When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
47 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
texas
15 years ago
Speaking of Bush, he showed up at the Wounded Warriors Road 2 Recovery bike ride going through Cleburne on Saturday.
In an appearance he did not want to become public, President George W. Bush stopped in Cleburne, Texas on his way to his Crawford Ranch to give words of encouragement to members of the Wounded Warriors Road 2 Recovery bike ride going through Cleburne.
Mr. Bush did not want pre-publicity because he did not want his appearance to lead to a distraction from the importance of the Road to Recovery bike ride going through Texas this week. After brief remarks by Cleburne Mayor Ted Reynolds and Congressman Chet Edwards, D-Waco, Mr. Bush spoke to the bike riders, American Legion members and motorcycle escort riders for a few minutes.
Can you imagine Obama doing something good that he didn’t want any publicity for? He wouldn’t even go visit wounded soldiers during the campaign because the military wouldn’t allow the press to cover it.
Bush is a good man and much missed. Obama makes his legacy look better and better with every passing day.
luva the scissors
15 years ago
obama is all show and no go. i am tired of his rejects saying that we need to give him a chance and that if we did we would see the great things he can/will do. bush was never really given a chance, he was bashed from the start and then with him not even in office for a full year we get nailled by 9/11. bush is a kind hearted man who i think really did try his best to do the right thing for this country. obama just wants to win the game, he doesn’t realize that this isn’t a game it is real life. obama’s oints are dropping and i almost, almost feel sorry for his groupies, they are seeing that they were a means to an end. i can’t see obama getting re-elected, i just can’t there are so many who now feel they have been duped and are pissed. i am glad the tea parties are now finally getting attention in the national media.
The frightening thing is that Carter’s numbers and Nixon’s numbers appeared to be the highest overall and look what happened to their Presidencies. Being popular is no guarantee of success nor is being unpopular any guarantee of failure.
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
I don’t disagree at all with this article, but this has been building up for decades. There has always been some level of polarization in the US, but it seems to me that every polarizing event since Chappaquiddick created even greater division. Watergate stirred up the Left, and Bill Clinton stirred up the Right. Bush’s victory in 2000 really triggered the Left into action, and now Obama is escalating the fervor again for the Right. Sometimes it feels like gang retaliation.
I’d like to recommend a book for everyone who visits this site and is concerned about the politics of this moment: Neal Boortz’s “Somebody’s Gotta Say It” published in 2007 by HarperCollins Publishers.
Boortz, a self-proclaimed Libertarian, tells it the way he sees it, and takes on a variety of controversial issues and political parties. He is an equal opportunity critic, though he seems particularly fond of taking on “liberals.” He finished the manuscript for the book in 2006, two years before Obama was elected President, but the chapter “The Democrats’ (Secret) Plan for America” is eerily prescient.
The things he predicts happening if (or when) the Democrats retain control of Congress and seize the White House are all falling into place; it feels like I’m reading history! Boortz certainly has the Dem’s agenda pegged. For example:
Make the (evil) Rich cover the tab
Shift Social Security and Medicare taxes to the “Rich”
End the home mortgage deduction
Socialize medicine
Provide “government”-paid child care
Allow government to impose limits on executive compensation for private companies
Repeal the Second Amendment
and much, much more. All to be achieved, of course, with compliance by the majority of citizens – such compliance obtained by means of class warfare, pandering, empty promises, and coercion (oops, I meant to say “persuasion.”)
Ain’t never gonna happen, right?
Jeff V
Scrapiron
15 years ago
O’Dumbo talks a good game, if you are an enemy of the U.S. and speaking someone else’s words. Take away the prompter and he speaks exactly like a druggie on a Chicago street corner. ‘Man, I can afford my drugs unless Whitey caughs up some more welfare money’. O’Dumbo is not only still smoking, he’s still smoking dope.
@ruaqtpi2: Jeff, perhaps you can cite some examples of how the Right made Chappaquiddick a partisan issue at the time. From what I’ve read it was the DEMS who gathered every top dog in the party at the Kennedy compound in the immediate aftermath to map out a political strategy that made the issue partisan.
I caution you to avoid the “both sides do it” line of moral equivalence which Democrats have used for years to avoid any accountability for their conduct.
I happen to be reading that book right now as a matter of fact.
Excellent read. Quintessential Boortz.
He has the remarkable talent of making you laugh, nod your head in agreement, and then be ticked off all within a page or two.
daveinboca
15 years ago
The most salient polling statistic in the ’08 election is one the JournoList zampolit MSM has suppressed completely. In the final polling in Ohio, Obama won 40,000 fewer votes in ’08 than JOHN KERRY WON IN ’04.
This means that a large number of Ohioans never voted Republican in ’08 and stayed home because the silly RINO at the top of the Repub ticket was an Obama-lite.
Karl Rove was rejected by the senile moron at the top of the ticket because the MSM hated Karl and his successful courting of The Silent Majority, which still exists at a rate of 35% conservative to 20% libtard, among a dozen polls taken over the last decade.
In other words, in ’08 the US was still a center-right country, though neither candidate was close to the center, with McCain center-left at his best and only correct on Iraq.
Hattie Mae
15 years ago
This from Braveheart:” You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.”
I believe that we are witnessing a man governing our nation who believes the people of our country exist to provide him with position. Even his statement to the outnumbered Republicans,”I won,” is very telling about this one man show exhibitionist.
We need to be Bravehearts all in times like these.
Red
15 years ago
Your figures actually show that it is (R)z who are polarizing force in America today … “The Party of NO!” … “The Audacity of Nope!”
Your figures actually show how unsupportive (R)z are to (D) presidents and how much more supportive (D)z are to (R) presidents.
Obama – (R) support 27
Clinton – (R) support 26
Average (R) for (D) President support 26.5
Bush II – (D) support 36
Bush I – (D) support 41
Average (D) support for (R) President 38.5
(D)z are almost 50% more supportive of a president from the opposite party. This would suggest to some that (D)z are better Americans
What supports this contention that it is (R)z who are the partisan problem, (R)z skew most from the (I)z
Obama
(I) – 57
(R)- 27
Diff = 30
Clinton
(I) – 47
(R)- 26
Diff = 21
Average (R) support difference from (I)z = 25.5
Bush II
(I) – 56
(R)- 36
Diff = 20
Bush I
(I) – 48
(R)- 41
Diff = 9
Average (D) support difference from (I)z = 14.5
From this comparison, (D)z are almost 100% more like other Americans, than are (R)z. Clearly it is the (R)z who create the most polarized of the responses against a President who is not from their party – The party of sou(R) g(R)apes as it were. (D)z and (I)z are more similar, form the bulk of the population and support the president more, no matter which party he comes from.
It also suggests (D)z are more Americans first and partisans second. By comparison (R)z are the more aberrant and political first.
Grand… Red, another Canuck with their US analyses.
And could that polarization be because conservatives don’t like the domestic policies of Euro-socialist Obama, Red? It is not “partisan”, but a concept of America as a capitalist nation vs semi-socialist (at this writing…) nation. And that is happening because no POTUS has been this left, and had the far left also in control of the US purse strings.
In that context, what is surprising about the polarization? This is the first sweep of power, this far left, to evaluate in these terms. You should be paying attention to that fact.
Ultimately, what’s your point? Fiscal conservatives ( which evidently there are more than a few still alive here in the US… of both parties) are not happy with the domestic tack Obama’s taking. Surely you aren’t suggesting we STFU and just blindly follow the herd so your stats happily fall into place? In which case your homogeneous notion of what is “American” bears revisiting.
Red
15 years ago
ru: “… All to be achieved, of course, with compliance by the majority of citizens – such compliance obtained by means of class warfare, pandering, empty promises, and coercion (oops, I meant to say “persuasion.”)”
RA: Well if ru’z statement is true, then one of the following must be true:
(a) (R)z are to stupid make a ‘persuasive’ argument, and shouldn’t govern
(b) (R)z are equally persuasive, but their ‘argument stinks’, and they shouldn’t govern
(c) (R)z are equally persuasive and have good arguments, but ‘Democracy is stupid’.
Red-Artery
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
Red,
You need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.
As for whether Independents answer polls more like Democrats, I’d have to agree with you. And if you add up Indies and Dems, you do get a majority of the population. So, you can reasonably state that Democrats answer polls the same as most Americans, although you have to “double dip” to make that claim.
Nonetheless, answering polls in the same manner as another group doesn’t necessarily make you a “better American.” It might make a person a better Lemming, or possibly a better gang member, but just following the majority doesn’t put one in the right. That’s called mob rule, and is one of the reasons why our country is NOT a democracy, despite popular opinion. It’s also why the U.S. Senate members are not apportioned according to population (though the U.S. House of Representatives is so apportioned.)
I’m not so sure that Mike’s chart is all that useful, other than to catch a snapshot view of public opinion. To really appreciate the chart, one has to put the numbers in context with respect to factors such as national and international events, the public’s opinion of congress, current events, and the general mood of the country.
Let me get this straight, though. For the past 8 years, it was patriotic to criticize and go against the president, or so the liberals kept saying. To criticize the presidient is to say “NO” to his proposals (at least, that’s what the Democrats did for the last 8 years.) But now that a Democrat is in the Oval Office, the word “NO” offends you? Perhaps the (D) in Democrat stands for (D)ouble standard?
I like it; “(D)emocrats, the (D)ouble Standard Party.” Or the way Obama has been acting lately – as Wuss-in-Chief: “Democrats, the party of ‘No’ (Balls)”
Do you honestly believe Obama when he says “I believe we can all live in a world free of nuclear weapons”? Do you think other countries like Iran and North Korea will gladly rid themselves of nuclear armaments? If you believe these two ideas, you are living in a fantasy world. I’m sure it’s a nice world with lots of “warm fuzzies”, but it ain’t reality.
Jeff V
Red
15 years ago
ru: “… You need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it. Nonetheless, answering polls in the same manner as another group doesn’t necessarily make you a “better American” …”
RA: Jeff-ru … You need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.
Red Artery
Red
15 years ago
Mata-1947-Technology: In that context, what is surprising about the polarization?
RA: Well your point seems to try to suggest that Obama was polarizing and that was bad, because he said he won’t be. However, you seem to be arguing that your polarized views are good AND because you are polarized, that makes Obama polarizing …. !?
Mata-no-overhead-cam-Technology: “… Ultimately, what’s your point?”
RA: My point is that (D)z and (I)z support (R) presidents way more than (R) support (D) presidents. Consequently (R)z not support Obama is what comes outta a polarized group like the (R)z and it is a measure of how polarizing (R)z are, not of Obama, ’cause (R) would have opposed whomever aint an (R)
Mata-push-rod-technology: “… Surely you aren’t suggesting we STFU”
RA: I am suggesting you Study The Facts Used in your ‘(R)gument’ ….
Mata-1947-Technology: In that context, what is surprising about the polarization?
RA: Well your point seems to try to suggest that Obama was polarizing and that was bad, because he said he won’t be. However, you seem to be arguing that your polarized views are good AND because you are polarized, that makes Obama polarizing …. !?
Yo, Red… let’s try to stick with comments instead of your overactive imagination.. as well as keyboard (since you’ve managed to innundate this site overwhelmingly in the past few hours with your Canuck presence)
I did *not* suggest the Obama polarization was “bad”. Quite in fact, this nation has been “polarized” and divided since it’s inception, with varying degrees of slightly more than half weighing in each election for one candidate over another. The great divide that the left likes to lament publicly is more than common… and very American.
It was you… Mr. Canuck… who suggested that it had to be “the right” creating the polarization. Let’s get the facts straight, shall we? I’m only suggesting that.. in this early segment, and in light of Obama’s extreme Euro-socialism of American out of the gate… such polarization is not unusual.
But that’s the thing – Bush was considered divisive. To be seen to be bipartisan – it needs to be someone who is consider bipartisan by both sides. I mean Clinton worked with a republican congress – which sort of worked on and off – but he was hated by the right. Howabout Ike?
Red
15 years ago
Mike: “… Your “math” is meaningless … ”
RA: And science too …. don’t forget Scientific Research is meaningless too, there Mike …
I am curious, did you find your OWN selection and use use of the Pew Survey meaningless and manipulative, or just mine use of YOUR figures, because it didn’t support your ‘belief’ …?
It doesn’t suggest a strong (R)gument there Mike when your figures prove you wrong and you can raise a mathematical response … just a weak ideological platitude
Just to help you out there Mike, you haven’t been able to muster a mathematical counter to your own figures which, when examined, show the partisan problem is the (R)z, not whomever the (D) President happens to be at this time …
Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book
Don’t know much about the french I took
Don’t know much about geography
Don’t know much trigonometry
Don’t know much about algebra …
Red
Red
15 years ago
Mike: “… I don’t know how you would quantify such a thing. It’s totally subjective.”
That’s why if you look at the PEW Survey I’ve provided in my article “Obama Most Partisan and Polarizing President in Modern Era”, it mathematically and Scientifically show Obama the most divisive President ever …
Red
15 years ago
Gaf: “… How about Ike?”
RA: The Nazis found him the Most Divisive Commander in the Modern Era … 😉
Clearly Republicans have a more positive outlook on Dems than the other way around.
If that’s changed, it can only be because of Obama’s hard core partisanship.
Red
15 years ago
Mike found a counter point!
I notice the two parties are fairly close during the Reagan Era, (D)z supporting an (R) president.
You get a very immediate and negative reaction from (R)z to a (D) president during the ‘Gingrich era’ (when this whole hyper-partisanship was invented by Newt), with (R)z not supporting a (D) president. Then (D)z and the American population at large react very negatively to GOP and the Ken Starr investigate-for-years-until-you-find-something political witch hunt. As the chart shows, (R)z were so pissed at the Newt/Starr approach, they supported Clinton during the witch hunt.
Then (D)z get behind the American president (even though it is “W”) until he begins to demonstrate why he’ll become known as the worst president very.
The GOP leadership has been attacking Obama with exceptional stridency. That’s a big reason for the low overall GOP approval. 35% of the electorate are Republicans. 73% of Republicans don’t approve. That’s 25% of the electorate who are in the “polarized-negative” group. But this is misleading.
Look at the poll numbers. He’s got huge approval among Dems. He’s got 57% of the independents (almost as good as Reagan and as good as Bush), despite all of the many tough issues he’s been presented with — right at the beginning. He clearly pisses off Republicans, but no more than Clinton did — each had about 27% GOP approval. But Obama leads Clinton among both Democrats and Independents, and Democrats substantially outnumber Republicans among the electorate as a whole. Obama looks more polarizing than Clinton, simply because Obama is more popular with Democrats than Clinton was. The last “non-polarizing” Democrat was Carter, who won several Southern states and who didn’t have major crises at the beginning of his Presidency with which to deal.
Let’s look at another current poll:
The poll contains bad news for Republicans, showing that only 31 percent of those surveyed had a favorable view of the GOP — the lowest favorable rating since the New York Times/CBS News poll started asking the question 25 years ago.
He did, indeed, win the election. And he continues to win, on the most important issues, post-election, despite wishes to the contrary among those who didn’t support him.
I continue to think that the politics of this are absolutely fascinating. The GOP appears to the public to be in unanimous opposition (GOP moderates remaining silent and leaving the megaphone for the exclusive use of the conservatives) — the country now believes that the GOP is doing and will continue to do everything it can to prevent this President from succeeding. The GOP is betting everything on Obama failing on the economy. But if the economy recovers, the GOP has ensured that Obama will get 100% of the credit.
It’s a bold gamble. The gutless Democrats were opposed to Iraq, but wouldn’t take the political risk of opposing it. They were opposed to the Bush tax cuts, but wouldn’t take the political risk of opposing them.
But the GOP — real cajones. I admire that. “All in,” to use a poker term.
Larry, as usual you have it backwards. You and Red make such a pretty pair.
b1jetmech
15 years ago
Larry:
Of course the GOP is the loyal opposition and I hope they continue to be.
Obamais taking this country down a path of socialism. As a citizen I detest that and hope the members of the GOP have a spine and articulate conservatism to throw back the socialist Democrat party.
Obama and the congress to an oath of office to uphold the Constitution not trash and go around it with what their doing with spending, taking control of the private sector, attacking private citizens, giving taxpayer money to cronies like ACORN and attempt to pass card check to pay off their union buddies.
This is why Obama is detested by us because we see him for what he really is not like the drones who support him 100% and idolize him.
Obama is a “Pop culture” politician not a “statesman. he will continue to spew populace rhetoric claiming he’s for the middle man while he goes the around the Constitution to make this country something the founder fathers despised and so shall we.
Expect more Obama criticism in the future larry.
mooseburger
15 years ago
It’s not surprising that the polls show such a dip on the Republican side of Obama’s approval. Back last Summer, the R’s were calling him every name in the book. Said he was pallin’ around with Terrorists. Not wearing a Flag Pin. Joe the plumber thinks he’s a Socialist. You remember all that stuff. They are still at it too, every day and all day. Too bad for the Republicans that most of America got sick of the stupid grade school level campaign waged by McCain.
Too bad that Mr. Bush couldn’t wait any longer and had to address the economy before the election, instead of after like he had probably hoped.
There are less Republicans left out there, and the ones left are more die hard and firm in their partisan ways. This skews the poll to start with. Obama did say he won. I am glad he did, he has a responsibility to the majority of Americans who voted for him to do what he promised during the campaign. That is what the majority voted to have happen when they elected him.
The only polls that really count are the election last November, the election in November of 2012, and the House and Senate in 2010. News stories will come and go, as will opinion polls. I expect the polls will show the partisan divide getting even steeper as time goes on. I don’t think Obama is worried about that anymore. With a steady drumbeat of bile from the Republicans, why should he?
Michael Steele said it best when he said he was “proud that you laid the big goose egg on his desk” when there were zero Republican votes for the stimulus bill. Pride goeth before a fall, and in this case, afterwards as well.
Without any governing majority, at least until perhaps 2010, pride is about all the conservatives have at this point. Their only strategy is that Obama fails and they can say we told you so. If the economy gets better and unemployment improves significantly, all the R’s can say then is that it would have happened anyway.
That is putting your own fate into someone else’s hands.
It is pretty clear that Obama will not get any Republican support for much of anything he wants to do. So like him or hate him, the man is a chess player, just watch as he stays about two moves ahead of the game, gets his agenda accomplished for the most part, and reaps the political benefits of being demonized by the party of NO who brought us the sad state of the economy we have today.
He is making the Republicans own their failures, and it is no wonder the polls reflect the dwindling population of Republicans displeasure with him. When God, Gays and Guns, Pallin’ with Terrorists, Socialist anti American rhetoric stop working well enough to win elections, and there are no new ideas except more of the same, anger and hate and bile is a natural result. It’s about all the Republicans have left at this point.
Bit cranky today? I will say, mooseburger, this is your most bile filled comment in here to date. Also noticed is that you failed to acknowledge any of the responsibility of our current president and Congress, serving in or running for office, for the state of this nation today. Their hands are far from clean, pot/kettle tactics are no way to change hearts and minds.
Aqua
15 years ago
Here’s some math for ya Red. Maybe (R)z don’t agree with (D)z presidents because (R)z are actually informed. It’s not that democracy is stupid, just the (D)z that vote:
The 12 “Zogby” questions were duplicated, one on the Keating scandal was added for extra balance. The results from Obama voters were virtually IDENTICAL in both polls.
Here are the highlights:
35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.
18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.
McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.
Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.
Those that got “congressional control” correct voted 56-43 for McCain.
Those that got “congressional control” wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.
The poll also asked voters to name all the media sources from which they got information.
Those “exposed” to Fox News got “congressional control” correct 64-25 (+39)
Those “exposed” to CNN got “congressional control” correct 48-38 (+10)
Those “exposed” to Network news got “congressional control” correct 48-39 (+9)
Those “exposed” to print media got “congressional control” correct 52-37 (+15)
Those “exposed” to MSNBC got “congressional control” correct 55-35 (+20)
Those “exposed” to talk radio got “congressional control” correct 61-29 (+32)
Voters in the “South” had the best response rate on “congressional control” (+22)
Voters in the “Northeast” had the worst response rate on “congressional control” (+9)
@mooseburger: ” Back last Summer, the R’s were calling him every name in the book. Said he was pallin’ around with Terrorists. Not wearing a Flag Pin. Joe the plumber thinks he’s a Socialist.”
Yeah, funny how we were called scaremongers when we brought all that up and now even some Dems realize we were telling the truth.
As for “There are less Republicans left out there, and “
Really? Just a few weeks ago the Rasmussen Report showed more people indicating a preference for generic GOP congressional candidates than Democrats.
Of course you wouldn’t know that reading your daily Moveon.org talking points.
mooseburger
15 years ago
Missy said:
@mooseburger:
Bit cranky today? I will say, mooseburger, this is your most bile filled comment in here to date. Also noticed is that you failed to acknowledge any of the responsibility of our current president and Congress, serving in or running for office, for the state of this nation today. Their hands are far from clean, pot/kettle tactics are no way to change hearts and minds.
Missy:
I don’t think it is a bile filled post, it just seems like it because my views generally go against the political flow in these parts. If I were twice as bile filled against Obama in my post, I doubt I would get much of a peep except maybe a big Amen Brother. I might be just a bit cranky today though….like I sometimes tell folks, I’m not trying to be an A**hole, it just come easy for me. I stand by the content of my posting, and I’ll acknowledge your point on the tone of it.
The current President and Congress do have a responsibility for what is going on right now, and that is why I mentioned the next election in 2010, and the potential for the Republicans to gain a governing majority. 2010 will be the report card for what Obama and the Dems are doing. If, as some strongly contend, he is destroying America with his Socialism, the voters will install representatives to change that course.
Mike’s America said:
@mooseburger: ” Back last Summer, the R’s were calling him every name in the book. Said he was pallin’ around with Terrorists. Not wearing a Flag Pin. Joe the plumber thinks he’s a Socialist.”
Yeah, funny how we were called scaremongers when we brought all that up and now even some Dems realize we were telling the truth.
As for “There are less Republicans left out there, and “
Really? Just a few weeks ago the Rasmussen Report showed more people indicating a preference for generic GOP congressional candidates than Democrats.
Of course you wouldn’t know that reading your daily Moveon.org talking points.
Mike, I think one problem with the scaremonger thing and the Republicans scaring the people for a vote is it only works so long. It has been over used and has lost it’s effectiveness. Even if I would accept the premise that some Dems are seeing the truth and the “Rasmussen Report showed more people indicating a preference for generic GOP congressional candidates than Democrats.”, If slinging mud and scaremongering is the main theme in the next election cycle, I say that the R’s aren’t playing their best hand. In the end, the Boy who cried Wolf did see a real wolf, but people were conditioned already not to get worked up about it anymore.
The farther away from the Bush years we get, and the more time goes on, that helps to separate the R’s from the Bush era, and the more recovery the Republicans will have in general in the eyes of the voters.
And Mike, I do try to be informed, but I don’t go to Moveon.org and get talking points. I try to go to places that have some thoughtful discussion from both perspectives. That’s one reason I drop by here.
@mooseburger said: “Mike, I think one problem with the scaremonger thing and the Republicans scaring the people for a vote is it only works so long. It has been over used and has lost it’s effectiveness.”
Really?
During the election all our warnings were dismissed. Obama effectively neutralized the truth by saying the GOP was going to scare people
“They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”–Obama June 2008
Joe the Plumber warned of redistribution of wealth and that’s exactly what we have.
People now are just starting to wake up to the reality of who and what Obama really is. WE TOLD YOU SO!
You can’t keep covering up the truth forever Mossy.
Remember the words of Lincoln? “You can’t fool all the people all the time.”
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
Gaffa,
One could just as easily argue that Clinton was seen as being bi-partisan because *conservatives* were willing to work with *him*. Bipartisanship is a two-way street. Clinton was far more to the center than Obama.
Expectations play a big role as well. During the presidential campaign, Obama talked like more of a centrist. Now in office, he’s acted farther left than any president in the past 40 years. The conservatives and many moderates can’t be blamed for expressing “Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me!”
Likewise, can you blame the GOP for opposing what they see a radically left-wing ideas? Their platform is specifically designed to oppose radical left-wing ideology.
Over the past few decades, Democrats have always fought against Republican tax cuts, but Republicans didn’t get all pissy and cry “Democratic Party – the party of “NO.” It seems to me that the left has simply been bigger whiners than the right, and it’s not very becoming.
Yeah I remember both John Major and Tony Blair both saying something along the lines that they wanted to move away from the bearpit partisan atmosphere of Westminster and have more consensus politics- when they first became PM. However that soon went out of the window – particularly when people didn’t agree with them.
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
Happens everywhere, doesn’t it?
Jeff V
mooseburger
15 years ago
Mike’s America said:
“During the election all our warnings were dismissed. Obama effectively neutralized the truth by saying the GOP was going to scare people
“They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”–Obama June 2008”
Mike, I think that really makes my point. If the scare tactic had not been the staple of the Republican strategy, along with basically the same message or “Bush Light” policies, Obama could not have neutralized anything. I do understand that your core values and principles being defined as tactics is demeaning, and I really don’t mean it that way. It is just that the same thing that hasn’t worked against Obama in the past probably isn’t going to work this time.
“People now are just starting to wake up to the reality of who and what Obama really is. WE TOLD YOU SO!
You can’t keep covering up the truth forever Mossy.”
I think that is debatable whether most Americans support the President or not. I am sure polls can be found to support either side of that issue. But here again, waiting for Obama to implode and pointing fingers and saying “I told you so” still leaves the Republicans fate in someone else’s hands and not their own. And a strategy of not only hoping for the Presidents failure, but the risk of being perceived as also working to help enable that failure will probably be judged harshly by many voters. It also gives Obama an out if he does fail on some of his agenda. The best thing Republicans can do to stop Obama is to come up with some solutions and reasoned arguments for why Obama’s policies are not good for America, and find a leader who can compete with him on his level. This would require accepting some blame and acknowledging the problems that the voters believe are real and important and offering credible solutions and not the same tired arguments. The best thing you can do to help Obama succeed is to continue the last election’s arguments, challenge his citizenship, try to attach Anti- American labels on him, and declare that he isn’t your President and that he doesn’t speak for you. It just looks like a bunch of sore losers, and many folks tune out to this before they even give a fair hearing to any legitimate proposals offered up.
@mooseburger: As usual, you totally miss the point. Republicans were not lying about Obama being a radical. If there was any scaremongering going on it was for a very good reason. And we are seeing why that is true every single day.
And you act as if the GOP hasn’t offered any alternatives to Obama’s radical agenda. What planet are you living on? I read the policy proposals from the GOP House and Senate leaders on nearly a daily basis. What’s preventing you from doing the same?
Ignorance is no excuse. And so much of what you say is willfully ignorant.
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
The media has probably had the eates influence on any perception that Obama has neutralized the GOP. The media (with few notable exceptions (Fox, Rush) do everything they can to keep the ugly truth out of view of the large segment of the American public that “gets its news” from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. When Gerard Ford tripped or bumped his head, you saw it on the news at 6 an 10, for days after it happened. Obama’s gaffes hardly see the light of day because this would require the media finding fault with the man whom they exalted. The higher the pedestal, the more stalwart the defense.
This is precisely why I take very little stock in most polls of the American public. The majority of the public that relies on the MSM for fair and balanced reporting is getting neither, and surveys of that same segment of the population regularly fail to demonstrate anywhere near the understanding of national and international events as compared to groups who refer to less biased (or even conservatively biased) alternative news sources. And you surely won’t find THAT reported in the MSM.
How are the conservatives or even moderates supposed to compete with the leftist blither-blather that pours out of the boob tube each night from the MSM? Naturally, it becomes necessary to remind the zombified public of perceived dangers at the hands of the left, doesn’t it? If the MSM does little other than fawn all over the Obama’s, how else are the media-dependent mesmerati gping to hear opposi viewiponts, or should there be no mention of any significant gaffes (or worse) from Obama? If the liberals are content to be receiving left-leaning tatment from the mainstream media, clearly that leaves a void for other more critical sources to fill.
The truth, I believe, is that the liberals are very happy to have the media as its protector and intercessor, even though these same liberals claim not to believe that the media is in its corner. Why should they admit such an unfair advantage, and possibly risk the advantage? Liberals might be idealists and dismissive of some of the dangers that Obama’s agenda poses, but they aren’t stupid enough to risk giving up such an advantage. In fact, I find it amazing that republicans have been as successful as they have been.
The next 3 3/4 years are going to be interesting. And if that’s not the understatement of the year, I don’t know what else could be.
Speaking of Bush, he showed up at the Wounded Warriors Road 2 Recovery bike ride going through Cleburne on Saturday.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/around_town/the_scene/BushWatch-President-Encourages-Wounded-Warriors.html
President Bush IS a good man with a kind heart. I miss him. sigh.
@texas: Thanks for sharing that.
Here’s an excerpt from your link:
Can you imagine Obama doing something good that he didn’t want any publicity for? He wouldn’t even go visit wounded soldiers during the campaign because the military wouldn’t allow the press to cover it.
Bush is a good man and much missed. Obama makes his legacy look better and better with every passing day.
obama is all show and no go. i am tired of his rejects saying that we need to give him a chance and that if we did we would see the great things he can/will do. bush was never really given a chance, he was bashed from the start and then with him not even in office for a full year we get nailled by 9/11. bush is a kind hearted man who i think really did try his best to do the right thing for this country. obama just wants to win the game, he doesn’t realize that this isn’t a game it is real life. obama’s oints are dropping and i almost, almost feel sorry for his groupies, they are seeing that they were a means to an end. i can’t see obama getting re-elected, i just can’t there are so many who now feel they have been duped and are pissed. i am glad the tea parties are now finally getting attention in the national media.
The frightening thing is that Carter’s numbers and Nixon’s numbers appeared to be the highest overall and look what happened to their Presidencies. Being popular is no guarantee of success nor is being unpopular any guarantee of failure.
I don’t disagree at all with this article, but this has been building up for decades. There has always been some level of polarization in the US, but it seems to me that every polarizing event since Chappaquiddick created even greater division. Watergate stirred up the Left, and Bill Clinton stirred up the Right. Bush’s victory in 2000 really triggered the Left into action, and now Obama is escalating the fervor again for the Right. Sometimes it feels like gang retaliation.
I’d like to recommend a book for everyone who visits this site and is concerned about the politics of this moment: Neal Boortz’s “Somebody’s Gotta Say It” published in 2007 by HarperCollins Publishers.
Boortz, a self-proclaimed Libertarian, tells it the way he sees it, and takes on a variety of controversial issues and political parties. He is an equal opportunity critic, though he seems particularly fond of taking on “liberals.” He finished the manuscript for the book in 2006, two years before Obama was elected President, but the chapter “The Democrats’ (Secret) Plan for America” is eerily prescient.
The things he predicts happening if (or when) the Democrats retain control of Congress and seize the White House are all falling into place; it feels like I’m reading history! Boortz certainly has the Dem’s agenda pegged. For example:
Make the (evil) Rich cover the tab
Shift Social Security and Medicare taxes to the “Rich”
End the home mortgage deduction
Socialize medicine
Provide “government”-paid child care
Allow government to impose limits on executive compensation for private companies
Repeal the Second Amendment
and much, much more. All to be achieved, of course, with compliance by the majority of citizens – such compliance obtained by means of class warfare, pandering, empty promises, and coercion (oops, I meant to say “persuasion.”)
Ain’t never gonna happen, right?
Jeff V
O’Dumbo talks a good game, if you are an enemy of the U.S. and speaking someone else’s words. Take away the prompter and he speaks exactly like a druggie on a Chicago street corner. ‘Man, I can afford my drugs unless Whitey caughs up some more welfare money’. O’Dumbo is not only still smoking, he’s still smoking dope.
@ruaqtpi2: Jeff, perhaps you can cite some examples of how the Right made Chappaquiddick a partisan issue at the time. From what I’ve read it was the DEMS who gathered every top dog in the party at the Kennedy compound in the immediate aftermath to map out a political strategy that made the issue partisan.
I caution you to avoid the “both sides do it” line of moral equivalence which Democrats have used for years to avoid any accountability for their conduct.
@ruaqtpi2:
I happen to be reading that book right now as a matter of fact.
Excellent read. Quintessential Boortz.
He has the remarkable talent of making you laugh, nod your head in agreement, and then be ticked off all within a page or two.
The most salient polling statistic in the ’08 election is one the JournoList zampolit MSM has suppressed completely. In the final polling in Ohio, Obama won 40,000 fewer votes in ’08 than JOHN KERRY WON IN ’04.
This means that a large number of Ohioans never voted Republican in ’08 and stayed home because the silly RINO at the top of the Repub ticket was an Obama-lite.
Karl Rove was rejected by the senile moron at the top of the ticket because the MSM hated Karl and his successful courting of The Silent Majority, which still exists at a rate of 35% conservative to 20% libtard, among a dozen polls taken over the last decade.
In other words, in ’08 the US was still a center-right country, though neither candidate was close to the center, with McCain center-left at his best and only correct on Iraq.
This from Braveheart:” You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.”
I believe that we are witnessing a man governing our nation who believes the people of our country exist to provide him with position. Even his statement to the outnumbered Republicans,”I won,” is very telling about this one man show exhibitionist.
We need to be Bravehearts all in times like these.
Your figures actually show that it is (R)z who are polarizing force in America today … “The Party of NO!” … “The Audacity of Nope!”
Your figures actually show how unsupportive (R)z are to (D) presidents and how much more supportive (D)z are to (R) presidents.
Obama – (R) support 27
Clinton – (R) support 26
Average (R) for (D) President support 26.5
Bush II – (D) support 36
Bush I – (D) support 41
Average (D) support for (R) President 38.5
(D)z are almost 50% more supportive of a president from the opposite party. This would suggest to some that (D)z are better Americans
What supports this contention that it is (R)z who are the partisan problem, (R)z skew most from the (I)z
Obama
(I) – 57
(R)- 27
Diff = 30
Clinton
(I) – 47
(R)- 26
Diff = 21
Average (R) support difference from (I)z = 25.5
Bush II
(I) – 56
(R)- 36
Diff = 20
Bush I
(I) – 48
(R)- 41
Diff = 9
Average (D) support difference from (I)z = 14.5
From this comparison, (D)z are almost 100% more like other Americans, than are (R)z. Clearly it is the (R)z who create the most polarized of the responses against a President who is not from their party – The party of sou(R) g(R)apes as it were. (D)z and (I)z are more similar, form the bulk of the population and support the president more, no matter which party he comes from.
It also suggests (D)z are more Americans first and partisans second. By comparison (R)z are the more aberrant and political first.
Red-Artery
Grand… Red, another Canuck with their US analyses.
And could that polarization be because conservatives don’t like the domestic policies of Euro-socialist Obama, Red? It is not “partisan”, but a concept of America as a capitalist nation vs semi-socialist (at this writing…) nation. And that is happening because no POTUS has been this left, and had the far left also in control of the US purse strings.
In that context, what is surprising about the polarization? This is the first sweep of power, this far left, to evaluate in these terms. You should be paying attention to that fact.
Ultimately, what’s your point? Fiscal conservatives ( which evidently there are more than a few still alive here in the US… of both parties) are not happy with the domestic tack Obama’s taking. Surely you aren’t suggesting we STFU and just blindly follow the herd so your stats happily fall into place? In which case your homogeneous notion of what is “American” bears revisiting.
ru: “… All to be achieved, of course, with compliance by the majority of citizens – such compliance obtained by means of class warfare, pandering, empty promises, and coercion (oops, I meant to say “persuasion.”)”
RA: Well if ru’z statement is true, then one of the following must be true:
(a) (R)z are to stupid make a ‘persuasive’ argument, and shouldn’t govern
(b) (R)z are equally persuasive, but their ‘argument stinks’, and they shouldn’t govern
(c) (R)z are equally persuasive and have good arguments, but ‘Democracy is stupid’.
Red-Artery
Red,
You need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.
As for whether Independents answer polls more like Democrats, I’d have to agree with you. And if you add up Indies and Dems, you do get a majority of the population. So, you can reasonably state that Democrats answer polls the same as most Americans, although you have to “double dip” to make that claim.
Nonetheless, answering polls in the same manner as another group doesn’t necessarily make you a “better American.” It might make a person a better Lemming, or possibly a better gang member, but just following the majority doesn’t put one in the right. That’s called mob rule, and is one of the reasons why our country is NOT a democracy, despite popular opinion. It’s also why the U.S. Senate members are not apportioned according to population (though the U.S. House of Representatives is so apportioned.)
I’m not so sure that Mike’s chart is all that useful, other than to catch a snapshot view of public opinion. To really appreciate the chart, one has to put the numbers in context with respect to factors such as national and international events, the public’s opinion of congress, current events, and the general mood of the country.
Let me get this straight, though. For the past 8 years, it was patriotic to criticize and go against the president, or so the liberals kept saying. To criticize the presidient is to say “NO” to his proposals (at least, that’s what the Democrats did for the last 8 years.) But now that a Democrat is in the Oval Office, the word “NO” offends you? Perhaps the (D) in Democrat stands for (D)ouble standard?
I like it; “(D)emocrats, the (D)ouble Standard Party.” Or the way Obama has been acting lately – as Wuss-in-Chief: “Democrats, the party of ‘No’ (Balls)”
Do you honestly believe Obama when he says “I believe we can all live in a world free of nuclear weapons”? Do you think other countries like Iran and North Korea will gladly rid themselves of nuclear armaments? If you believe these two ideas, you are living in a fantasy world. I’m sure it’s a nice world with lots of “warm fuzzies”, but it ain’t reality.
Jeff V
ru: “… You need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it. Nonetheless, answering polls in the same manner as another group doesn’t necessarily make you a “better American” …”
RA: Jeff-ru … You need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.
Red Artery
Mata-1947-Technology: In that context, what is surprising about the polarization?
RA: Well your point seems to try to suggest that Obama was polarizing and that was bad, because he said he won’t be. However, you seem to be arguing that your polarized views are good AND because you are polarized, that makes Obama polarizing …. !?
Mata-no-overhead-cam-Technology: “… Ultimately, what’s your point?”
RA: My point is that (D)z and (I)z support (R) presidents way more than (R) support (D) presidents. Consequently (R)z not support Obama is what comes outta a polarized group like the (R)z and it is a measure of how polarizing (R)z are, not of Obama, ’cause (R) would have opposed whomever aint an (R)
Mata-push-rod-technology: “… Surely you aren’t suggesting we STFU”
RA: I am suggesting you Study The Facts Used in your ‘(R)gument’ ….
Red Artery
Yo, Red… let’s try to stick with comments instead of your overactive imagination.. as well as keyboard (since you’ve managed to innundate this site overwhelmingly in the past few hours with your Canuck presence)
I did *not* suggest the Obama polarization was “bad”. Quite in fact, this nation has been “polarized” and divided since it’s inception, with varying degrees of slightly more than half weighing in each election for one candidate over another. The great divide that the left likes to lament publicly is more than common… and very American.
It was you… Mr. Canuck… who suggested that it had to be “the right” creating the polarization. Let’s get the facts straight, shall we? I’m only suggesting that.. in this early segment, and in light of Obama’s extreme Euro-socialism of American out of the gate… such polarization is not unusual.
Coast to Coast am radio with Red.
@Red: Oh yeah, it’s the Republicans fault Obama is soooo partisan.
Put down the Kool Aid Canuck!
Mike … I noticed that you failed to engage the math provided showing the partisanship emanates from the (R)z and not Obama.
I also noticed your (R)gument was to state your conclusion. That’s not an argument. It’s like … ahhhh … partisan rhetoric … Eh!?
Red Artery
@Red: @Red: Your “math” is meaningless manipulation. It has nothing at all to do with the reality we are experiencing in the United States at present.
Obama is not supported by Republicans because he totally dismisses and is arrogant and even derisive towards anything and everything we believe in.
Get it?
Keep sipping that joy juice and you’ll end up brain dead…. or has that happened already?
Irrespective of such figures & out of interest- who was the last President who was considered to be bipartisan?
@GaffaUK: I don’t know how you would quantify such a thing. It’s totally subjective.
Many of us thought that Bush tried too hard to be bipartisan. What did it get him? Nothing.
@Mike
But that’s the thing – Bush was considered divisive. To be seen to be bipartisan – it needs to be someone who is consider bipartisan by both sides. I mean Clinton worked with a republican congress – which sort of worked on and off – but he was hated by the right. Howabout Ike?
Mike: “… Your “math” is meaningless … ”
RA: And science too …. don’t forget Scientific Research is meaningless too, there Mike …
I am curious, did you find your OWN selection and use use of the Pew Survey meaningless and manipulative, or just mine use of YOUR figures, because it didn’t support your ‘belief’ …?
It doesn’t suggest a strong (R)gument there Mike when your figures prove you wrong and you can raise a mathematical response … just a weak ideological platitude
Just to help you out there Mike, you haven’t been able to muster a mathematical counter to your own figures which, when examined, show the partisan problem is the (R)z, not whomever the (D) President happens to be at this time …
Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book
Don’t know much about the french I took
Don’t know much about geography
Don’t know much trigonometry
Don’t know much about algebra …
Red
Mike: “… I don’t know how you would quantify such a thing. It’s totally subjective.”
That’s why if you look at the PEW Survey I’ve provided in my article “Obama Most Partisan and Polarizing President in Modern Era”, it mathematically and Scientifically show Obama the most divisive President ever …
Gaf: “… How about Ike?”
RA: The Nazis found him the Most Divisive Commander in the Modern Era … 😉
Red
Red: You can keep repeating your point over and over and over but it doesn’t make it valid.
You totally miss the mark here and I don’t feel like repeating myself.
Looks like RED is attempting to be next inline for TOTUS operator.
Good luck….red….
Interesting little factoid:
Clearly Republicans have a more positive outlook on Dems than the other way around.
If that’s changed, it can only be because of Obama’s hard core partisanship.
Mike found a counter point!
I notice the two parties are fairly close during the Reagan Era, (D)z supporting an (R) president.
You get a very immediate and negative reaction from (R)z to a (D) president during the ‘Gingrich era’ (when this whole hyper-partisanship was invented by Newt), with (R)z not supporting a (D) president. Then (D)z and the American population at large react very negatively to GOP and the Ken Starr investigate-for-years-until-you-find-something political witch hunt. As the chart shows, (R)z were so pissed at the Newt/Starr approach, they supported Clinton during the witch hunt.
Then (D)z get behind the American president (even though it is “W”) until he begins to demonstrate why he’ll become known as the worst president very.
Red
The GOP leadership has been attacking Obama with exceptional stridency. That’s a big reason for the low overall GOP approval. 35% of the electorate are Republicans. 73% of Republicans don’t approve. That’s 25% of the electorate who are in the “polarized-negative” group. But this is misleading.
Look at the poll numbers. He’s got huge approval among Dems. He’s got 57% of the independents (almost as good as Reagan and as good as Bush), despite all of the many tough issues he’s been presented with — right at the beginning. He clearly pisses off Republicans, but no more than Clinton did — each had about 27% GOP approval. But Obama leads Clinton among both Democrats and Independents, and Democrats substantially outnumber Republicans among the electorate as a whole. Obama looks more polarizing than Clinton, simply because Obama is more popular with Democrats than Clinton was. The last “non-polarizing” Democrat was Carter, who won several Southern states and who didn’t have major crises at the beginning of his Presidency with which to deal.
Let’s look at another current poll:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/06/Poll-US-backs-Obama-on-economy/UPI-61871239060670/
He did, indeed, win the election. And he continues to win, on the most important issues, post-election, despite wishes to the contrary among those who didn’t support him.
I continue to think that the politics of this are absolutely fascinating. The GOP appears to the public to be in unanimous opposition (GOP moderates remaining silent and leaving the megaphone for the exclusive use of the conservatives) — the country now believes that the GOP is doing and will continue to do everything it can to prevent this President from succeeding. The GOP is betting everything on Obama failing on the economy. But if the economy recovers, the GOP has ensured that Obama will get 100% of the credit.
It’s a bold gamble. The gutless Democrats were opposed to Iraq, but wouldn’t take the political risk of opposing it. They were opposed to the Bush tax cuts, but wouldn’t take the political risk of opposing them.
But the GOP — real cajones. I admire that. “All in,” to use a poker term.
Who’s got the hole card?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, as usual you have it backwards. You and Red make such a pretty pair.
Larry:
Of course the GOP is the loyal opposition and I hope they continue to be.
Obamais taking this country down a path of socialism. As a citizen I detest that and hope the members of the GOP have a spine and articulate conservatism to throw back the socialist Democrat party.
Obama and the congress to an oath of office to uphold the Constitution not trash and go around it with what their doing with spending, taking control of the private sector, attacking private citizens, giving taxpayer money to cronies like ACORN and attempt to pass card check to pay off their union buddies.
This is why Obama is detested by us because we see him for what he really is not like the drones who support him 100% and idolize him.
Obama is a “Pop culture” politician not a “statesman. he will continue to spew populace rhetoric claiming he’s for the middle man while he goes the around the Constitution to make this country something the founder fathers despised and so shall we.
Expect more Obama criticism in the future larry.
It’s not surprising that the polls show such a dip on the Republican side of Obama’s approval. Back last Summer, the R’s were calling him every name in the book. Said he was pallin’ around with Terrorists. Not wearing a Flag Pin. Joe the plumber thinks he’s a Socialist. You remember all that stuff. They are still at it too, every day and all day. Too bad for the Republicans that most of America got sick of the stupid grade school level campaign waged by McCain.
Too bad that Mr. Bush couldn’t wait any longer and had to address the economy before the election, instead of after like he had probably hoped.
There are less Republicans left out there, and the ones left are more die hard and firm in their partisan ways. This skews the poll to start with. Obama did say he won. I am glad he did, he has a responsibility to the majority of Americans who voted for him to do what he promised during the campaign. That is what the majority voted to have happen when they elected him.
The only polls that really count are the election last November, the election in November of 2012, and the House and Senate in 2010. News stories will come and go, as will opinion polls. I expect the polls will show the partisan divide getting even steeper as time goes on. I don’t think Obama is worried about that anymore. With a steady drumbeat of bile from the Republicans, why should he?
Michael Steele said it best when he said he was “proud that you laid the big goose egg on his desk” when there were zero Republican votes for the stimulus bill. Pride goeth before a fall, and in this case, afterwards as well.
Without any governing majority, at least until perhaps 2010, pride is about all the conservatives have at this point. Their only strategy is that Obama fails and they can say we told you so. If the economy gets better and unemployment improves significantly, all the R’s can say then is that it would have happened anyway.
That is putting your own fate into someone else’s hands.
It is pretty clear that Obama will not get any Republican support for much of anything he wants to do. So like him or hate him, the man is a chess player, just watch as he stays about two moves ahead of the game, gets his agenda accomplished for the most part, and reaps the political benefits of being demonized by the party of NO who brought us the sad state of the economy we have today.
He is making the Republicans own their failures, and it is no wonder the polls reflect the dwindling population of Republicans displeasure with him. When God, Gays and Guns, Pallin’ with Terrorists, Socialist anti American rhetoric stop working well enough to win elections, and there are no new ideas except more of the same, anger and hate and bile is a natural result. It’s about all the Republicans have left at this point.
Just making friends everywhere he goes?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,617868,00.html
April 7, 2009
Obama Bashing in Bavaria and Paris
Hummmmm and so fast tooo.
Catherine
it is those after action reports that get you.
@mooseburger:
Bit cranky today? I will say, mooseburger, this is your most bile filled comment in here to date. Also noticed is that you failed to acknowledge any of the responsibility of our current president and Congress, serving in or running for office, for the state of this nation today. Their hands are far from clean, pot/kettle tactics are no way to change hearts and minds.
Here’s some math for ya Red. Maybe (R)z don’t agree with (D)z presidents because (R)z are actually informed. It’s not that democracy is stupid, just the (D)z that vote:
The 12 “Zogby” questions were duplicated, one on the Keating scandal was added for extra balance. The results from Obama voters were virtually IDENTICAL in both polls.
Here are the highlights:
35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.
18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.
McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.
Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.
Those that got “congressional control” correct voted 56-43 for McCain.
Those that got “congressional control” wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.
The poll also asked voters to name all the media sources from which they got information.
Those “exposed” to Fox News got “congressional control” correct 64-25 (+39)
Those “exposed” to CNN got “congressional control” correct 48-38 (+10)
Those “exposed” to Network news got “congressional control” correct 48-39 (+9)
Those “exposed” to print media got “congressional control” correct 52-37 (+15)
Those “exposed” to MSNBC got “congressional control” correct 55-35 (+20)
Those “exposed” to talk radio got “congressional control” correct 61-29 (+32)
Voters in the “South” had the best response rate on “congressional control” (+22)
Voters in the “Northeast” had the worst response rate on “congressional control” (+9)
@mooseburger: ” Back last Summer, the R’s were calling him every name in the book. Said he was pallin’ around with Terrorists. Not wearing a Flag Pin. Joe the plumber thinks he’s a Socialist.”
Yeah, funny how we were called scaremongers when we brought all that up and now even some Dems realize we were telling the truth.
As for “There are less Republicans left out there, and “
Really? Just a few weeks ago the Rasmussen Report showed more people indicating a preference for generic GOP congressional candidates than Democrats.
Of course you wouldn’t know that reading your daily Moveon.org talking points.
Missy said:
@mooseburger:
Bit cranky today? I will say, mooseburger, this is your most bile filled comment in here to date. Also noticed is that you failed to acknowledge any of the responsibility of our current president and Congress, serving in or running for office, for the state of this nation today. Their hands are far from clean, pot/kettle tactics are no way to change hearts and minds.
Missy:
I don’t think it is a bile filled post, it just seems like it because my views generally go against the political flow in these parts. If I were twice as bile filled against Obama in my post, I doubt I would get much of a peep except maybe a big Amen Brother. I might be just a bit cranky today though….like I sometimes tell folks, I’m not trying to be an A**hole, it just come easy for me. I stand by the content of my posting, and I’ll acknowledge your point on the tone of it.
The current President and Congress do have a responsibility for what is going on right now, and that is why I mentioned the next election in 2010, and the potential for the Republicans to gain a governing majority. 2010 will be the report card for what Obama and the Dems are doing. If, as some strongly contend, he is destroying America with his Socialism, the voters will install representatives to change that course.
Mike’s America said:
@mooseburger: ” Back last Summer, the R’s were calling him every name in the book. Said he was pallin’ around with Terrorists. Not wearing a Flag Pin. Joe the plumber thinks he’s a Socialist.”
Yeah, funny how we were called scaremongers when we brought all that up and now even some Dems realize we were telling the truth.
As for “There are less Republicans left out there, and “
Really? Just a few weeks ago the Rasmussen Report showed more people indicating a preference for generic GOP congressional candidates than Democrats.
Of course you wouldn’t know that reading your daily Moveon.org talking points.
Mike, I think one problem with the scaremonger thing and the Republicans scaring the people for a vote is it only works so long. It has been over used and has lost it’s effectiveness. Even if I would accept the premise that some Dems are seeing the truth and the “Rasmussen Report showed more people indicating a preference for generic GOP congressional candidates than Democrats.”, If slinging mud and scaremongering is the main theme in the next election cycle, I say that the R’s aren’t playing their best hand. In the end, the Boy who cried Wolf did see a real wolf, but people were conditioned already not to get worked up about it anymore.
The farther away from the Bush years we get, and the more time goes on, that helps to separate the R’s from the Bush era, and the more recovery the Republicans will have in general in the eyes of the voters.
And Mike, I do try to be informed, but I don’t go to Moveon.org and get talking points. I try to go to places that have some thoughtful discussion from both perspectives. That’s one reason I drop by here.
@mooseburger said: “Mike, I think one problem with the scaremonger thing and the Republicans scaring the people for a vote is it only works so long. It has been over used and has lost it’s effectiveness.”
Really?
During the election all our warnings were dismissed. Obama effectively neutralized the truth by saying the GOP was going to scare people
Joe the Plumber warned of redistribution of wealth and that’s exactly what we have.
People now are just starting to wake up to the reality of who and what Obama really is. WE TOLD YOU SO!
You can’t keep covering up the truth forever Mossy.
Remember the words of Lincoln? “You can’t fool all the people all the time.”
Gaffa,
One could just as easily argue that Clinton was seen as being bi-partisan because *conservatives* were willing to work with *him*. Bipartisanship is a two-way street. Clinton was far more to the center than Obama.
Expectations play a big role as well. During the presidential campaign, Obama talked like more of a centrist. Now in office, he’s acted farther left than any president in the past 40 years. The conservatives and many moderates can’t be blamed for expressing “Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me!”
Likewise, can you blame the GOP for opposing what they see a radically left-wing ideas? Their platform is specifically designed to oppose radical left-wing ideology.
Over the past few decades, Democrats have always fought against Republican tax cuts, but Republicans didn’t get all pissy and cry “Democratic Party – the party of “NO.” It seems to me that the left has simply been bigger whiners than the right, and it’s not very becoming.
Jeff V
@Ruaqtpi2
Yeah I remember both John Major and Tony Blair both saying something along the lines that they wanted to move away from the bearpit partisan atmosphere of Westminster and have more consensus politics- when they first became PM. However that soon went out of the window – particularly when people didn’t agree with them.
Happens everywhere, doesn’t it?
Jeff V
Mike’s America said:
“During the election all our warnings were dismissed. Obama effectively neutralized the truth by saying the GOP was going to scare people
“They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”–Obama June 2008”
Mike, I think that really makes my point. If the scare tactic had not been the staple of the Republican strategy, along with basically the same message or “Bush Light” policies, Obama could not have neutralized anything. I do understand that your core values and principles being defined as tactics is demeaning, and I really don’t mean it that way. It is just that the same thing that hasn’t worked against Obama in the past probably isn’t going to work this time.
“People now are just starting to wake up to the reality of who and what Obama really is. WE TOLD YOU SO!
You can’t keep covering up the truth forever Mossy.”
I think that is debatable whether most Americans support the President or not. I am sure polls can be found to support either side of that issue. But here again, waiting for Obama to implode and pointing fingers and saying “I told you so” still leaves the Republicans fate in someone else’s hands and not their own. And a strategy of not only hoping for the Presidents failure, but the risk of being perceived as also working to help enable that failure will probably be judged harshly by many voters. It also gives Obama an out if he does fail on some of his agenda. The best thing Republicans can do to stop Obama is to come up with some solutions and reasoned arguments for why Obama’s policies are not good for America, and find a leader who can compete with him on his level. This would require accepting some blame and acknowledging the problems that the voters believe are real and important and offering credible solutions and not the same tired arguments. The best thing you can do to help Obama succeed is to continue the last election’s arguments, challenge his citizenship, try to attach Anti- American labels on him, and declare that he isn’t your President and that he doesn’t speak for you. It just looks like a bunch of sore losers, and many folks tune out to this before they even give a fair hearing to any legitimate proposals offered up.
@mooseburger: As usual, you totally miss the point. Republicans were not lying about Obama being a radical. If there was any scaremongering going on it was for a very good reason. And we are seeing why that is true every single day.
And you act as if the GOP hasn’t offered any alternatives to Obama’s radical agenda. What planet are you living on? I read the policy proposals from the GOP House and Senate leaders on nearly a daily basis. What’s preventing you from doing the same?
Ignorance is no excuse. And so much of what you say is willfully ignorant.
The media has probably had the eates influence on any perception that Obama has neutralized the GOP. The media (with few notable exceptions (Fox, Rush) do everything they can to keep the ugly truth out of view of the large segment of the American public that “gets its news” from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. When Gerard Ford tripped or bumped his head, you saw it on the news at 6 an 10, for days after it happened. Obama’s gaffes hardly see the light of day because this would require the media finding fault with the man whom they exalted. The higher the pedestal, the more stalwart the defense.
This is precisely why I take very little stock in most polls of the American public. The majority of the public that relies on the MSM for fair and balanced reporting is getting neither, and surveys of that same segment of the population regularly fail to demonstrate anywhere near the understanding of national and international events as compared to groups who refer to less biased (or even conservatively biased) alternative news sources. And you surely won’t find THAT reported in the MSM.
How are the conservatives or even moderates supposed to compete with the leftist blither-blather that pours out of the boob tube each night from the MSM? Naturally, it becomes necessary to remind the zombified public of perceived dangers at the hands of the left, doesn’t it? If the MSM does little other than fawn all over the Obama’s, how else are the media-dependent mesmerati gping to hear opposi viewiponts, or should there be no mention of any significant gaffes (or worse) from Obama? If the liberals are content to be receiving left-leaning tatment from the mainstream media, clearly that leaves a void for other more critical sources to fill.
The truth, I believe, is that the liberals are very happy to have the media as its protector and intercessor, even though these same liberals claim not to believe that the media is in its corner. Why should they admit such an unfair advantage, and possibly risk the advantage? Liberals might be idealists and dismissive of some of the dangers that Obama’s agenda poses, but they aren’t stupid enough to risk giving up such an advantage. In fact, I find it amazing that republicans have been as successful as they have been.
The next 3 3/4 years are going to be interesting. And if that’s not the understatement of the year, I don’t know what else could be.
Jeff V