Gallop: Obama's approval rate jumps to 44%

[DRSmith]

Watch out Syria, here we come.

Try some real American enemies

You know like Grover Norquist, or talk radio hosts

[JMS]

Qadaffi and Mubarak were leaders of 2 of the most westernized, industrialized, progressive countries in the ME. Corrupt? Sure. About as corrupt as 90% of the nations on earth, but with oil money. Only the future will tell how wise and how expensive these wars were.

Tunisia, Libyia and Egypt were also all Pro Israeli regimes when they were replaced. That coupled with much of Kadaffi's sophisticated ground to air missiles now showing up in Gaza definitely does give one pause... Then again what were we to do? Keep a known bad guy in Kaddaffi in power? Work to suppress Egyptian demonostrators in support of an 80+ year old dictator who for decades ignored our calls for reform in Egypt?

It's been some hard choices and we may have made the lesser of two evils, going the other way on our decisions was even more risky.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Most people are hapy the troops are coming home, but most people don't credit Obama for brining them home as it was actually the Iraqi government's lack of interest in keeping them in country which dictated Obama's move.

Obama has been moving heaven and earth to keep some troops in Iraq and has told the country as much numerous times since he was elected.

I just don't understand what the basis for saying that is? You don't think most people are crediting Obama with bringing the troops home? I think I've anecdotally heard the exact opposite, and it does coincide with a bump in his approval.

Personally, I don't think many people are crediting Obama with "killing Khaddafy," and I'm not sure why they would.

[TimmySmith]

Tunisia, Libyia and Egypt were also all Pro Israeli regimes when they were replaced. That coupled with much of Kadaffi's sophisticated ground to air missiles now showing up in Gaza definitely does give one pause... Then again what were we to do? Keep a known bad guy in Kaddaffi in power? Work to suppress Egyptian demonostrators in support of an 80+ year old dictator who for decades ignored our calls for reform in Egypt?

It's been some hard choices and we may have made the lesser of two evils, going the other way on our decisions was even more risky.

I would compare Mubarak to the Shah of Iran. Old, comfortable, perhaps behind the times, but in general he was a keeper of the peace in his own country, which was generally safe for westerners to visit.

Qadaffi is harder to pin a definition on. Once a terrorist, who should have been taken down. His country evolved into one that was on the threshold of being an example for ME countries for tolerance and modernization. It can be said that it was this tolerance that permitted the demonstrations in the first place.

[LadySkinsFan]

Please get facts straight: not one US person is "taking the troops out of Iraq." The troops were kicked out of Iraq several years ago by a vote in their parliment. Troops were supposed to be out by August 2011, but we begged and pleaded to stay longer. Iraqis gave us until the end of 2011, a 4 month extension.

Again, Iraqi parliment kicked us out of their sovereign nation.

[Larry]

Please get facts straight: not one US person is "taking the troops out of Iraq." The troops were kicked out of Iraq several years ago by a vote in their parliment. Troops were supposed to be out by August 2011, but we begged and pleaded to stay longer. Iraqis gave us until the end of 2011, a 4 month extension.

Again, Iraqi parliment kicked us out of their sovereign nation.

Funny, other US Presidents don't NEED permission from other countries, to put US troops in that country.

.

[tdigle]

Good for Obama. Of course, this in no way, shape, or form bodes well for his future. Barring a miracle, his chances of reelection are solely in the hands of the GOP faithful. If they're dumb enough to give Herman Cain the nomination, then Obama should send a huge gift basket to RNC HQ.

[NoVaO]

Gallup is prone to very wild fluctuations. You need to give it at least a week to know if those fluctuations are real or not. Just a few days ago, his approval rating shot down 4 points to 38% in one day. Plus, Gallup hasn't been very accurate in recent elections.

It's best to look at the aggregate of polls to determine his standing, which is at about 44%, a couple of points higher than its been in recent weeks. The impact of the Iraq war ending probably doesn't show up in any poll yet, but the impact it will have will likely be small. Remember, he could only get like a 5 - 8 point bounce for killing Osama. The economy is still the driving force behind his rating. He's just lucky America hates the GOP much more than him.

[jpyaks3]

I would compare Mubarak to the Shah of Iran. Old, comfortable, perhaps behind the times, but in general he was a keeper of the peace in his own country, which was generally safe for westerners to visit.

Qadaffi is harder to pin a definition on. Once a terrorist, who should have been taken down. His country evolved into one that was on the threshold of being an example for ME countries for tolerance and modernization. It can be said that it was this tolerance that permitted the demonstrations in the first place.

Mubarak was a repressive and corrupt dictator that "kept the peace" through a security force that tortured its citizens, was corrupt as hell, crushed any opposing groups with violent force, and ****ed over the average Egyptian. In short just the kind of leader the United States tends to support (see Saudi Arabia and Bahrain). The Egyptian revolution (and the other revolutions) will make for a healthier region, you cannot expect to suppress people forever no matter how many arms and military aid we are willing to give them. Also Egypt remains safe for westerners to visit.

Qaddaffi also tortured, imprisoned, and screwed over the average Libyan, the oil wealth doesn't change that.

Obama as a whole matches up very well to most of the GOP candidates, right now he is polling ahead of them and that doesn't even take into account his massive monetary edge (which could be taken away with Citizens United) he is going to be very tough to beat even if he has been doing a ****ty job.

[deejaydana]

I always take these polls with a grain of salt. The short attention span of the American public doens't help either. Obama is still going to get blown out in 2012 if the economy doesn't turn around dramatically.

[oisn1]

I would compare Mubarak to the Shah of Iran. Old, comfortable, perhaps behind the times, but in general he was a keeper of the peace in his own country, which was generally safe for westerners to visit.

Qadaffi is harder to pin a definition on. Once a terrorist, who should have been taken down. His country evolved into one that was on the threshold of being an example for ME countries for tolerance and modernization. It can be said that it was this tolerance that permitted the demonstrations in the first place.

Unfortunately for the Egyptian (or Iranian for that matter) people, they aren't westerners. So while the Shah and Mubarak were good for us, they were bad for their people. Even worse, when the Iranians finally got rid of the Shah (a just action, I might add), they saw the support we provided him with and latched on to the Islamic Revolution as they were the only ones fighting American influence. American support for Mubarak and Shah should be looked back on with shame. We threw away our principles for profit and "safety."

Luckily Egypt seems to be on a better path, and we can only hope Libya does the same.

[JMS]

Please get facts straight: not one US person is "taking the troops out of Iraq." The troops were kicked out of Iraq several years ago by a vote in their parliment. Troops were supposed to be out by August 2011, but we begged and pleaded to stay longer. Iraqis gave us until the end of 2011, a 4 month extension.

Again, Iraqi parliment kicked us out of their sovereign nation.

Actually George bush signed the agreement that called for all American troops to leave Iraq by

Dec 31 2011 in the same meeting he almost got pelted by a flying Iraqi shoe.

Obama spent the last three years trying to get a different deal. Ultimately the Iraqis

Wanted too many concessions for too few troops. So the bush deal stood.

---------- Post added October-25th-2011 at 01:06 AM ----------

Good for Obama. Of course, this in no way, shape, or form bodes well for his future. Barring a miracle, his chances of reelection are solely in the hands of the GOP faithful. If they're dumb enough to give Herman Cain the nomination, then Obama should send a huge gift basket to RNC HQ.

Obamas approval rating is consistently in the 40s. Bush got reelected with approval ratings consistently in the low 30s.

It's not like the GOPs candidates aren't all as flawed politically as Obama or worse.

[visionary]

I would compare Mubarak to the Shah of Iran. Old, comfortable, perhaps behind the times, but in general he was a keeper of the peace in his own country, which was generally safe for westerners to visit.

Qadaffi is harder to pin a definition on. Once a terrorist, who should have been taken down. His country evolved into one that was on the threshold of being an example for ME countries for tolerance and modernization. It can be said that it was this tolerance that permitted the demonstrations in the first place.

Solrt of agree about the Shah comparison for Mubarak...but let's not forget that it was his followers who spouted the most anit-western, anti-semetic, anti-american insults while they tried to lynch reporters and beat and slash them to death during the revolution. reporters were often terrified to go out on those safe streets because of how 'loved' they were by the maurading bands of Mubarak goons. The government and the army were pretty damn bad to anyone they caught they as well.

As for Libya and Gaddafi...it certainly is a nice fairytale...but hardly close to reality.

He tolerated other religions...but that's about it. He sure as hell didn't tolerate any dissent or disagreement over his own god-like status. And if you think it's example setting to be a coiuntry run by a psychopath who has no problem hanging kids from lampposts and holding public executions every year at universities, plus gunning peaceful protesters down with anti-aircraft weapons and sending his goons to blast prfotesting cities to pieces with artillery, making policies of rape and torturing tons of people for fun, you might need to rethink things.

Not to mention the stuff that Gaddafi himself was personally responsible for doing to people in his nightclub/rape house/compound. Also to consider Libya modernized is a bit of a stretch. The place was pretty much a rundown ****hole by most standards. The hospitals in particular are notorious for having a lack of supplies and equipment and most Libyans apparently went to other countries for any serious treatment rather than risk it there.