Kevin Kallaugher by KAL for August 09, 2010

  1. Missing large
    Libertarian1  over 13 years ago

    The problem Obama is facing is that the public is no longer supporting any of his programs. He is getting dangerously close to the Bush level of public distrust. We all know what happens after that occurs. Goodbye incumbents.

    He has made many promises to the left which he has violated. Guantanamo, Iraq, “clean government”, lower unemployment etc. He has angered the middle with tax increases. Repeal the Bush tax cuts, ObamaCare. He has scared the right with trillions of dollars of increased debt/deficit. The latest Gallup poll shows 25% of Americans believe the idiotic statement that he was not born in the US. Think of that- 25%!! Since the left won’t acknowledge that 25% of Americans are Republicans that must mean many Democrats also believe that inane statement.

    If he wants to save his presidency he better start to turn around public opinion. The silliest comments are from leftists who say “OK Republicans, tell us what you would do, don’t just say no”.

    Either these questioners are 2 years old, have zero experience with the political process or want to see their name in print. Why on earth would any intelligent out-of-office party say anything. Learn from the Democrats- criticize but don’t make any enemies by offering suggestions.

     •  Reply
  2. Canstock3682698
    myming  over 13 years ago

    my copy of “bloomberg businessweek” has a pic on the cover of dubyuh w/ a slash going across it saying, “back so soon ?” gack…

     •  Reply
  3. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago

    ” Since the left won’t acknowledge that 25% of Americans are Republicans that must mean many Democrats also believe that inane statement”

    I’ve seen the polls breaking down the demographics of that belief. It is not a belief held by “many many” Democrats.

    With the comic, there is also eroding support among those who are concerned that prolonged war drains our economic ability and adds to our deficit. We can’t fight forever, “build” other nations, and cut everything at home.

     •  Reply
  4. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    Let’s see, Obama invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama came up with “Reaganomics”. Obama re-wrote the MMS and Interior guidelines in 2007 to make it easier for Oil and mineral companies to rip us off and skate if they screwed up. And Obama de-regulated the financial industry to allow them to rip us off. righ- got that.

    The “public” is easily mis-directed- read eating at Mickey D’s and thinking Wal-Mart is an “All American” company, who’s product comes from China, and whose labor policies come from 12th century England. right.

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    NorthCarolinian  over 13 years ago

    Trout - Iraq wasn’t the most well-thought out move, but it did pass with BIPARTISAN support in the Senate.

    We originally entered Afghanistan to get bin Laden. Y’know, the guy behind 9/11?

    And I’m pretty sure Clinton started the ball rolling on both Afghanistan and the deregulation of the financial industry.

    Before you blame anything on anybody, look at the bigger picture – circumstances, pressure, etc. After 9/11, Bush was under intense pressure to do something to punish those who dared attack America. Afghanistan was his answer. And it, too, had bipartisan support.

    Let’s not forget that Bush has the distinction of having the HIGHEST approval rating in Pres. history – above 90 percent. Granted, it was in the year or so after 9/11, but still. :P

     •  Reply
  6. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  over 13 years ago

    “We originally entered Afghanistan to get bin Laden. ”

    A close friend of the BUSH FAMILY. Makes ya think…

     •  Reply
  7. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 13 years ago

    North – It’s true that there was bipartisan support for the Iraq mission, but that support was based on information that was at best misleading.

     •  Reply
  8. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  over 13 years ago

    Zitzie,

    It’s good to see that you now agree with me.

     •  Reply
  9. Warcriminal
    WarBush  over 13 years ago

    “Bush was under intense pressure to do something to punish those who dared attack America. Afghanistan was his answer.”

    So…his answer was to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? A country that was willing to capture Bin Laden and have him tried in a neutral country for mass murder? He could have avoided war, agreed to the Taliban’s offer, and be loved by the Muslim nations as a peace president.

    But instead, he bombed Afghanistan and increased Bin Laden’s credibility among those nations and turned them into our enemy.

     •  Reply
  10. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    Rumsfeld and Cheney had plans to immediately attack Iraq on any provocation, I’m sure they were most upset they had to make a feint toward Afghanistan first. The bin Laden family and the Bush family do have some connections, but that’s the old man’s company. American troops were in Afghanistan in 1966, then we left. The king was overthrown in 1973, and from a western standpoint, that was probably our biggest “error”.

    Had we ONLY gone after bin Laden and the camps in Afghanistan, and NOT destroyed Iraq as well, we’d have a lot more left in our national coffers, and a lot fewer coffins filled with our troops.

    Inexcusable stupidity from Rumsfeld and Cheney.

     •  Reply
  11. Flying owl rec
    tecolote  over 13 years ago

    Droutma: I never heard of so many people getting killed in order to get one outlaw (Bin Laden) aprehended and killed. For way less cost (billions and deaths) a hit man could have been hired, right? Are we really so stupid? It seems so.

     •  Reply
  12. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 13 years ago

    If that was really the point, then it was stupid. If there were other goals, perhaps not quite so stupid. Or still stupid, but for different reasons.

     •  Reply
  13. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 13 years ago

    Why such an unnecessary insult?

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    FrankinNJ  over 13 years ago

    Warcriminal lets not forget the Somalis also offered Bin Laden to Clinton, which he turned down.

    And loved by Muslim countries as a peace president? Come on man, if they didn’t love us after we stopped a Muslim genocide in Serbia, don’t think much else is going to change their minds.

     •  Reply
  15. Warcriminal
    WarBush  over 13 years ago

    ^The Somalis had a government? When?

    I think you’re talking about the whole Bosnia thing with Croatia and Serbia which dealt with Ethnic Cleansing, not religious holocaust.

     •  Reply
  16. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    right, the “Somali” were going to ship him to us on a Blackhawk? To the hourglass, maybe it’s time Americans got fed up with ALL wars?

     •  Reply
  17. 1107121618000
    CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago

    church; the reason people are not upset (not quite true, they are just not as upset as much as you wish they were), is that we don’t expect anything better from musliim radicals. Just a few decades back, the west saw them as barely colonization-worthy. You guys, on the other hand, have been claiming to be the ONLY land of the free for two centuries.

    That’s one of the side effects of making this a war of good against evil; the Good aren’t supposed to kill.

     •  Reply
  18. 1107121618000
    CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago

    ^^ I correct, the people don’t care as much as you want.

    It’s just that we don’t expet any better from these nuts.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Kevin Kallaugher