Buyer's remorse?

[Denny Crane]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...favorable-opinion-of-dick-cheney-on-the-rise/

CNN Poll: Favorable opinion of Dick Cheney on the rise
Posted: 12:08 PM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The same day Dick Cheney delivered a major speech on the battle against terrorism, a new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise.

But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Wednesday morning, indicates that a majority of Americans still have an unfavorable opinion of Cheney.

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up eight points from January when he left office.

In the past two months the former vice president has become a frequent critic of the new Administration in numerous national media interviews.

“Is Cheney’s uptick due to his visibility as one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration?

Almost certainly not,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose six points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office.”

The poll suggests that 41 percent of Americans hold a favorable opinion of the former president, with 57 percent viewing him unfavorably.

The survey’s release came just a few hours before Cheney spoke out Thursday on the war against terror during a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington based think tank. The former vice president defended the Bush Administration’s handling of the war on terror and challenged the Obama Administration’s attempt to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted May 14-17, with 1,010 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

 

[MARIS61]

There's a sucker born every minute so that's 1440 chances a day for Cheney to pick up supporters.

Doesn't change the fact he's a criminally sadistic traitor.

 

[Denny Crane]

That or Obama's been a disaster.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Bush's numbers went up a bit too I think....like I said, the further and further away things get from current times, I think their numbers and historical perspective will change quite shockingly.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Buyer's remorse?

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I think America likes strong leadership, which is why an outspoken Cheney seems like he knows stuff.

 

[Denny Crane]

Buyer's remorse?

Or seller's remorse. Pick one, it works either way

 

[julius]

If your approval ratings are like at 3, and go up to 6, that's an improvement.

 

[Denny Crane]

If your approval ratings are like at 3, and go up to 6, that's an improvement.

If they're in the 20's and go up to the 40's, it's an improvement, too.

 

[barfo]

Wow, so people like Cheney and Bush better now that they are out of office.

Why is this news? Hell, I like them better now too. They aren't a problem anymore, they are just two old geezers.

barfo

 

[Stevenson]

That or Obama's been a disaster.

How can you guys in all seriousness say that Obama has been a disaster? He's incredibly popular, has done exactly what he promised and was elected to do, our standing in the world is better and I dare say we are safer because of it, the free fall of Bush's economic disaster has been reversed, he's passed significant legislation, and all in a little over 100 days.

Sure he's spending a lot, but so did your beloved Bush, the difference is, Bush played hide the ball and kept his borrow and spend war out of the official budget.

 

[Minstrel]

For quite a while now, Jimmy Carter's approval has been much higher than it was when he was President. Seller's remorse, I guess...the country has wanted Carter back in the White House for the last couple of decades.

 

[Denny Crane]

How can you guys in all seriousness say that Obama has been a disaster? He's incredibly popular, has done exactly what he promised and was elected to do, our standing in the world is better and I dare say we are safer because of it, the free fall of Bush's economic disaster has been reversed, he's passed significant legislation, and all in a little over 100 days.

Sure he's spending a lot, but so did your beloved Bush, the difference is, Bush played hide the ball and kept his borrow and spend war out of the official budget.

I wouldn't say it's just the spending. It's the 600,000+ jobs lost each month, the foreclosures in spite of the spending, the prospects for the economy keep getting downgraded, the Democrats talking about preventing him from releasing the Gitmo prisoners in the USA, the stream of his nominees who have tax problems, California is going broke if it already isn't, the outright collapse of our automakers with his complete involvement in their operations, and outright hostility toward the sectors that create 20-25% of all employment.

And for the record, he's spending just as much on wars as Bush and off budget, and his promise to account for the stimulus bill spending has turned out to be a joke. China is threatening to take away his credit card, and the dollar is on the verge of having its rating lowered from AAA status.

If you want links for any of this, it's really not a problem since the news is all about these things lately.

He's popular, which is great. I actually like the guy, too. It doesn't change the facts on the ground, tho, and this is just the damage done in his first 4 months. Clinton didn't do very well for his first two years - the republicans took over congress in 1994. It remains to be seen if Obama can figure out how to be a successful president in any shorter time, in spite of zero governing experience coming into the job.

 

[Denny Crane]

For quite a while now, Jimmy Carter's approval has been much higher than it was when he was President. Seller's remorse, I guess...the country has wanted Carter back in the White House for the last couple of decades.

Must be a lot of antisemites out there to whom his message resounds.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I wouldn't say it's just the spending. It's the 600,000+ jobs lost each month, the foreclosures in spite of the spending, the prospects for the economy keep getting downgraded, the Democrats talking about preventing him from releasing the Gitmo prisoners in the USA, the stream of his nominees who have tax problems, California is going broke if it already isn't, the outright collapse of our automakers with his complete involvement in their operations, and outright hostility toward the sectors that create 20-25% of all employment.

And for the record, he's spending just as much on wars as Bush and off budget, and his promise to account for the stimulus bill spending has turned out to be a joke. China is threatening to take away his credit card, and the dollar is on the verge of having its rating lowered from AAA status.

If you want links for any of this, it's really not a problem since the news is all about these things lately.

He's popular, which is great. I actually like the guy, too. It doesn't change the facts on the ground, tho, and this is just the damage done in his first 4 months. Clinton didn't do very well for his first two years - the republicans took over congress in 1994. It remains to be seen if Obama can figure out how to be a successful president in any shorter time, in spite of zero governing experience coming into the job.

So you think the state of the US economy (and California) is because of Obama?

 

[Stevenson]

So you think the state of the US economy (and California) is because of Obama?

That's what they think. It's like he took over a car that was careening out of control and they blame him because it crashed, even though had he not taken the wheel, the crash would have been much worse.

 

[RR7]

Why do they do opinion polls on FORMER politicians? Who gives a shit?

 

[Denny Crane]

That's what they think. It's like he took over a car that was careening out of control and they blame him because it crashed, even though had he not taken the wheel, the crash would have been much worse.

More like the car is in the shop, the bill just keeps getting jacked up, and the car is getting all kinds of after market addons that weren't requested.

 

[Denny Crane]

So you think the state of the US economy (and California) is because of Obama?

I already said it. The first stimulus package would fund a $40B deficit for California for 20 years, and California is a better investment than Detroit. High skilled workers, innovation, and it's even where all the green bullshit is going down the most.

 

[maxiep]

For quite a while now, Jimmy Carter's approval has been much higher than it was when he was President. Seller's remorse, I guess...the country has wanted Carter back in the White House for the last couple of decades.

That's because President Carter remade his image by doing terrific work with Habitiat for Humanity. He's not popular because of his presidency or his policies while President. Neither President Bush nor President Cheney have yet done anything that would allow people to view them outside the scope of their terms in office.

 

[maxiep]

That's what they think. It's like he took over a car that was careening out of control and they blame him because it crashed, even though had he not taken the wheel, the crash would have been much worse.

Nah, the car was heading for a rough patch, and instead of driving cautiously, he slammed on the gas and steered erratically. By trying to avoid the potholes and get through the rough patch more quickly, he destroyed the chassis and transmission.

 

[maxiep]

So you think the state of the US economy (and California) is because of Obama?

He has categorically made things worse and not better. But he's taken care of his friends, so that's all that counts.

 

[Minstrel]

That's because President Carter remade his image by doing terrific work with Habitiat for Humanity. He's not popular because of his presidency or his policies while President.

Nor are Bush or Cheney. Disgraced politicians tend to become more "popular" (that is, less despised) when they leave office. Anger fades when a politician is no longer doing unpopular things in power. That's fairly obvious. People reserve interest and passion for people who still are relevant to their lives. People who no longer wield power tend to fade (up or down) toward the mean, unless they do really noteworthy things (like Carter's work for Habitat for Humanity has pushed him solidly above the median mark).

 

[maxiep]

Nor are Bush or Cheney. Disgraced politicians tend to become more "popular" (that is, less despised) when they leave office. Anger fades when a politician is no longer doing unpopular things in power. That's fairly obvious. People reserve interest and passion for people who still are relevant to their lives. People who no longer wield power tend to fade (up or down) toward the mean, unless they do really noteworthy things (like Carter's work for Habitat for Humanity has pushed him solidly above the median mark).

You're comparing someone who's been out of office for 28 years and three months versus two people who have been out of office for only three months. That's not going to fly with any reasoned analysis. Clearly, there's still plenty of vitriol for President Bush and Vice President Cheney, especially the Vice President.

President Obama and Vice President Biden have struck out on a clearly different path, and while personally they (and especially the President) are quite popular, their individual policies lag behind those numbers. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are increasing in popularity because of the difference in those policies. When you add specificity to "Change", you're going to lose popularity. People attached the change they wanted to see for themselves; when it differed from the change the Obama Administration is trying to achieve, of course people are going to look to the previous administration when times were better.

 

[Minstrel]

You're comparing someone who's been out of office for 28 years and three months versus two people who have been out of office for only three months. That's not going to fly with any reasoned analysis. Clearly, there's still plenty of vitriol for President Bush and Vice President Cheney, especially the Vice President.

I think the passion for the majority of the populous fades pretty much immediately. The die-hard partisans perhaps hold the vitriol longer. The average American, not so much. Die-hard conservatives continue to hate Clinton and Gore. Most Americans lost interest in both pretty fast. From what I've seen, interest in former Presidents and Vice Presidents fades pretty quickly. It's not a coincidence...they're no longer relevant.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney are increasing in popularity because of the difference in those policies.

Doubtful. Cheney and Bush (if he is too) are increasing in popularity because they're no longer enacting unpopular policies. That's the simplest explanation.

When you add specificity to "Change", you're going to lose popularity.

If so, use Obama's approval ratings to show that. Saying that Americans are expressing their dislike of Obama's policies by approving of Cheney rather than disapproving of Obama seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[julius]

So, for those who blame Obama for the economy (after being in office for just about 3 months), do you blame the previous administration for the lack of awareness for the 9/11 attacks, considering it was after their administration had almost 8 months of time to get on the ball?

 

[maxiep]

So, for those who blame Obama for the economy (after being in office for just about 3 months), do you blame the previous administration for the lack of awareness for the 9/11 attacks, considering it was after their administration had almost 8 months of time to get on the ball?

It's a fallacious comparison. President Obama has focused on remaking the economy, and he's made it dramatically worse. The Bush Administration didn't focus on Al Qaeda, and it was to our peril. However, after 9/11, they focused on the War on Terrorism almost to the exclusion of everything else. As a result, we have been attacked since.

I don't expect anyone to be perfect. I expect when they make a mistake, however, that they quickly rectify it.

 

[julius]

It's a fallacious comparison. President Obama has focused on remaking the economy, and he's made it dramatically worse.

I don't know if he's made it "dramatically" worse. It hasn't gotten better, but I think it's like saying that someone who just got on a sinking ship isn't bailing fast enough and therefore is to blame for the boat sinking.

The Bush Administration didn't focus on Al Qaeda, and it was to our peril. However, after 9/11, they focused on the War on Terrorism almost to the exclusion of everything else. As a result, we have been attacked since.

Couple of funny things about that comment.

1. When it happened, conservatives widely blamed it on Clinton, despite it being almost 9 months into Bush's term. In fact, they still mostly blame Clinton for it, almost ignoring that Bush could have had anything to do with it.
2. The Cole attack, which at the extreme tail end of Clintons last term, should have been a clue to the next incoming Administration to be on the look out.
3. Unless you are counting home grown terrorist attacks, there weren't any attacks on US Soil after the initial WTC bombings of 93. And those attacks came like a month into Clintons 1st administration. That was mostly blamed (by conservatives) on Clinton.

You want to act like in 3 months that Obama could have done anything so drastic to the economy (both negatively or positively), I get that. I personally try not to hyperbole and make statements that are obviously based on political talking points that I've read somewhere. (I also try not to act like I'm not a knee jerk conservative republican honk when it's obvious I am, like you do. But that's just me). But I don't think that you can then, with a straight face, not then 100% blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks considering they came under Bush's watch, he was warned about the possible attacks AND still did nothing about it till after it happened.

I don't expect anyone to be perfect. I expect when they make a mistake, however, that they quickly rectify it.

Man, you must have been waiting a long time for Bush to rectify any of his mistakes if you're already bitching about waiting for Obama to rectify one 3 months into his first term.

 

[maxiep]

I don't know if he's made it "dramatically" worse. It hasn't gotten better, but I think it's like saying that someone who just got on a sinking ship isn't bailing fast enough and therefore is to blame for the boat sinking.

He's tripled the deficit and quadrupled the debt. He's nationalized two auto companies, is looking to do the same to banks and healthcare. If that's not dramatic enough for you, then I don't know what is.

Couple of funny things about that comment.

1. When it happened, conservatives widely blamed it on Clinton, despite it being almost 9 months into Bush's term. In fact, they still mostly blame Clinton for it, almost ignoring that Bush could have had anything to do with it.
2. The Cole attack, which at the extreme tail end of Clintons last term, should have been a clue to the next incoming Administration to be on the look out.
3. Unless you are counting home grown terrorist attacks, there weren't any attacks on US Soil after the initial WTC bombings of 93. And those attacks came like a month into Clintons 1st administration. That was mostly blamed (by conservatives) on Clinton.

I don't think President Clinton deserves all the blame, but he deserves some of it. He was offered Osama Bin Laden twice and turned it down because he was thinking like a lawyer rather than a Commander-in-Chief. Khobar Towers happened under his watch as did the Cole and the African Embassy bombings. I think the permanent intelligence agencies that served under several administrations are mostly to blame. And the Bush Administration deserves some too.

You want to act like in 3 months that Obama could have done anything so drastic to the economy (both negatively or positively), I get that.

As I pointed out in response to the first paragraph, he has done a number of things more drastic than anyone before him, including flushing $787B down the toilet. If you don't understand that we can't just print money without it biting us in the ass than I don't know what to tell you.

I personally try not to hyperbole and make statements that are obviously based on political talking points that I've read somewhere. (I also try not to act like I'm not a knee jerk conservative republican honk when it's obvious I am, like you do. But that's just me).

I like this strategy; it's a cute one. You try to belittle the argument by telling the poster they're reciting "talking points" and that clearly they're toeing a party line. Nice try, but false. I never voted for President Bush. I'm also no conservative. I'm a free-marketeer who adheres to a largely laissez-faire outlook to life. Sorry, julius, but that was a swing and a miss.

But I don't think that you can then, with a straight face, not then 100% blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks considering they came under Bush's watch, he was warned about the possible attacks AND still did nothing about it till after it happened.

I could warn you that you're going to die one day, but your death still may surprise you. I don't disagree that there was a different mindset on September 10th, 2001 and President Bush deserves some of the blame, but I don't believe for a second that given the available evidence at the time could have reasonably been put together to completely anticipate September 11th. Hindsight is 20/20.


Man, you must have been waiting a long time for Bush to rectify any of his mistakes if you're already bitching about waiting for Obama to rectify one 3 months into his first term.

 

[julius]

He's tripled the deficit and quadrupled the debt. He's nationalized two auto companies, is looking to do the same to banks and healthcare. If that's not dramatic enough for you, then I don't know what is.

Yah, but WHY has he done all that? because the guy before him basically set that train on it's tracks. What else is he going to do? Let GM and Chrysler go belly up? I really doubt that would be better for the economy.

quadrupled the debt? You mean we're not 40 trillion in debt?

I don't think President Clinton deserves all the blame, but he deserves some of it. He was offered Osama Bin Laden twice and turned it down because he was thinking like a lawyer rather than a Commander-in-Chief.

he also had to deal with people thinking he was "wagging" the dog to get the pointless Monica Lewinsky shit off the air.

Khobar Towers happened under his watch as did the Cole and the African Embassy bombings. I think the permanent intelligence agencies that served under several administrations are mostly to blame. And the Bush Administration deserves some too.

As I pointed out in response to the first paragraph, he has done a number of things more drastic than anyone before him, including flushing $787B down the toilet. If you don't understand that we can't just print money without it biting us in the ass than I don't know what to tell you.

It wasn't a huge difference than what Bush did (bail-out wise).

I like this strategy; it's a cute one. You try to belittle the argument by telling the poster they're reciting "talking points" and that clearly they're toeing a party line. Nice try, but false. I never voted for President Bush. I'm also no conservative.

so explain why your record of commenting on politics and the politicians that are involved, has been far more in favor of Bush and conservatives and very little criticism of them?

I'd be like Ralph Nader saying he's not an idiot.

I'm a free-marketeer who adheres to a largely laissez-faire outlook to life. Sorry, julius, but that was a swing and a miss.

I could warn you that you're going to die one day, but your death still may surprise you. I don't disagree that there was a different mindset on September 10th, 2001 and President Bush deserves some of the blame, but I don't believe for a second that given the available evidence at the time could have reasonably been put together to completely anticipate September 11th. Hindsight is 20/20.

you mean how they were given reports about how the intelligence thought that AQ was planning some kind of attack on our shores, involving planes? You're telling me that they couldn't have done something in almost 9 months to at least prepare airports or improve security?

Oh wait, is the NY times the one that doesn't count?