David Brooks' mis-analysis on Obama's drop in the polls.

[kentuck]

He says that Americans who trust President Obama to make the right decisions has fallen by roughly 17 percentage points. At the same time, he says that Obama will be President of 35% (the liberal left) of the country. He believes Obama has lost all of his support from "independents" and not liberals. I think that is where he is wrong. I think the majority of his slide in the polls comes from the "liberal left", who will re-join him if he re-joins us in the healthcare battle? I believe David Brooks is incorrect in his analysis.
==================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01brooks.html?ref=opinion

The Obama Slide

<snip>
The administration hasn’t been able to pull it off. From the stimulus to health care, it has joined itself at the hip to the liberal leadership in Congress. The White House has failed to veto measures, like the pork-laden omnibus spending bill, that would have demonstrated independence and fiscal restraint. By force of circumstances and by design, the president has promoted one policy after another that increases spending and centralizes power in Washington.

The result is the Obama slide, the most important feature of the current moment. The number of Americans who trust President Obama to make the right decisions has fallen by roughly 17 percentage points. Obama’s job approval is down to about 50 percent. All presidents fall from their honeymoon highs, but in the history of polling, no newly elected American president has fallen this far this fast.

<snip>
Amazingly, some liberals are now lashing out at Obama because the entire country doesn’t agree with The Huffington Post. Some now argue that the administration should just ignore the ignorant masses and ram health care through using reconciliation, the legislative maneuver that would reduce the need for moderate votes.

This would be suicidal. You can’t pass the most important domestic reform in a generation when the majority of voters think you are on the wrong path. To do so would be a sign of unmitigated arrogance. If Obama agrees to use reconciliation, he will permanently affix himself to the liberal wing of his party and permanently alienate independents. He will be president of 35 percent of the country — and good luck getting anything done after that.

[Why Syzygy]

1. His conclusions are wrong because his facts are wrong.

70% want health reform! If Obama was welded to the 'liberals', it would already be a done deal.
Obama was the first to mention "reconcilliaton", not HUFFINGTON POST.

What an idiot.

[asjr]

2. I read that column earlier and became

very very angry. They were not taking any more comments and that made me mad also. Why they keep Brooks on confounds me. He has that Republican air of superiority that drives me nuts. He tries to be the male version of the Oracle of Delphi. I hate starting the day with anger!

[kentuck]

3. I noticed they were not taking comments..

and that is why I posted it here.

[Cherchez la Femme]

5. Couldn't find a way to post

even though I am registered with the NYT.


What REALLY got me is this:

"(Obama's administration) has joined itself at the hip to the liberal leadership in Congress"


Obama's administration joining with liberals?! He can't wait to marginalize and disenfranchise us from our party more and more.
After all, they think: 'What're they gonna do about it?'


But oh, there ARE other options, and they would be very wise to recognize this.
It won't be Bush's fault, nor the Republicans and certainly not the individual voters -- but the Democrats alone.


BTW, I'd Recommend this if I wasn't too late
...that wouldn't be a rec of Brook's column, but of his incredibly faulty 'logic'

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Obama apparently can't please anybody it seems

Republicans think that the Obama administration has, as Brooks nicely sums up their line of thinking, "joined itself at the hip to the liberal leadership in Congress" but, of course, both he and other Republicans conveniently forget everything about the last 8 years when it comes to "punch-drunk" spending and "centralizing power" in Washington. They seem to completely forget that Bush/Cheney demanded tons and tons of new spending with no strings attached and there was no handwringing among most Republicans, as I recall, about finding money to pay for their spending. In fact, when the
Democrats actually proposed ending select tax cuts to help pay for that war that we were promised would largely pay for itself, the Pubs voted it down and then attacked Kerry in 2004 for having the nerve to vote against the irresponsible funding bill with no plans for how it would be paid for, the kind of thing the Pubs are oh-so-concerned about now in regards to HCR. :eyes:

Meanwhile, Obama also has to deal with Democrats, primarily progressives, whom seem to think that his administration has made some kind of secretive pact with the devils (i.e. Republicans) to sell us/them out and/or relinquishes its "balls" and spine at the door EVERY time Obama so much as talks about "bipartisanship" and working with and/or listening to the Pubs about anything. :eyes:

I don't know about everybody else but I'm glad that I'm somebody other than President Barack Obama right now. However, I know that he's a much stronger and patient man than I.

[Octafish]

6. David Brooks owes it all to Rev. Moon.

The smarmy pro-fessional started as a base stooge for Washington Moonie Times.

Sometimes the Truth is Friggin' Bizarre

[spanone]

7. i read that drivel this am......david can't ever help from letting his bias show

[Why Syzygy]

8. Bias? That's PROPAGANDA!

He doesn't even know the meaning of "bias".