The Obnoxious American wonders whether Americans are getting a hangover from all this "change"
As most readers of my columns know, I am no big fan of our President, Barack Obama. I voted for McCain, a vote that I cast knowing it had a snowflake's chance in hell of meaning anything, and it didn't. At the time, Obama was riding high on his rhetoric, his campaign pledges sounded great on the surface, but to me, these policies implied a dark direction for the future of the country, its economy and national security. For general election voters bowled over by the image of this smart, young, handsome candidate, implications of the policies espoused by Obama were merely glossed over by a supportive media refusing to ask any serious questions. Certainly, some voters knew that a President Obama would mean higher taxes for all, increased role of government and government spending, and a reliance on the international community for our security. "Some voters" being the key phrase in that prior sentence — the vast majority of voters don't take the time to really understand policies or their implications, especially when those policies are never deeply discussed (present company excluded of course).…
Article comments
26 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
Rarely? Read my last ten article buddy. If I repeated every argument I made before in this column, it would be a whole lot longer and then you'd really have something to complain about.
Again, instead of attacking me or the article, how about rebutting the premise. I suppose you can't.
27 - zingzing
i did rebutt the premise. as did the commenter before me. but you ignored us. you don't seem to realize how far the republican/right wing has fallen behind. you don't have a viable alternative. and no matter how many of you there are, no one seems to want to vote for you.
and i have read some of your articles, but i don't find much of real substance there. there's paranoia, hyperbole and fox news talking points, but there's little else. (really, that one about "freedom under attack" is exactly the same thing i saw at the gym about 2 months back, and it was pretty ridiculous then.) i haven't read anything in there that has made me change my mind. more often, it just embitters me against the right. i'd suppose you'd say the same thing about the left, but i find a lot of what you (the right) have to say incredibly myopic and comically wrong-headed.
i've got my own problems with the way obama is handling things, but i'm not jumping to conclusions just yet. just because he doesn't do something the way you'd want it done, doesn't mean it won't produce the result you're after.
28 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
I didn't ignore you, I responded to your posts. Anyone reading this thread can see that. And you should know that I watch CNN most of the time. It's a typical lib tactic to start throwing around accusations of my watching of Fox, issuing talking points and whatever else. My articles are anything but had you cared to actually give them a read. It's fine, you are deeply into the koolaid. nothing wrong with that. But don't try to extend your koolaid drinking into my not having any substance, or offering a viable alternative. THESE are straight up CNN talking points, I should know, I have CNN on right now.
This is becoming a bit too formulaic. Liberals don't like the message, so they attack the messenger. McCain, Palin, Jim Kramer, Joe the Plumber, Newt, Cheney, me, and the rest of the so called fallen behind Right wing. How about ever attacking the premise with even half as much gusto? I guess you'd have to have something to come back with.
29 - Dr Dreadful
I vividly remember the day of the election in 2004. My liberal co-workers were ecstatic of early Zogby exit polling that showed Kerry beating Bush. The next day I was laughing and they were horrified.
As I said, Obnox, the thing to do - which your colleagues either were ignorant of or disregarded - is not to cherry-pick or take a single poll in isolation. It won't give you an accurate picture because there are too many variables.
I, on the other hand, was monitoring the electoral-vote.com and Election Projection websites - one run by a left-leaning independent and the other by a conservative - which made predictions using algorithms based on an average of all or a large selection of the polls. Both sites ended up pretty much on the money, as they did in '06 and '08 as well.
Assessing Obama's current popularity with the American public is a bit trickier obviously, because there's much less specific polling activity than in the run-up to an election. But FWIW, here's the latest Real Clear Politics average, based on (unless my old eyes deceive me) seven different polls conducted over the last month. Based on which, would Obama lose today? Not with a 28-point spread he wouldn't, unless the GOP put up Superman against him. Unfortunately Superman wears a blue suit. :-)
30 - El Bicho
"there are basically t[hree] kinds of responses: Those that agree with me, and those that are attacking me (and anyone who agrees with me) on a purely ad hominem basis, [and those who point out I never proved my article's premise].
Fixed.
31 - Baronius
It's a tough article to rebut because there is no 8-month election cycle in the US.
Are you saying that Obama's less popular than he was in November? Probably. Not because of cap-and-trade though, that's for sure.
If we held another election right now, would Obama win? It depends; are we going to tell him that there's another election or not? Does he have time to gear up? The press would have been running anti-Palin stories for months, and Obama would have been spending a fortune on advertising. Most importantly he wouldn't have followed the same agenda during his first 5-month term. If he were running against the Maverick Senator, he'd win again.
We did see a perfect example of a turnaround in popularity of the Iraq War. It took a lot of negative stories in the press, but when it turned, it turned quickly. An idea that had previously been unthinkable became possible, and the polls turned in a couple of months.
Today, the average guy won't allow himself to think that our first black president is incompetent. He hasn't been in the office that long, and he inherited a bad economy. People need a reason to be able to think that Obama isn't very good, and it won't be an old idea about Ayers or his qualifications. In a few months, it's going to be a political scandal, and gas prices are back over $3, and we've lost millions of jobs since he took over, and I'm not changing my mind about voting for the young black guy but this latest news story has me wondering if he even knows what he's doing....
32 - Baronius
I should add that true political genius lies in knowing which issue or story will be a turning point. I don't know and I'm not even going to guess.
33 - Bliffle
OA: the reason that we (all 7 of us on the BC political page) never discussed Obamas policies was because the anti-O folks insisted on diverting discussion to rightist claptrap, and the left countered with expressions of adoration. I asked for, and I sought, and I even volunteered O policy, but all concerned dodged it, preferring claptrap vs. adoration.
Ptooey.
34 - Bliffle
Jeannie:
"...and you all wonder why there are only seven people who dare leave comments in the political threads here. "
Best insight of the day.
35 - Jeannie Danna
remain teachable and we might just elect you again someday..:)
36 - Clavos
Are you saying that Obama's less popular than he was in November? Probably. Not because of cap-and-trade though, that's for sure.
Only because few, if any, of the Great American Unwashed have even heard of C & P, let alone understand it.
37 - Baronius
According to Rasmussen, when asked to identify cap-and-trade, people say the following:
30% don't know
29% regulating Wall Street
24% environmental regulation
17% health care reform
I guess I'm thinking that cap-and-trade, embryonic stem cell research, and any of the other things that OA mentions aren't likely to turn the tide against President Obama. They may have enraged anti-Obama conservatives, or unsettled pro-Obama moderate/conservatives, but if things turn against Obama (and in politics, things ALWAYS turn) it's probably going to revolve around something new.
38 - Clavos
1 in 4 interviewed by Rasmussen had somewhat of a clue.
1 in 4.
39 - m ar k
'Noxious, some questions:
How do you explain the fact that you cite that in the polls, ...Obama's numbers stay so stable, no matter his actions or the outcome? Is it your opinion that we're looking at some sort of a conspiracy here?
On what evidence other than your gut intuition do you base your claim that: Those who were willing to give Obama a chance are starting to regret their vote. Those who were indifferent to the election are now starting to get riled up?
Finally, can you give an example (hypothetical, of course) of evidence that would convince you that Obama would win were an election held today?
40 - Clavos
but if things turn against Obama (and in politics, things ALWAYS turn) it's probably going to revolve around something new.
Which will undoubtedly be irrelevant and inconsequential; similar in importance to the love lives of bratty Hollywood "actors." Nothing that matters ever gets the attention of the peasants.
Just bread and circuses.
41 - Jordan Richardson
These are the FACTS that I pointed to in the article.
They are? Are they "facty" when you claim to know why the voters voted for Obama? How is that a fact in any language? It's an assumption, a guess, a speculation based on your opinions of the facts. It's an observation at best, Obnox, and the real fact here appears to be your inability to know the difference between citing something factual and citing an opinion/conclusion based on what you think happened.
That's why this article was greeted with "oh Christ, more of the same" and so forth. It wasn't treated that way because you proved your premise, dude. It was treated that way because this article is basically yet another rant about why Obama "sucks." Woopty-freakin'-doo.
And you know damn well you'd be using polling data and public opinion if it swung your way, too.
While Americans may have been dissatisfied with Bush, they aren't, as a whole, socialists.
And repeating that Obama is a socialist is insulting to those who actually are socialist. It's not true just because you think it is.
Obama's policies are now starting to come in clear as day now.
Okay. So in proving whether or not Obama would win an election again, why not set up the public's response to such clarity? How do the voters feel generally about his policies? What do they think? Are they already growing impatient with Obama or are they willing to give him time to work? If Obama merely got in because of Bush, why did McCain (who was or was not Bush) not win the election? Why was there a largely Democratic swing? Why are less people identifying with the Republican party? And so forth.
How can you suggest Obama wouldn't win without at least exploring the answers to these questions?
And by the way, I never said anything about America leaning one way or the other. I merely asked you to prove your premise, you know, in the article.
42 - Baritone
The is still nothing that Obama has done that would alter the original election results. All there is are people like all the right wingers here who can't see the forest for the trees. You people are clueless.
Obama has dared to do something that no one else had either the intelligence or the balls to do. He has taken steps that just might, if given the chance take this country out of the nineteenth century and into the 21st century. The status quo had us stuck in the muck of the abuses of an unregulated economy.
As the Reps become an ineffective, southern regional party perhaps there is hope that their strangle hold on both government and the economy will end.
Obama has a brilliance that none of you can even imagine.
B
43 - Baronius
"All" the right-wingers on this site didn't agree with OA, Bar. Also, just so you can appreciate how crazy your last comment looks, consider the following:
"David Koresh has a brilliance that none of you can even imagine."
44 - Jordan Richardson
"David Koresh has a brilliance that none of you can even imagine."
"Baronius has body odour that none of you can even imagine."
I like this game!
45 - Baronius
Jordan, I'm some random guy on the internet, so it's very possible that I'm stinky.
But to believe that President Obama has a brilliance that no conservative can even imagine requires two things: first, that Obama's intellect should be approached with reverence (obvious in Bar's phrasing), and second, that the observer is so far above the conservatives as to represent a different species.
Dick Cheney is a smart guy. The country was lucky to have him. However, even though I'm one of his biggest fans, I think that other mortals are able to comprehend how smart he is. I bet that when he stomped Lieberman in the VP debate, Lieberman walked away thinking "I didn't do well, but I got my main points across", not "Ughmwa! Bright light! Thinking man use magic words!"
The biggest problem with Bar's statement, though, is that it conceives of a messianic presidency. There shouldn't be any difference if the top 20 people in government (POTUS, VP, Speaker, Cabinet, etc.) were unimaginably brilliant or just kinda smart. It's not just that smart people make mistakes and brilliant people make catastrophes. It's that our political system wouldn't allow brilliance to shine forth, if it were followed correctly. To express great joy in a president's brainpower is, by implication, to hope that he implements his ideas with unprecedented power.
If we had "comment preview", I'd be a lot happier with these tomes.
46 - zingzing
"Dick Cheney is a smart guy. The country was lucky to have him."
not disputing the first part... evil genius. the second part, however, is up for debate. i'd say he's just about the most duplicitous, horrifying excuse for a politician we've seen in some time.
47 - Baronius
Zing, I mentioned him specifically because I know how disliked he is in some circles. I bet that if I started an "I Like Cheney" thread, there would be a lot of detractors. Now imagine if I said that Cheney possessed a brilliance greater than you are capable of imagining. That's how over-the-top Baritone's comment seems to me.
48 - Clavos
And me. Obama's bright, but...
He's also devious and shifty and manipulative.
49 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius: "Ughmwa! Bright light! Thinking man use magic words!"
LOL.
50 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, aren't you indulging in a little d, s and m yourself there? :-p
I think you, and we, are all well aware that those qualities are required in politics to a certain degree.
At least Obama seems to be somewhat more open than many of his predecessors, which is a welcome change to many, including myself.
51 - Clavos
Chris,
Perhaps you're right to some degree. I will rephrase:
"He's also inordinately devious and shifty and manipulative.
I couldn't disagree more with this:
At least Obama seems to be somewhat more open than many of his predecessors...
This goes to the heart of what I meant above; not only is he devious and shifty, etc., but because he's smart, he's better able to conceal it while making people think he's "more open."
YMMV
52 - Christopher Rose
I just think you seem somewhat jaded and not a little cynical, that's all.
As to the level of deviousness, you ought to spend some time watching our politicians. The currently playing storylines are like some tacky soap opera full of liars.
Personally I am hoping both the Labour and Conservative parties break up or wither away as some more relevant political groupings begin to emerge. Maybe that will happen Stateside too ere too many more years...
53 - Clavos
I just think you seem somewhat jaded and not a little cynical, that's all.
Guilty as charged.
But, I come by it honestly.
54 - Ruvy
this is fun!
55 - Ruvy
Hey! I'm back! My comments post again!
Yayy!!!!
56 - Baronius
Ruvy, what's the story? Bad connections, temporary censure, or too busy living a real, nonpixilated life?
57 - Dan(Miller)
Perhaps ever so slightly off topic, but not much: there is a frog in India which is worshiped as a god.
Hundreds of curious followers flock to Reji Kumar’s home every day to pray and ask for miracles. . . .Lift worker Reji added:
"By night the frog was dark yellow, and then it became transparent so you could see its internal organs.
"It seemed like a miracle to me that this frog had so many different coats. So now people come to see him and pray to him.”
Professor Oommen V. Oommen from India’s Kerala University, said it was not uncommon for animals to change colour.
He explained: “Frogs do change colour to scare away predators.
“But from what I have heard, the frog at Kumar’s place changes colour so frequently it is a bit unusual.
Any parallel to President Obama would, obviously, be in extremely poor taste; I shall therefore suggest none.
Dan(Miller)
58 - Clavos
Any parallel to President Obama would, obviously, be in extremely poor taste...
...not to mention insulting to the frog.
Ta-dum.
I'm here all week, folks!
Don't forget to tip your waitress!