Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (613927)	5/31/2011 2:54:13 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578897

>> Now you have been corrected into saying what I said but you still say that I was wrong...your very post shows that you were incorrectly using the term. WHAT??? Admit you were f*cking wrong you moron. What a waste of time. Every one of you -- you, CJ, Ted, NONE of you can admit you are wrong even when someone shoves your own words down your throat.

To: Alighieri who wrote (613927)	5/31/2011 3:44:32 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578897

Where Are the Obama Scandals? Brendan Nyhan, Guest Columnist May 26th, 2011 One of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals. Since Watergate, presidential and executive branch scandal has been an inescapable feature of the American presidency, but the current administration has not yet suffered a major scandal, which I define as a widespread elite perception of wrongdoing. What happened, and what are the odds that the administration’s streak will continue? Obama has been extremely fortunate: My research (PDF) on presidential scandals shows that few presidents avoid scandal for as long as he has. In the 1977-2008 period, the longest that a president has gone without having a scandal featured in a front-page Washington Post article is 34 months – the period between when President Bush took office in January 2001 and the Valerie Plame scandal in October 2003. Obama has already made it almost as long despite the lack of a comparable event to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Why? Obama should be highly vulnerable to scandal given his standing with Republicans. My research identifies presidential approval among opposition party identifiers as a key risk factor. The reason is that discontent among the opposition’s base creates demand for negative news about the president, encouraging opposition legislators and members of the news media to promote allegations of misconduct. As Figure 1 illustrates, Obama has quickly become unpopular among members of the public who identify as Republicans, following a similar trajectory to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (who both suffered significant first-term scandals). By contrast, the September 11 attacks provided George W. Bush (who is omitted from Figure 1) with a massive approval boost that helped protect him from scandal for more than two years afterward. read more......... centerforpolitics.org