Obama on the rise

Today. for the first time in a few months, the Real Clear Politics average rating of presidential polls shows Barack Obama on the plus side _ 49 percent (approval) to 46 percent (dis-approval)

It is not hard to figure out why. The president won some nice victories in December _ the tax compromise with Republicans, the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,  and the START treaty.  The economy is also getting a tiny bit better. Also, I think in time independent voters will prefer Obama to the Republican House, which plans symbolic, but meaningless, gestures like taking a health care reform repeal vote. 

What also helps Obama greatly are air heads like Sarah Palin, as evidenced by her “blood libel” speech. Does she even know what that means? Probably not, but her speechwriters should know. Republicans should do all they can to shut her up. She may be on the fringes of the party, but her utterrances hurt all sensible Republicans. 

As for me, I hope she keeps talking.


About fsnowflack
Fred Snowflack was editorial page editor and a political columnist for the Daily Record of Morristown for almost 12 years. He has won numerous awards for editorial and column writing from the New Jersey Press Association and has written a blog on county and state politics for the last three years. He lives in Ledgewood in Morris County.

45 Responses to Obama on the rise

  1. David X says:

    You seem conflicted, Fred, bashing the GOP and at the same time having their best interest in mind by calling for Mama Bear to be gagged. Maybe a love/hate thing you got going there, but so sweet that you care.

    It amazes me that Sarah Palin – someone who is supposedly so dumb and irrelevant – receives so much attention from the left. Maybe she’s useful in the way a baited glue trap is; by drawing out the rats and keeping them hopelessly stuck on irrelevant issues.

    A case in point: That lunatic (Loughner) was fixated on Congresswomen Giffords going back to at least 2007, when few had even heard of Sarah Palin, there was no Tea Party or health-care reform or bailouts … yet all this somehow caused the massacre, perhaps through some kind of cosmic tear in the space-time continuum. The rabid lefties have completely broken from reality and remain obsessed with irrelevancies. They’re still blaming Bush 43, for crying out loud.

    Oh, and for the record, the Olympic Committee is stripping Lindsey Vonn of her gold medal and giving it to Obama, because nobody has gone downhill faster than he has in the first two years of his presidency.

  2. I am not conflicted at all. Ms. Palin gets attention because she was not only a national candidate in 2008, she may very well be one again in 2012.

    Clearly, you are not looking at the polls. Obama’s stock is rising, partly for the reasons that I mentioned,

  3. David X says:

    I guess we’re looking at different polls. The Prez is in the double-digit negatives for “strongly disapprove” compared to “strongly approve” … everyone else is in the middle and likely to shift with the wind and the news cycle. It helps to look at it graphically.

    Considering that no Dem. is likely to run against Obama in 2012, we’ll see lots of announcements for the 2012 GOP primary, which should be great fun for all as we watch the lefties waste all their bullets on Mama Bear. 🙂



  4. P says:

    Sarah Palin is a joke, much like reality “star” Snooki, and the only reason she stays in the news is because people like Fred keep her there. Every day zillions of people make statements about the issues of the day. The News Media decides whose views get the oxygen they need to thrive, and which ones die for lack of attention. The Liberal Media is desperate to keep her as a viable candidate for 2012, and in a crowded field in the early primaries she might even poll near the top. Once we move to the larger primary dates she will get swept awaaaayyyyyyyyy.

  5. Hey David X (By the way, are you a Black Muslin? 🙂

    Anywho, Real Clear Politics presents the average of all polls … That is what I am looking at …

  6. Ted Doty says:

    Although we all pray that Palin will run as it would virtually ensure Obama’s re election but I’m afraid her political days are over.

    I think we all know what Palin meant but she displayed poor judgement with her choice of the words “blood libel”. And she has played the “I’m a victim of a biased Press” far too many times.

    Traditional Republicans will again take the reins.

  7. Ed Ramirez says:


    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Obama is getting favorable credit for doing something that he was dragged into kicking and screaming. He had to continue the taxes rates of old or as you libs like to say the tax cuts for the rich. I have to laugh at that representation, because just a few days ago all the Dems had to admit that there were tax cuts for all the people that paid taxes. Even funnier is your fear of Ms Palin, it is like a bunch of kids whistling past the grave yard. She is only unlike by the left media, you and those hard left Democrats. What is there not to like about a woman that is tough and not afraid to speak her mind. She sure has you lefties on the move.

  8. Gee Ed.
    Like a broken clock, you are wrong a few times
    I know of no Dem, who is :”afraid” of Ms, Palin. She is just fun to watch.

    More importantly, it’s not as if Republicans love her ,..In every poll, she comes across as having the fewest support of any possible GOP candidate.

    And please, do not say she is “tough.” SHE QUIT HER JOB in the middle of her term — that ain’t being tough.

  9. Ed Ramirez says:


    Being Governor of Alaska was costing the Palin’s millions in legal fees. She was having suits filed against her and her husband on a daily basis and the state was covering her but they had to pay for his defense on there own. They were a million and a half in debt when she left office. She may have money now but back than they were busted and had to stop the bleeding. All you have to do is a little research and you would have known that. You liberals are so frightened of this country woman that you can’t let one event go by without hammering her. When you are frightened you say things like she is fun to watch but you are frightened just the same. I hope nothing bad or evil happens to her because you libs keep demonizing her but you will not have the same disdain for your Vitriol as you have for the things she has supposed to have said or caused. I am really surprised at you Fred; I have known a fairer Snowflack in my days

  10. David X says:

    @Ed: Fred has got a point about Mama Bear … she’s so weak and stupid and … [fill in the litany of lefty talking points] … but that’s why the left is so obsessed with her. Their opinion of the unwashed masses compels them to fear the possibilities (even if the odds are next to zero). Gotta love it that she’s stepped into Dubbyas role as the one to love to hate. Hate is a like an addictive drug … once they’re hooked, they gotta get that daily fix.

  11. David X Johnson says:

    @Fred: “Black Muslin” … isn’t that a type of cotton cloth? 8?)

  12. Kevin Nedd says:

    Wow…citing the one single presidential approval poll showing a net negative (-1) out of the six polls included in RCP’s current (+3) average.

    Another blatant example of David X’s intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

  13. P says:

    The only polls that count are held on Election Day every November. Obama lost the last one badly. If he doesn’t reverse course, and maintain that new heading, he could be joining Carter and Bush 41 as one-termers. The good news for Obama isn’t that Palin might be his opponent, it’s that no serious Dem is likely to challenge him for the nomination. Avoiding a bruising primary fight is over half the battle, just ask Bill Clinton.

  14. P says:

    Nedd – When are you going to crank up LV.com again? Without it, I have no idea what’s going on in the land of the crazies.

  15. Kevin Nedd says:


    Thanks for your past readership. Not much has been going on and to be honest, my interest in local politics isn’t what it use to be. Spending most of your time in Honolulu can do that to you 🙂

    In addition, taxpayers are pretty much protected by the tax levy cap, a form of which I ran on as a candidate back in 2005, so they really can screw things up too badly.

    As for the president, based on the public’s reaction to what was accomplished during the lame duck session and what now appears to be an improving economy, his re-election is something you would be wise not to bet against.

    Be well my friend.

  16. Ted Doty says:

    To be accurate Pbrain, Obama DID NOT lose the last election, the Democrats lost the House majority. And Bush 41 was a one-termer as well.

  17. P says:

    Ted – You must be blind, I clearly noted Bush 41!

    And you don’t lose that many House and Senate seats (and governorships and state governments) because people are individually upset with their representatives, you lose them because the country is PO’d about the leadership (or lack thereof) at the TOP.

  18. David X Johnson says:

    An so was Carter.

  19. Kevin Nedd says:

    It was all about the economy. Any party would lose that many seats with an unemployment rate close to 10%.

    If the rate is below 8% and trending down, the president will be fine in 2012.

  20. Ted Doty says:

    If you use you Google skills Pbrain you’ll find mi term elections almost always level the political playing field. It’s kind of the American way,

    And history also shows wing nuts like you predict the demise of whoever the current President is…and the wing nuts are almost always proven wrong.

    Focus on reality Pbrain. A lot of teabaggers were sweep in office promising to lead and change things. So far they’ve recited the Constitution an decided to hold a meaningless vote to repeal healthcare reform.

    If you remember history Pbrain, the last time a group of wing nut reformers pulled a stunt like that Newt Gingrich was tossed not President Clinton.

  21. David X says:

    Seriously, Fred – and putting the rhetoric aside – there is no doubt that the President will enjoy an improved public opinion so long as he puts aside the class-warfare rhetoric and excessive pandering to the far left etc. His willingness to compromise on taxes and his ability to act “presidential” at the Arizona shooting memorial, are both positive things that will help his poll numbers.

    I give him credit for staying above the rabid partisanship surrounding the tragic Arizona shooting. Perhaps he learned his lesson after his hasty “acted stupidly” remark with regard to police Sgt. James Crowley. Perhaps he’s humbled by the trouncing the Dems received in the last election. Maybe Bill Clinton is schooling him on how to move to the center. Whatever precipitated the “new” Obama, it’s a positive thing, and what people want more of.

    He’s still a Marxist. A tiger doesn’t change his stripes.

  22. P says:

    . . another person who cannot read . . what part of “he could be joining Carter and Bush 41 as one-termers,” wasn’t clear to Ted or Mr. X?

  23. P says:

    For those who actual read history, the loses in the House were historic – worse than any mid-term since 1938!


    Senate was better, but the state loses will be particular painful for the Dems as the states do their redistricting this year.

    All-in-all, November 2, 2010 isn’t a day Obama wants to have to ever relive.

    And if you would reread my original comment, you’ll note that I still think Obama has better than a 50% chance of getting reelected.

    The only thing that’s Nutty is someone who doesn’t think this was a huge blow to the President.

  24. Hey David X:
    Calling Obama a “Marxist,” is of no substance. That’s what people do when they have no other argument to make. My hunch is that those who do it would be unable to even define what a Marxist is.

  25. David X says:

    Actually, you’re partly right, Fred. He’s probably more of a Progressive socialist, like the Fabians at the turn of the Century, rather than the revolutionary type of socialist, like Marx … but I call him a Marxist all the same because of his transforming America ideology and his language of class-warfare. Anybody who read his book will understand where he gets it from.

    He has recently switched back to his eloquent, smooth-talking persona that got him elected, but I have no doubt he is the same under that veneer.

  26. Bob Grant says:

    Fred, it would help the tone of this blog if you would refuse to post anything with a personal insult in it which one of these unnamed posters tries to put up. If I insult Ed, he knows who I am and where to find me and we can have it out with Claymores, but P and others are always posting personally insulting materal without the courage to put their names to the posts.

    Let’s try a little civility.

  27. P says:

    Bob, if you really cared about Civility instead of just unmasking your unnamed tormentors, you would have stopped at “it would help the tone of this blog if you would refuse to post anything with a personal insult.”

    And then you move on to a physical threat, “have it our with Claymores.” It shouldn’t be any wonder why some of us would prefer to remain anonymous. Thanks for making my case.

    P.S. Was that “civil” enough for you?

  28. Ed Ramirez says:


    Claymores are a bit of over kill if you will excuse my expression, how about soda straws at ten feet.

  29. Kevin Nedd says:


    This is what happens when someone doesn’t serve, goes to an inferior school, and thinks they know it all. You end up with someone whose non-eloquent, rough-talking persona could not get them elected, even if it was just for a seat on their local party committee.

  30. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain regarding you post 24, the fact is that the party holding the White House always experiences congressional losses in midterm election.

    Your argument that November’s loss is a predictor of the future because it was the worst since 1938 is silly. Prior to last November, “the worst mid term loss” didn’t predict future elections.

  31. P says:

    1.) The Party In Power doesn’t ALWAYS experience Congressional losses, just look at 2002, the most recent First Term mid-term election. The Republicans picked up net gains of 2 Senate seats and 8 House seats. So you are wrong there.

    2.) These were not just loses, but loses of EPIC proportions. And it wasn’t just at the Federal level, but across almost every state in the union. to pretend otherwise is just plain FOOLISH and I predict you will see Obama looking more and more like Clinton ’95 – 96.

    3.) I didn’t say it was a predictor, but if Obama continues on a straight-line with his policies and politics, he would be in very tough shape going into 2012.

    There are too many other factors, especially the state of the Economy (as Nedd noted) for anyone but you to make foolish predictions based on what has happened, and all of my posts above noted both the pros and cons of Obama’s chances, your attempts to ignore/obfuscate notwithstanding.

    Have a Nice Day.

  32. Bob Grant says:

    Ed, I mean Claymore’s the Scots broadsword, which I would have to admit would be hard to lift, much less swing. Soda Straws it is.

  33. Ted Doty says:

    EPIC losses? Stop looking at last November, look at what is being reported today.

  34. P says:

    E-P-I-C. I even provided the charts. I would also note that Obama is trying to look more middle-of-the-road with his “Regulations Review.” Can’t be an accident that he gets his butt whipped, flushes out his old flunkies, brings in Clinton’s flunkies, and proceeds to try to rebuild his bona fides with the business community.

    My guess – He’s got a 6′ high version of that chart pinned to his war room wall – http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/housemidterms.jpg

  35. Kevin Nedd says:


    This is the only chart that matters at the moment:


    Your “he gets his butt whip” theory is looking pretty weak. It was House Democrats who took the hit, not the President.

  36. P says:

    Many were swept in with the Obama tidal wave in 2008, and now many were swept out because of the Obama backlash. Reid and Pelosi share the blame, but the President is the Head of the Party.

  37. Kevin Nedd says:

    They were swept out because unemployment stood at close to 10%. Period.

  38. P says:

    They were swept out because the Great One promised America that if Congress passed his Stimulus program all would be well. It isn’t and the American people punished the party that he head leads. PERIOD!

    Oh, and ramming that Health Care mess through Congress didn’t help either . . . or the dithering about Guantanamo . . . or the fact that he promised us that once we installed him in the WH that the rest of the would would LOVE and RESPECT us again (neither is the case) . . . should I go on??

  39. Ted Doty says:

    Pbrain, What would have happened if the stimulus bill had NOT passed? Would we have been better of?

    And Pbrain. repealing health care reform will increase the deficit. Why is that good?

    You criticize but offer no viable solutions. Perhaps you should think things through with Fred an other office mates before you post.

  40. P says:

    The CBO, using the twisted logic supplied by the Democrats in Congress, has said that if all is implemented as written, there should be a savings.

    First, the Congress says there will be $500B saved in Medicare, but no specifics. Expect this to go the way of the legislation that has resulted in the annual DocFix (Congress enacted legislation that said the Medicaid reimbursement rate for doctors would go down, but every year they void the savings for that year because they realize that no doctors would be left in the program, and they do this year after year with no permanent solution or offsetting revenue “enhancement or program cuts – i.e., in violation of the Dems own PayGo rules).

    Second, Congress has consistently underestimated the rate of increase in health care costs (see Why Medicare is BROKE), so over the next decade even a slight variance against what the CBO budgeted moves this quickly and permanently into the RED.

    Bottom Line – The Liberals wanted a new Entitlement Program and they got it. Detail to be handled later.

  41. Ted Doty says:

    A claim of “Twisted logic” from the CBO only means the experts issued a report that Pbrain disagrees with. When the CBO agrees with Pbrain, the Budget Office is held out as experts.

    Make up your mind Pbrain.

  42. P says:

    When did the CBO agree with me?

    And why not address the facts in my statement instead of trying to dismiss a serious set of concerns with more DotyBlather!

    I know the ObamaHCkOOLaID tasted great, but wait till you see the real bill.

  43. David X Johnson says:

    The reality is that the CBO has a terrible track record. It’s not that the CBO is inept, necessarily, but that the process is “gamed” … garbage in, garbage out. To start with, the CBO is required to take written legislation at face value rather than second-guess the accuracy of the estimates. Far from shedding light on the truth of any particular legislation, it seems that “non-partisan” means that the CBO allows both parties to lie about the costs. We don’t have to look far from the tree to find the rotting fruit of the last major healthcare legislation (under President Bush). The CBO underestimated the cost by a full 50%.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: