Poll: More Than Half Say Obama Should Lose

By: Ken Thomas and Jennifer Agiesta
By: Ken Thomas and Jennifer Agiesta

Washington, D.C. (AP) - A majority of adults say President Barack Obama does not deserve a second term but are evenly divided on whether he will win re-election next year, says a new Associated Press-GfK poll that highlights some of the campaign obstacles he faces.

Although the public would prefer Obama be voted out of office, he fares relatively well in potential matchups with Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Another bit of good news for the Democrat: For the first time since spring, more adults said the economy got better in the past month than said it got worse.

The president's approval rating on unemployment shifted upward -- from 40 percent in October to 45 percent in the latest poll -- as the jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent last month, its lowest level since March 2009.

But Obama's approval rating on his handling of the economy overall remains stagnant: 39 percent approve and 60 percent disapprove.

Heading into the 2012 campaign, the poll shows the challenges facing Obama as he tries to win a second term among a public that does not support his steering of the economy, the most dominant issue for Americans, or his reforms to health care, one of his signature accomplishments. Yet voters appear to be grappling with whether to replace him with Romney or Gingrich.

For the first time, the poll found that a majority of adults, 52 percent, said Obama should be voted out of office while 43 percent said he deserves a second term. The numbers represent a clear reversal since last May, when 53 percent said Obama should be re-elected while 43 percent said he didn't deserve four more years.

Separately, 49 percent expected Obama to win re-election while 48 percent think he will be voted out of office.

Obama's overall job approval stands at a new low: 44 percent approve while 54 percent disapprove. The president's standing among independents is worse: 38 percent approve while 59 percent disapprove. Among Democrats, the president holds steady with an approval rating of 78 percent while only 12 percent of Republicans approve of the job he's doing.

"I think he's doing the best he can. The problem is the Congress won't help at all," said Rosario Navarro, a Democrat and a 44-year-old truck driver from Fresno, Calif., who voted for Obama in 2008 and intends to support him again.

Robin Dein, a 54-year-old homemaker from Villanova, Pa., who is an independent, said she supported Republican John McCain in 2008 and has not been impressed with Obama's economic policies. She intends to support Romney if he wins the GOP nomination.

"(Obama) spent the first part of his presidency blaming Bush for everything, not that he was innocent, and now his way of solving anything is by spending more money," Dein said.

Despite the soft level of support, many are uncertain whether a Republican president would be a better choice. Asked whom they would support next November, 47 percent of adults favored Obama compared with 46 percent for Romney, a former Massachusetts governor. Against Gingrich, the president holds a solid advantage, receiving 51 percent compared with 42 percent for the former House speaker.

The potential matchups paint a better picture for the president among independents. Obama receives 45 percent of non-aligned adults compared with 41 percent for Romney. Against Gingrich, Obama holds a wide lead among independents, with 54 percent supporting the president and 31 percent backing the former Georgia congressman.

Another piece of good news for Obama: people generally like him personally. His personal favorability rating held steady at 53 percent, with 46 percent viewing him unfavorably. About three-quarters called him likable.

The economy remains a source of pessimism, though the poll suggests the first positive movement in public opinion on the economy in months. One in five said the economy improved in the last month, double the share saying so in October. Still most expect it to stay the same or get worse.

"I suppose you could make some sort of argument that it's getting better, but I'm not sure I even see that," said independent voter John Bailey, a 61-year-old education consultant from East Jordan, Mich. "I think it's bad and it's gotten worse under (Obama's) policies. At best, it's going to stay bad."

Despite the high rate of joblessness, the poll found some optimism on the economy. Although 80 percent described the economy as "poor," respondents describing it as "very poor" fell from 43 percent in October to 34 percent in the latest poll, the lowest since May. Twenty percent said the economy got better in the past month while 37 percent said they expected the economy to improve next year.

Yet plenty of warning signs remain for Obama. Only 26 percent said the United States is headed in the right direction while 70 percent said it was moving in the wrong direction.

The president won a substantial number of women voters in 2008 yet there does not appear to be a significant tilt toward him among women now. The poll found 44 percent of women say Obama deserves a second term, down from 51 percent in October, while 43 percent of men say the president should be re-elected.

About two-thirds of white voters without college degrees say Obama should be a one-term president, while 33 percent of those voters say he should get another term. Among white voters with a college degree, 57 percent said Obama should be voted out of office.

The poll found unpopularity for last year's health care reform bill, one of Obama's major accomplishments. About half of the respondents oppose the health care law and support for it dipped to 29 percent from 36 percent in June. Just 15 percent said the federal government should have the power to require all Americans to buy health insurance.

Even among Democrats, the health care law has tepid support. Fifty percent of Democrats supported the health care law, compared with 59 percent of Democrats last June. Only about a quarter of independents back the law.

The president has taken a more populist tone in his handling of the economy, arguing that the wealthy should pay more in taxes to help pay to extend a payroll tax cut that is worth about an additional $1,000 to a family earning about $50,000 a year. Among those with annual household incomes of $50,000 or less, Obama's approval rating on unemployment climbed to 53 percent, from 43 percent in October.

The Associated Press-GfK Poll was conducted Dec. 8-12 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

------

Associated Press writer Stacy A. Anderson and News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by mc on Dec 20, 2011 at 09:43 AM
    Gerry, dealing with the same excerpt fron 2001 Obama said that supreme court did not go far enough in its interpretation on redistribution of wealth. Interpretation of what? The constitution! He also stated that the Warren court didn't break free of the constraints of the constitution. He also said that the civil rights movement didn't put together powers for redistribution of wealth. He also said in the same interview said that he thought it should be from the administrative branch that brings about redistrbution of wealth, so we can deduce that he doesn't believe that the constution goes far enough in the redistribution of wealth, in his context a socialistic ideal. Also thank you for being a spell checker,I never claimed to be a typist.I was right and if you can google and do research anyone can . You are no better than anyone else
    • reply
      by Gerry on Dec 20, 2011 at 12:52 PM in reply to mc
      @mc I'm not saying you're not a typist, I'm saying you're not a reader. You meant Daniel Ortega and not Noriega. In the interview, Obama didn't say the court didn't go far enough or the constitution didn't go far enough. You did. He said the Warren Court wasn't that radical, didn't break free of the interpretation of the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties. He was talking about the civil rights movement and that the movement became court focused and did not build the coalitions of power that bring about redistribution. It sounds like he is talking about redistribution, perhaps to blacks, for years of second class inferior institutions, like public schools. He says "we still suffer," but doesn't identify who "we" are. The one example he cites is of changes to a local school district that cost money. The court was uncomfortable with those changes. Is this interview proof that Obama wants to take the excess wealth of the upper 20% and redistribute it to everybody else? Is this interview proof that Obama is a socialist? No, it isn't proof of either. I don't think that will stop you from saying it is, though.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Dec 20, 2011 at 05:41 PM in reply to Gerry
        Obama's disregard for the Constitution, desire to mold this country into a socialist country, ruining the economy, placing over 25 million Americans into a state of unemployment and erosion of healthcare will herald the end of his presidential term of office. People will only put up with so much "mediocrity" @ Gerry. You know very little about anyone on these blogs and lapse into personal attacks because you cannot accept views outside your own small world. This is a sign of a lack of maturity on your part. Also noticed you blog during the majority of the day. Are you unemployed? Most of us are too busy to blog all day the way you seem to...maybe you went to the wrong school?
        • reply
          by mc on Dec 21, 2011 at 03:00 AM in reply to Anonymous
          To Anonymous@8;41 one thing about Gerry, we all have lives and a career , This is all Gerry has is to attack and try to sound superior to everyone else. We have lives and enjoy our lives Gerry's world is one of loneliness and anger. Now to Gerry He did say what I said I read and heard the transcript , you can to. If Noriega was the wrong person why did you stand up for him and said he appologised if he was the wrong one. Your the only one who heard that and don't think that the interview proves Obama's socialistic ideals. Well off to work so I can pay taxes so you can draw money , not work and post all day long how wrong the rest of us are.
  • by 1stlttightwad Location: Quitman on Dec 20, 2011 at 05:48 AM
    Hmmm. Half say that he doesn't deserve a second term...Well, kiddies if you feel that way..GET OUT AND VOTE. If you don't stand for something..you'll fall for anything..don't fuss if you didn't vote..you have no right to.
  • by Anonymous on Dec 19, 2011 at 12:07 PM
    Ron Paul.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Dec 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM in reply to
      NO!!!
    • reply
      by 1stlttightwad on Dec 20, 2011 at 05:50 AM in reply to
      Are you kidding??? Ole Ron Paul thinks it's OK for Iran to have nukes..You know the folks that think we are the great satan and NEED to be destroyed...Yup, that's Ron fer ya.
  • by mc on Dec 19, 2011 at 03:04 AM
    Herwe is a shock.I agree with some thing Gerry has said on the 16th. The Dems plan is to scare people about Newt and Mitt. Thats because they can't run on Obama's record, it is horrible. But we do know what Obama stands for out of his own mouth. As a Ill. state senator he said in a radio interview which I heard that the Constitution does not go far enough in redistribution of wealth and doesn't say enough on what govt, should do for or too us, He told Joe the plumber that he wants to spread the wealth around, which is a socialistic ideal. He told a SanFransico fund raising crowd about a group of Penn. voters that they are fearfull holding to their God ,guns and religion, showing a disdain for the average American citizen. .He has appologized aroung the world that America was an Arrogant country and he believes we cause most of the worlds problems. When Daniel Noerega blamed the us for problems in Nicaragua and that we killed alot of his citizens , Obama did not disagree and said "At least you didn't blame me?" He has a genuine dislike for our country as it was founded and has given nothing but praise to dictator regimes. On his inaguration speach he said that the planet has begun to heal and the seas have stopped rising showing his massive ego and his belief that he is a messiah like figure. And many more instance from his own lips, so he do know what he believes
    • reply
      by Gerry on Dec 19, 2011 at 06:39 AM in reply to mc
      "He told Joe the plumber that he wants to spread the wealth around, which is a socialistic idea." Your argument is feeble. Try showing that spreading the wealth around is ONLY a socialistic idea. Then you might be getting somewhere. Show that Obama didn't acquire the idea anywhere else, for examples in church or through his own independent thinking or from seeing mothers teaching their children to share.
      • reply
        by mc on Dec 19, 2011 at 09:25 AM in reply to Gerry
        Obamas ideal of spreading the wealth around is socialistic, you can deduce this from his past statements about the constitution not going far enough about redistribution. Also coupled with his constant talking about the rich not paying their fair share is more proof of his idealogy. Spreading the wealth around is different from teaching your children to share and the giving taught in most churches in that shareing and giving are done voluntary, What Pres. Obama is speaking abouy is forced redistribution through taxation of the higher earning income people and then redistributing it to others who did not earn it. Karl Marx made popular the phraes From each according to his ability, to each according to his need in 1875. But it originated from the Frech communist Morelly in his 1755 code of nature. In which he stated that no man owned any property but everything belonged to society. Socialism, So you can see when Obama wants to spread the wealth around he means and believes that all money is societies and personal achievement is wrong and should have their wealth taken from them and given to others. His past actions speak loudly
        • reply
          by Gerry on Dec 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM in reply to mc
          @mc You can't spell ideology, sharing, Noriega, apologized. I find it hard to believe you read anything. I also find it hard to believe your original researches led you to Morelly. So whose work are you relying upon? Glenn Beck's? Also, I suggest you listen again. Obama did not say the constitution did not go far enough about redistribution. He did say that the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the government can't do to you. At least in the excerpt I've heard, which lasts about 4.5 minutes. You are talking about 1875 again, Critique of the Gotha Program, which is something else you haven't read.
      • reply
        by Obama is against the 'American Way' on Dec 20, 2011 at 05:47 AM in reply to Gerry
        Obama dislikes the 'American Dream.' Obama dislikes hardwork and providing for oneself. His policy lessens the rewards for innovation and prosperity. He directly tells the people that he disagrees with the American way and he directly shows it by his policy. I don't believe in rewarding the lazy. I will never vote for someone who wants to take from the go-getters and give to the lazy.
  • by Use your brain this time on Dec 17, 2011 at 05:05 PM
    Hopefully those who followed the hollywood media-storm will think for themselves this time. There should not be one person in this country who votes for Obama again. If they do they are not worthy of a voting privilege. Think for yourself, vote this fraud from office. The democratic party is the dumbest party in history for allowing him to run a second time. They know they have no chance.
  • by Ali Ark Bar Location: Unemployment Line on Dec 17, 2011 at 01:21 PM
    Soon, all of you will be our sheep..
  • by STEVE on Dec 17, 2011 at 12:22 PM
    Lets' hope he loses. It is not about race,it is about leadership. Mr. Obama has prove he is not a leader.
  • by Get Real, Dude on Dec 17, 2011 at 05:08 AM
    Blame the person who wrecked the car, not the body shop trying to fix it
    • reply
      by Buddy on Dec 17, 2011 at 07:15 AM in reply to Get Real, Dude
      In this case the body shop only employes scum bags that will steal you blind, I can't believe there are still Birds of a Feather that belong to the "Brainless Club" defemding this Failure.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Dec 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM in reply to Buddy
        nice, intelligent, conversation. Your response is proof that the Tea Party, Ron Paul folks are a bit odd.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Dec 17, 2011 at 02:44 PM in reply to
          15 trillion dollar debt, a million foreclosures this year and 25 million Americans out of work would be proof for most people that this administration is out of touch. Stop putting sugar in your Kool Aid.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Dec 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM in reply to Get Real, Dude
      Obama totalled the car. You can't fix it.
    • reply
      by Ali Ark Bar on Dec 17, 2011 at 01:23 PM in reply to Get Real, Dude
      The repair man doesn't know how to fix it, but will charge you an arm and leg for excuses..
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Dec 19, 2011 at 01:34 PM in reply to Get Real, Dude
      But what do you do when the "body shop" is incompetent?
  • by maurice Location: thomasville on Dec 17, 2011 at 04:26 AM
    My question is WHO SHOULD HE LOSE TOO.??? I definetly hope that people are NOT ignorant enough to vote for the REPUBLICAN CLOWNS I have been watching debate and make complete fools of themselves and their party. I dont agree with everything politicians do including our President, but I would be embarresed if any of these Republican Candidates won.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Dec 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM in reply to maurice
      Gingrich has some amazing ideas.
      • reply
        by Max on Dec 17, 2011 at 02:10 PM in reply to
        Gingrich is a FRAUD!
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Dec 17, 2011 at 05:02 PM in reply to Max
          The current president was elected by fraud. Can't get much worse than that.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM in reply to
        I hope this is sarcasm, Gingrich isn't running for president. He's running for dictator.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Dec 20, 2011 at 05:48 AM in reply to
          Gingrich is the man. Obama is the dictator.
    • reply
      by Miss. on Dec 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM in reply to maurice
      Unfortunately, too many see US politics as a football game. As long as their side wins everything is fine.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Dec 21, 2011 at 09:00 AM in reply to Miss.
        This is the first comment that I fully agree with.
  • by Broc Location: Obama on Dec 17, 2011 at 03:23 AM
    I have to say that Obama is all talk. Ever since the beginning if you ever watched the debates or president's address you will see him in a room with at least 50-100 acting as if he were a baptist preacher. People clapping and cheering him on as if you were at church. I am surprised we never heard an AMEN... He has the spirit of MLK do not get me wrong. But he lacks the proactive, authority and power he could use at his fingertips. MLK would be ashamed..To come this far and even his own race thinks he is a failure. THIS IS SAD..
    • reply
      by maurice on Dec 17, 2011 at 07:31 AM in reply to Broc
      Broc, have you noticed that his hands are being tied by the Republicans that are in the pockets of the 1%ers. I dont think his race thinks he's a failure because Im in that race and a failure he is not. I do think he is fighting a loosing battle however. I think if people stop watching FOX and maybe try MSNBC they may get a better understanding of whats really going on.
      • reply
        by Reagan Republican on Dec 17, 2011 at 01:07 PM in reply to maurice
        @ Maurice Why did you bring up the color of Pres. Obama's skin and the word race?
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Dec 17, 2011 at 02:45 PM in reply to maurice
        BHO's hands are tied because of incompetence and an inability to assume responsibility for his own actions. The guy has been in office long enough to let us know that he is not up to the job.
        • reply
          by Rev Wright on Dec 17, 2011 at 04:07 PM in reply to Anonymous
          They tie his hands to keep him from totally destroying the USA!How stupid are you people?The democrats pushed the healthcare bill thru without anyone even reading it!Would you sign a legal contract with me without reading it? You people don't think right!Wake up you idiots!Obama is a smooth talking con artist!Nothing more.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Dec 17, 2011 at 08:24 PM in reply to Anonymous
          @Maurice-Figures of unemployment- 25 million, foreclosure rates-over 1 million this year and the national debt- over 15 trillion dollars get people thinking. Most of us do not watch Fox, etc...the information that is important to most of us is numeric in nature. @Rev. Wright-perhaps you misunderstood my prior comment. I am not impressed with a man like BHO who is incompetent and does not own up to his actions. Reminds me of the kid who always told his teacher that the dog ate his homework. Some people just set themselves up for disaster.
      • reply
        by Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel on Dec 17, 2011 at 05:15 PM in reply to maurice
        MSLSD? You're kidding right? Do you get chills up your leg watching those angry white men? January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION! January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall) And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA. And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
        • reply
          by Gerry on Dec 17, 2011 at 06:05 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          You don't know how Congress works. Frank was in the minority in the House from Jan 1995 until Jan 2007. The majority party in the House has the majority on every committee and every subcommittee. There is no filibuster in the House. The minority gets steamrolled in the House. Saying Frank had this or that effect between 1995 and 2007 is just plain foolish. It's the same thing as saying Michele Bachmann had this or that effect in 2009 when there was a Dem Prez and Dem House. Barney blocked it while Bush was Prez and Frank was in the minority? You're making me laugh.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Dec 17, 2011 at 06:05 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          But, but, but, Barney graduated from Harvard....you're just making it all up....or you're just being a meanie. (just kidding, good post).
        • reply
          by Gerry on Dec 17, 2011 at 06:46 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          Barney Frank was already in the majority and so was Chris Dodd in Jan of 2007. GDP was growing at 3.6 % and 3.0%, respectively, in quarters 2 and 3 of 2007 and unemployment was at 4.6% in Aug of 2007 and 4.7% in Nov of 2007. I got these numbers from BEA and BLS, respectively. THE DJIA closed at 14,087 on 10/1/07. So what did Barney and Chris do? Be specific. Do you know what leading and lagging indicators are? When did the housing bubble burst? When did the subprime mortgage business crash? When did housing prices peak? AIG was an insurance company. AIG received a huge government bailout in 2008 and 2009. What does an insurance company have to do with mortgages? Can you explain how AIG got into so much trouble?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Dec 17, 2011 at 08:35 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          Agree with you and the Youtube videos of Barney Franks, Gregory Meeks, Maxine Water, etc...making statements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hearings are sad things to watch. Particularly where Franks contradicts himself by promoting renting over homeownership in the video. Ouch...caught red handed or red lipped...
        • reply
          by Gerry on Dec 17, 2011 at 09:20 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          I'd guess that even in the 2nd Congressional District, the parent whose child who might be capable of gaining admission to Harvard would do everything possible to make it happen. I'm 100% sure that somebody who posts anonymously and scoffs at Harvard didn't graduate from Harvard and his children didn't, either.
        • reply
          by Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel on Dec 18, 2011 at 02:55 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          Gerry, can you read? I didn't say anything about Barney Frank having an effect on anything prior to 1/3/07 (well, except a male prostitution business). However, after further investigation, it appears Frank did play a substantial role in the subprime lending fiasco. As the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, he had tremendous sway over federal housing policy, both when he was in the majority and the minority. And he used that power to terribly misguided ends. In the name of expanding affordable housing, for instance, he, more than anyone else, pushed subprime mortgage lending as official government policy--even to the exclusion of basic lending prudence. In particular, he pushed the GSEs to lower the underwriting standards of loans that they would buy or guarantee, then he pushed the GSEs to grow, grow, grow. And what of the ballooning credit risk to the government that resulted from all this? He simply didn’t care about it. “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of the GSEs] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.,” he famously said back in 2003 as the bubble was inflating. “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” Frank was oblivious to the fact that the Fannie and Freddie were hopelessly undercapitalized and posed huge financial risk to the federal government. He was willfully blind. “[Fannie and Freddie] are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” he said in 2003. Way to go Barney.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Dec 18, 2011 at 03:01 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          Poor Gerry is name conscious. One of the worst professors that I ever had came out of Harvard. Now, the professor from Cambridge was in a different class. Some degrees are "purchased" by people who use others and some people have more influence in getting into Ivy League schools. Having professors and people who went to Ivy League schools in the family, we'd know about these things. Not you so much. LOL
        • reply
          by Gerry on Dec 18, 2011 at 04:51 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          @Eddie Don't be stupid, Eddie. You are clueless. Frank was not the ranking Dem when he was in the majority. In 2003, House Republicans had the numbers and could do anything they wanted. You didn't answer the question about AIG because you don't understand what happened. Problems didn't start in 2007 and before that Frank had no power. You didn't know that no House member has ever been impeached, you don't know what ranking Democrat means, and you don't know how little power the minority has in the House. How much power does Nancy Pelosi have today? Or Barney Frank, for that matter?
        • reply
          by Gerry on Dec 18, 2011 at 04:56 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          @ Anonymous You didn't attend Harvard and neither did your kids. You have a chip on your shoulder. Sure, influence matters in some cases. Neither you nor your kids had the influence or the talent to attend Harvard. If just anybody could get in, it wouldn't be Harvard.
        • reply
          by Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel on Dec 18, 2011 at 06:59 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          I'll not give you the pleasure of a response to your calumnious personal accusations. I'll keep it simple. Barney Frank logic: Have your boyfriend hired at Fannie Mae. Have your boyfriend at Fannie Mae donate $40,000 in campaign contributions. Ignore Fannie's bad mortgage loans; ignore all Republican concerns. When it all collapses, blame Bush. Dang, that sounds familiar.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Dec 18, 2011 at 08:33 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          @ Eddie No House member has ever been impeached. House members don't get impeached. See, Eddie, I don't think you know much about this. I think you're just throwing porridge at the wall and hoping some will stick. Who were the committee chairmen between Jan 1995 and Jan 2007 of House Financial Services? Well, that would be Jim Leach until Jan 2001 and Mike Oxley until Jan 2007. Jim Leach as in Gramm Leach Bliley, which undid Glass Steagall. Housing prices didn't peak in 2001 or 2003. The subprime mortgage business didn't collapse in 2004. Did Barney Frank cause AIG to fail? Lehman Brothers? Bear Stearns? If Frank did that, how did he do it?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Dec 19, 2011 at 08:13 PM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          @Gerry. Poor little mindless fellow. We all know that you are not employed and spend all day venting your personal frustrations online. No, honey you do not know which universities my family attended. LOL Barney, Pelosi, Obama and others are mere puppets for special interest groups. Just for fun do some research on Pelosi's family start in Baltimore. Doesn't matter where these people went to school follow their money trail...and gain a reality check.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Dec 20, 2011 at 05:11 AM in reply to Eddie "Maggot Brain" Hazel
          @ Anonymous You didn't attend Harvard. Neither did your kids or parents. You (collectively) lacked the talent and/or influence. You're envious of those who did attend. Nothing says so more clearly than scoffing at a Harvard degree. I wouldn't scoff at a Harvard degree. I also wouldn't scoff at an MIT, or Chicago, or Virginia, or Georgia Tech degree, as well as several others. You're a fool. You reek of mediocrity. Anonymously, of course.
    • reply
      by Tom on Dec 17, 2011 at 02:10 PM in reply to Broc
      YOU are sad!
  • Page:
WCTV 1801 Halstead Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32309
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 135760678 - wctv.tv/a?a=135760678
Gray Television, Inc.