Associated Press
It looks as though the heat turned on this past week over Van Jones' hostile language towards Republicans and the inexplicable appearance of his name on that 911 petition which sought investigations as to whether or not high-ranking US goverment officials "allowed" the attacks on the WTC to occur - have taken their toll.
President Obama has been under attack, not only for his past shady associations with the likes of Rev. Wright, but of those he's assigned to various government posts - so called "Czars".
Undoubtedly, this will be another big blow to Obama's presidency, one which appears to be getting worse by the day; with the most recent Rassmussen Poll results showing a Presidential Approval Index of - 11.
A recent report on Rassmussen also has quoted people like Keith Olbermann, suggesting that perhaps, it would be a good idea for liberal democrats to consider running someone from their own party against Obama's in 2012, citing that Obama has compromised too much thus far.
"Olbermann said the president has “compromised on everything so far and as self-defeating as it may be, the progressive caucus and progressives would abandon him if necessary, if this was to be the policy of this administration into 2012. If it’s necessary to find somebody to run against him, I think they’d do it, no matter how destructive that may seem.”
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is rumored to be the "the one" who would most likely dethrone Obama in 2012.
As of now, the resigning of Van Jones is another clear indication that perhaps the wheels are coming off the Obama-mania bus. Time, however, will tell.
For more info: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_adviser_resigns
Comments
It was not just the attacks on the republicans. All people did was to shine a light on your record. Way back in 1998, you attacked president Clinton and defended Al Qaeda. When the Clinton administration lunched a military attack against terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan, you demonstrated in San Francisco and said that president Clinton "is using dead Third World bodies to cover up his own unzipped pants,” And after the September 11 attacks on the U.S. you signed a petition accusing the government of an inside job. You could have done what president Clinton did when heckled by truthers and he replied "How Dare You!"
Recent controversy? How about blaming Van Jones personally and his history of radicalism and Obama's terrible selection?
I say, good riddance! Van Jones was on record as siding with the terrorists, blamed America the day after the attack on the towers, and virtually condoned cop killing .
Van Jones is an America-hating cop-hating white-hating racist eco-terrorist. It's no wonder Obama appointed him. They are peas in a pod!
Glad he’s out! Problem is, Obama’s administration is full of them!
It's 1776 all over again!
You keep quoting that "-11", but you fail to explain to your readers that the Rassmussen poll has Obama at a 49% approval rating. And Rassmussen has the lowest approval rating of all the national polls. An average of all the the national polls has Obama's approval rating at 53%.
Granted, FOX has pulled out all the stops to prove that Obama is a tyrant, a terrorist, a socialist AND a Nazi, but only the right-wing lunatics are buying it, and they are a lost cause anyway.
Ciara,49% is something to bragg about? Okay. "Right-wing lunatics"? Actually, stats show that many "independents" who voted for the president are jumping off the bandwagon faster than you can say....well, whatever it is you want to say. What about those kids whose families don't agree with the president's policies? They'll be ostracized for not being an "Obama maniac" like everyone else. Whether the address is political or not, kids will no doubt express their "love" for Obama. Does everyone else in class get to disagree without being mocked and ridiculed?
...why are we talking about kids?
Bush would have given his whipping boy's right arm for a 49% approval rating! And the average of all the national polls is actually a 53% approval rating. We're past the honeymoon phase, but if you think the administration is imploding; you're delusional (well, that much is obvious).
Ciara, I don't know if you have kids. I do. Three of them. I've also worked in San Diego's school system for almost 10 years. I'm familiar with the school environment; the socializing that takes place during recess, lunch, etc. Kids have a tendency to speak their minds, often times without much thought as to whether or not other kids may be affected by their words. Again, a pep talk by the president must be welcome. Remember, it was Keith Olbermann who suggested "progressives" should consider running someone against Obama in 2012 - because he's compromised too much thus far. It's not the "right-wing" talking here.
That's nice that you have kids; I still don't see what that has to do with the conversation at hand.
The point I'm addressing is your assertion that this administration is in any serious trouble or "getting worse by the day." You quote that "-11" like that's Obama's approval rating or something.
A 49-56% approval rating (53% avg.) in a country as polarized as ours is not too shabby.
As for Keith Olberman, here's the thing you have to understand about Liberals: we tend to avoid drinking the Kool-Aid. We question authority -even the authority we voted for! To conservatives, this looks like dissension and disarray; like we are turning on our own guy, but it's just about keeping his feet to the coals and reminding him who he works for.
You guys were hoping the Hillary/Obama primary would divide us beyond recovery, but when the time came, we closed ranks behind our guy. You just need to recognize the difference between fiery intelligent people and brain-dead sheep.
Liberals not kool-aid drinkers? Oh, sure. Obama basically got a free ride into the white house by the liberal media. The only ones who questioned Obama seriously was Fox News. All other networks were too busy drooling over themselves. Rev. Wright? Free pass. Inexperience (like Palin)? Free pass. The radical professor, Heirs? Free pass. The stimulus plan that hasn't stimulated anything? Free pass. By the way, Bush was by far the most unpopular president in a long time. There was no kool-aid drinking there. Just admitt it, you're a one-sided, left-leaning idealogue; incapable of seeing things for what they are. My article was about social ostracizing by kids. You're off the mark.
I don't know how I got pulled in to this argument. Ciara, I came to the realization that people like you are not interested in civil discourse aimed at solving problems. You simply want to create division - "fiery intelligent people vs brain-dead sheep." Your type takes pride in being anti-establishment, anti this and that, but really have nothing positive to add. This is the kind of hostility that alienates Americans. Try not to be so bitter. It's bad for your health. Plus, you didn't get the point of the article. If students engage in political discourse in class, after the address, then all sides must be respected and not mocked or ridiculed for not being an "Obama kool-aid drinker". Thank you.
I know you wrote this article, but you really need to read it. It's not about school children. It's about the resignation of Van Jones.
And you've really revised history as far as Bush goes. After 9-11, most of this country was DRINKING THE KOOL-AID. Liberals who spoke out against going to war with Iraq were called anti-American. At one point 76% of the people in this country were convinced that Saddam Husein was behind 9-11. Even a year after George Bush was forced to ADMIT the Husein had nothing to do with 9-11, 46% of the country still believed it (never mind the lack of WMDs or oil revenue or being greeted as liberators).
You're right about anger and hate being bad. Maybe you should tell that to the gun-toting red-faced screaming people at the town hall meetings.
"I don't want a government bureaucrat standing between me and my doctor! That's the insurance bureaucrat's job!"
Ciara, if you could, imagine the biggest shoe in the world. Then imagine me shoving it in my mouth. Good. That's what I've just done. I lost track of which article you were responding to...because, well, I'm a genius. However, what I said about you coming across as bitter still stands. Are you suggesting that 9-11 wasn't important enough for Americans to unite - drink the kool-aid"? If you're not on the side of America, then what are you doing here? Move to Pakistan, or somewhere like that. Are you of the opinion that America "deserved" to be attacked?
Ah, that's what I'm talking about! We're either drinking the kool-aid, or we hate America.
Awesome.
Do I need to remind you where the term "drinking the kool-aid" comes from? It refers to people following the group to their own demise, either by blind faith in their leaders or fear and coercion from other group members.
How could you advocate drinking the Kool-aid under ANY circumstances??
Oh yeah, you're a conservative!
Ciara you just want to fight with me! I can't take it anymore! Just kidding. Thank you for engaging in thoughtful discourse with me. The "kool-aid" drinking is applicable when one is engaged in petty bipartisan politics. 9-11 isn't petty bipartisan politics. It's our nation being attacked by those who hate us (liberals or conservatives) and what America stands for. You have to stand on the side of America, right Ciara? Are you with me on this one? Answer the question pleeease!
Of course I'm on the side of the United States; I live here!
But that does not mean that I will rally behind leaders that are making decisions that are bad for us.
And during the post 9-11 era, whenever I tried to point out the our leaders were making bad decisions, I was called anti-American by people who rallying behind our leaders out of fear and faith (both fear and faith are incompatible with reason).
Reacting through fear and faith instead of reason is drinking the kool-aid, and it's never good for anyone.
Terrific! I'm glad to hear you're on the side of America. You're right, when bad leaders are making bad decisions, like Bush heading into Iraq rather than sticking to Afghanistan, Americans must voice their displeasure. About fear, faith and reason. Thousands of innocent civilians killed on 9-11 didn't necessarily trigger fear. It triggered a genuine sense of patriotism which said, "Go get those animals wherever they may be! Bush had the support of America (80%-plus approval rating after 9-11). Regarding faith? Well, you're right. Matters of faith are not subject to the empirical measures used in science or civics, for example, which is why many non-believers mock it.
Also, the first "9-11" took place during Clinton's presidency. Unfortunately, for the terrorists, the damage wasn't as severe, but their intent was there. Clinton didn't go after them hard enough either - Bin Laden.
We've reached some agreements then...
FINE!
;)
That wasn't so difficult.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!