samboct
Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007 Status: offline
|
Actually, poll numbers don't really do a lot for me. Historically, some of the presidents who had some lasting impact had terrible poll numbers- such as Abraham Lincoln. His predecessor (sp?) Buchanan didn't do very much for the country, but people didn't realize a civil war was imminent- and there was a lot of faith that most Southerners wanted to stay in the Union- it was just a few loudmouths causing the trouble. Plus, the generals Lincoln had at the start were pretty awful- took awhile to get Grant in. Truman is another president who's polling numbers were awful- remember the Chicago Trib headline of "Dewey Wins!" Yet, Truman did a great job of walking a tightrope in Europe, and transitioned the country to supporting Europe rather than trying to withdraw- along with containing the Soviets. Reagan's poll numbers looked pretty awful up front, and then began to improve, even though the country was going down the tubes. I trace most of the current problems to Reagan's fiscal policies-such as increasing the national debt by over an order of magnitude- quite a trick without a war. Obama has the possibility of going down as a great president-because he's faced with such awful problems. Typically, this country really splits down the middle, only uniting during a catastrophic event such as the attack on Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Assuming that Obama breaks our foreign oil dependency, manages to stop the coal lobby from squandering resources on idiotic schemes such as carbon sequestration, and keeps optimism up that the economy will improve- he's probably doing the best that anyone could. But if there's a major crunch now, and the economy really heads south with massive unemployment, then he might not get another term. Or he could get shot-which would be a damn shame. Sam
|