. That would be the ultimate cure for insomnia. :)