Obama Hits Anti-Government Nerves

Understanding the decline in the president's popularity

Steve Chapman | August 31, 2009

Barack Obama came into office championing change, and he apparently assumed that if Americans voted for him, it was because they wanted the future to be different from what went before. Actually, what they wanted was a future much like the not-so-distant past—before the financial crisis, before the recession, before the Iraq war, before the most unpopular president since the invention of polling.

If voters had wanted a sharp ideological shift, they could have voted for Democratic candidates more identified with Great Society-style government—Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or even Dennis Kucinich. Obama got the early endorsement of Ted Kennedy, but like Bill Clinton before him, he won because he distanced himself from Kennedy-style liberalism. His promise of change was eloquent enough to motivate the left wing of his party but vague enough to make him acceptable to people in the middle.

Among independents, Obama beat John McCain by an 8-point margin. The reason John Kerry lost and Obama won, as Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has noted, was not liberal voters: They voted for both in the same proportion. The difference was that while Kerry had a 9-point edge over his Republican opponent among moderates, Obama carried them by 21 points. Obama also did significantly better among conservatives than Kerry.

After the election, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee Mike Duncan noted that the Democratic nominee supported offshore oil drilling, merit pay for teachers, a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, more troops in Afghanistan, and an end to wasteful federal earmarks. "Put simply," he said, "Barack Obama just ran the most successful moderate Republican presidential campaign since Dwight Eisenhower."

In the weeks after the election, amid talk of a second Great Depression, Obama was often compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt. But by the time FDR took office, the economy had been in free fall for more than three years, creating mass desperation.

The recession that began in December 2007, though scary, never remotely resembled the Great Depression. During last year's campaign, the situation was more like 1952 than 1932, with the electorate sick of war and tired of a party that had dominated the presidency for too long. When Americans elected Eisenhower, they weren't inviting a radical turnabout—just some modest improvements in the status quo. Likewise with Obama.

But the 44th president apparently thought he had a mandate for the expansion of federal power and responsibility, which he has used on everything from bailing out automakers to showering the economy with stimulus dollars to trying to overhaul health insurance. He and his allies have therefore been surprised to face a surge of angry opposition, including some based on wild flights of paranoia.

What they forgot is that the surest way to mobilize American political opposition, irrational as well as rational, is to enlarge the government's role in our lives. Liberals and conservatives disagree on when to distrust the government, but they share the same basic suspicion.

George W. Bush managed to infuriate the Left in the wake of the 9/11 attacks by pushing through the Patriot Act, engaging in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, and commandeering library records. Obama managed to provoke the Right by spending hundreds of billions of dollars and proposing that the government exert more control over medical care.

That conflicts with our persistent strain of anti-government feeling. Obama's election marked no sudden ebbing of this sentiment: Last December, 52 percent of Americans felt the government was "doing too much that should be left to individuals and business"—up from 41 percent in October 2001.

In 1998, 61 percent of Americans said they had confidence in the federal government's ability to handle domestic problems. On the eve of the 2008 election, only 48 percent felt that way.

Even amid the worst recession in decades, most have not changed their minds. Today, more than half say the president's policies go too far in expanding the federal government, and his popularity has declined as a result.

One symbol used by the colonies in their revolt against the king of England was a coiled rattlesnake above the slogan: "Don't tread on me." Obama may be learning that, even for elected leaders, it's still good advice.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

Comments

Tricky Prickears|8.31.09 @ 7:25AM|#

Americans were sold a bag of goods. "Wishful thinking" on the part of the population that elected him. But haven't people realized yet, that any candidate running under the Democratic or Republican ticket is not a real leader? Just another chopped, sliced, diced, pressed and formed, empty suit, yes man, "cheer"leader.

ed|8.31.09 @ 7:36AM|#

Last December, 52 percent of Americans felt the government was "doing too much that should be left to individuals and business"...

That's pathetic. Till you read the rest of it:

...up from 41 percent in October 2001.

What percentage is the tipping point? When do we finally become Britain?

gadsen gadfly|8.31.09 @ 7:46AM|#

"George W. Bush managed to infuriate the Left in the wake of the 9/11 attacks by pushing through the Patriot Act, engaging in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, and commandeering library records. Obama managed to provoke the Right by spending hundreds of billions of dollars and proposing that the government exert more control over medical care."

this seems to ignore the reality that the Left doesn't care that obama hasn't really changed bush's policies and the right didn't care when bush was overseeing an 8 year spending binge

Kyle Jordan|8.31.09 @ 8:13AM|#

"this seems to ignore the reality that the Left doesn't care that obama hasn't really changed bush's policies and the right didn't care when bush was overseeing an 8 year spending binge"

Both parties look at it like when "they" are the ones commiting the actions, it's right. When the other party is doing the same, it's wrong.

It's all about what gives the party power. Compromising their supposed beliefs and ideals no longer phases the majority of politicians it seems so long as they garner power from doing so.

Fluffy|8.31.09 @ 8:18AM|#

I think that the sequence in which Obama did things also demonstrates an unusual political ineptness at governing [as opposed to his political competence at campaigning].

The first thing he did was essentially go back on every promise he had made to his progressive base with regard to government transparency, accountability, and the war on terror.

He also enraged his demoralized opponents by expanding the bailouts, passing a stimulus that focused on union-friendly boondoggle spending instead of direct stimulus to taxpayers, and undertook a nationalization of a chunk of the domestic auto industry that played games with the rule of law and again made big handouts to his union supporters.

So once his base was good and pissed off, and his opponents had climbed off the mat, he finally embarked on the health care scheme. This was going to be the most difficult of all to accomplish, so he needed to do it while his political capital was fresh. He also needed to do it while progressives were willing to compromise. By spending five months pissing the progressives off, once the health care debate started their mood had changed to, "Fuck this, no more compromises, we're at least getting THIS the way we want it." And he also needed to do it while the right was discouraged. Instead he waited until they were so pissed off that it didn't matter how beaten down they were.

I think he thought the reverse would be true - that adopting all the Bush WoT positions would mollify the right and ease the passage of health care, and that the pissed-off progressives would come back as soon as health care was on the table. This was stupid to think. And we're seeing his Presidency flame out as a result.

Xeones|8.31.09 @ 8:35AM|#

And we're seeing his Presidency flame out as a result.

Good.

|8.31.09 @ 8:48AM|#

I agree Fluffy; however I also think there are the irrational intangibles that Dear Leader did not factor in as well. "The Post-Racial President" has been anything but; his political capital from "White Guilt" voters I think has also dmimished greatly. Not so much from the Gates affair, but moreso from the "If you disagree with the President, you are a de facto racist"; not entirely dissimilar form the Bush WoT mantra,"If you are not with us, you are against us"

I think Dear Leader, and by proxy the Dem Congress, have greatly over-estimated his "Cult of Personality" and the intrinsic worth and amount of his political capital.

|8.31.09 @ 9:04AM|#

David Clayton Thomas song.

Barry Loberfeld|8.31.09 @ 9:05AM|#

"What limits the limited welfare state? Even with socialism discredited both theoretically and practically, state control over society grows. Do the apologists for government intervention imagine that we can move isotopically towards the electrified fence of totalitarianism without ever touching it?"

From LIBERALISM: HISTORY AND FUTURE

db|8.31.09 @ 9:23AM|#

"isotopically?"

Methinks you're mixing your math and physical chemistry metaphors.

|8.31.09 @ 9:28AM|#

Not so much from the Gates affair, but moreso from the "If you disagree with the President, you are a de facto racist"; not entirely dissimilar form the Bush WoT mantra,"If you are not with us, you are against us"

To be fair, Bush himself said the latter quote, while I don't think Obama has ever accused his opponents of racism. That's been his less politically savvy supporters' doing.

Of course, if he doesn't believe that to be true, he could come out and say he doesn't think his opponents are racist. That would carry dangers of pissing off the base too, though.

Basically, I think Obama is a pretty skilled manipulator. But he had so few favors to call in when he took office -- and so many to pay back -- that this ambitious course of action was pretty much impossible for him to accomplish from the getgo.

|8.31.09 @ 9:52AM|#

Mostly right, Fluffy. But letting Henry Waxman write both Cap and Trade and the health care bill should be plenty enough to keep the statest progressives happy. I don't think there are enough civil liberty progressives to matter.

Mike M.|8.31.09 @ 10:08AM|#

And now for the good news of the day to get the week started off right: Dear Leader is now down to 46% approval and 53% disapproval among likely voters in the latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll, his worst showing to date.

E.H. Munro|8.31.09 @ 10:13AM|#

Really I think that what the situation boils down to is that when Obama was busily telling America that he'd bring change what America heard was that he was going to clean up Babylon on the Potomac (now whether or not it was rational to expect a corrupt Chicago politician to clean up politics is another matter). Unfortunately the looting is beginning to make even the Bush era pillaging look tame by comparison. Sadly the response will be to elect a Republican to "clean up politics" and the cycle will just repeat itself.

Some Guy|8.31.09 @ 10:40AM|#

this seems to ignore the reality that the Left doesn't care that obama hasn't really changed bush's policies and the right didn't care when bush was overseeing an 8 year spending binge

The left doesn't ever care about multi-billion dollar spending binges, and the right doesn't ever care about civil liberties. So all we are left with is certain bits of the population who will occasionally agree with us for the wrong reasons depending on who is in office.

The Libertarian Guy|8.31.09 @ 10:49AM|#

Where's the ChiTonyChad troika? We need some of that elitist input, stat!

|8.31.09 @ 11:41AM|#

To borrow a phrase from Captain Renault, I'm shocked, shocked that Obama's voting history as a senator was a stronger predictor than his campaign rhetoric of how he would govern once elected!

Tony|8.31.09 @ 11:45AM|#

this seems to ignore the reality that the Left doesn't care that obama hasn't really changed bush's policies and the right didn't care when bush was overseeing an 8 year spending binge

Really? Can you point me to a single progressive who defends Obama's policies in these matters, or a single progressive site that hasn't explicitly condemned them? I would guess you don't spend much time reading progressive voices so I don't see how you think you can speak for them.

|8.31.09 @ 12:09PM|#

Tony, perhaps a few links to such sites your own self would advance your case?

The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 12:15PM|#

Rasmussen does a daily tracking poll on Presidential popularity?

Fuck - end the madness.

|8.31.09 @ 12:31PM|#

It'll all be over soon. The capital markets of the world will pull the plug on our cocaine party and the hangover can begin.

|8.31.09 @ 12:34PM|#

To be fair, ...while I don't think Obama has ever accused his opponents of racism. That's been his less politically savvy supporters' doing.


to be fair, that's not true... except the part about polically un-savvy.

Utoob

|8.31.09 @ 12:37PM|#

I'm shocked, shocked that Obama's voting history as a senator was a stronger predictor than his campaign rhetoric of how he would govern once elected!

Well, he didn't run as one of the most left-wing people in the Senate, did he? His vague campaign slogans didn't reflect that, and the sycophantic media did everything they could to paint him as a moderate. So it's no surprise that lots of people who didn't look closely at him before the election are unpleasantly surprised now.

|8.31.09 @ 12:38PM|#

obama was not elected, george bush was unelected... that's how sorry the electorate is...

|8.31.09 @ 12:42PM|#

electorate "is"? or electorate "are"?


english majors?

JB|8.31.09 @ 1:03PM|#

"because they wanted a radical turnabout"

They did. People were tired of the spending.

It's just that communist cocksuckers like Obama are stupid.

The Angry Optimist|8.31.09 @ 1:12PM|#

ransom - electorate "is".

|8.31.09 @ 1:35PM|#

I agree with Fluffy, but I'd add that Obama's political capital was destined to recede as the memory of Bush faded. And moreso as he made Bush seem less bad by adopting many of his WoT policies.

LeeJoe Cruz|8.31.09 @ 1:42PM|#

Well the saying is true: Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Chapman finally wrote something worth reading.It was a lot like 1952, the last time there wasn't an encumbant as well. As for the American Public somehow mystically waking up with some sort of intelligent perception is risible.

The Greenspan/Bernanke Depression and the outrageous corporatism have made the public hypersensitive about the future of their own Treasury handouts.

Go online to places like AOL.com and see all the opinions and get your own litmus test. A real popular solution? Give every citizen 100,000.00 USD. That'll solve all our problems. When the oncoming currency collapse happens, expect the desperate MOB to support any measure, nomatter how authoritarian.

|8.31.09 @ 1:53PM|#

electorate "is"? or electorate "are"?

english majors?

Its "electorate be", you racist.

Mike M.|8.31.09 @ 1:55PM|#

It was a lot like 1952, the last time there wasn't an encumbant as well.

It's incumbent, not "encumbant", and the previous time this was the case was in 2000, not 1952.

LeeJoe Cruz|8.31.09 @ 2:11PM|#

Al Gore

|8.31.09 @ 2:17PM|#

thx TAO...

it looks right but sounds odd. i get stuck on singulars that refer to plurals.

|8.31.09 @ 2:45PM|#

R C Dean:

oops. i stand corrected, and now everybody knows...

Tony|8.31.09 @ 3:16PM|#

From my perspective Obama is governing exactly how he campaigned and championing exactly the issues he campaigned on. Call it ultra-liberal if you want (to me he's always been a moderate, which is why I didn't support him in the primary), but if you think he's pulled some sort of trick on you then maybe you ought to pay more attention next time. Anyway it's not a crime to govern differently than you campaign. Just ask the moderate, compassionate conservative G.W. Bush.

|8.31.09 @ 3:21PM|#

"the right didn't care when bush was overseeing an 8 year spending binge"

Possibly because this is nonsense.

Bush did not go on a 'spending binge'. Congress funded two wars that Congress (and the American public) overwhelmingly approved.

I am not endorsing either war, or the spending on either. But it's tiresome that the Bush Derangement Syndrome continues to cause people to make this idiotic claim. Our CURRENT President is 'on a spending binge', spending trillions on idiotic social engineering policies. There is a clear difference between funding wars (which we are still doing) and dumping trillions into Socialist busywork and kickbacks.

|8.31.09 @ 3:26PM|#

"Really? Can you point me to a single progressive who defends Obama's policies in these matters, or a single progressive site that hasn't explicitly condemned them?"

Can you point me to a single progressive who has strapped on the black hood and orange jumpsuit and harassed a member of Obama's administration? Maybe somebody who interrupted one of their speeches with blood-red paint on their fingers?

I don't doubt there are 'progressives' (a euphemism for communists) who honestly believe ignorant things like we should give American rights to captured terrorists, or shouldn't act in our nation's defense. A significant portion of any populace will always be insane and ideologically blinkered. But those die-hards are very few and far between. Most of the people who were protesting the "Bush policies" and "Bush's war" were astroturfers, or were using those issues as wedges. It was "by any means necessary" to give control of the nation back to the communist/socialists. And now that their work is done, their only anger is that Obama isn't pink enough for them.

|8.31.09 @ 3:40PM|#

Tony, Obama didn't trick me, he tricked the moderates who are now leaving him in droves. And if you think he's "championing exactly the issues he campaigned on," how about that tax cut for 95% of working Americans? How about having bills posted online for five days before they're voted on? I'm sure others can add to his long list of broken promises.

Tony|8.31.09 @ 3:49PM|#

AtheistConservative,

Are you trying to say Obama singlehandedly spent that money without Congress's help in a way that Bush didn't? If not, then how are they different?

As someone without his head up his ass most days, I do see a big difference between spending a trillion+ dollars on a pointless and destructive war of choice and spending it to rescue the economy from certain depression.

But you said this

'progressives' (a euphemism for communists)

rendering you mentally unfit to engage in debate with me, so I'll shut up now.

Tony|8.31.09 @ 3:52PM|#

Papaya,

A significant portion of Obama's unfavorability numbers are coming from liberals who are beginning to rate him that way.

Also, it's not a crime to break campaign promises. And there's a lot I can forgive, especially with regard to tax and economic policy, since the recession began near election time and upended everything in that regard. So what's your point? I suspect most moderates voted for Obama because they didn't want another fucking Republican (and they certainly aren't going back to them now).

The Libertarian Guy|8.31.09 @ 4:40PM|#

(to me he's always been a moderate, which is why I didn't support him in the primary)

Yeah, it's a shame Trotsky can't be brought back from the dead, isn't it?

"Also, it's not a crime to break campaign promises."

It SHOULD be a crime. And I rarely say "there ought to be a crime against [insert activity]", as I think there should be FEWER laws.

"I suspect most moderates voted for Obama because they didn't want another fucking Republican"

And a lot of us didn't want another fucking Democrat. Fuck both of 'em in 2012, whoever they are. In fact, fuck 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

|8.31.09 @ 4:50PM|#

this comment is from the uk, been watching your healthcare debate since everything you do in USA affects us in the UK and unfortunately is changing our culture negatively even down to stupid prom nights. we have a problem in that indeed our stupid Tory party that is the Conservatives will win the next election here probably with a growth in the Nazi racist BNP vote which again is being funded and taught by USA racists why can't you people that is the GOP supporters simply just come out and say that you cannot accept a black president leading your country. The man has been in office at seven months. he has inherited 2 wars that he cannot pullout for security reasons mainly if he did pull out he would hand the USA to the GOP nut jobs on a plate, therefore he has to continue the same until the USA gets defeated or the USA defeats the so-called enemy. The problem is the Americans cannot realise that all the garbage has already happened, the Muslim nations that you so fear now all of a sudden have already been provided with information regarding nuclear technology by your so-called ally Pakistan a long time ago and they have just released from house arrest this week the scientist that handed the information to them. It is simply a matter of time before they get hold of nuclear bombs. Further the destruction of the USA from in, is not obama or the dems but the corporations that run America and the GOP/ dem, nutjobs associated with them. They are other people that control the agenda not the USA people at town Halls who say they want their USA back. To people abroad we know that is a codeword for a white president. When hidden recordings come out on the republican town Hall meeting the racist rhetoric comments that the so-called congressman and women openly state comes out into the open. There was a congresswoman now talking about finding the great white hope of the Republican Party. Why not the great hope of the GOP.

The problem is simple, in the rules of the radicals that you quote in some of the comment about where the first things that were spouted by limbaugh, the head of the Republican Party. This was way back in January 2009, how you are catching on to them now some seven months later is beyond me. The GOP made a decision that they were going to oppose this administration right from the beginning and not co-operate.

It is a simple practice if you tell lies long enough and the other person does not react like Obama is not reacting then the lies begin to stick. The inexperience of the President is not what some of you commentators say above, it is that knowing full well that the GOP would be doing the same thing to him that they did to Clinton the Democratic party were not more reactive to it. That is where the opportunity has been missed. The rest of the GOP aligned commentators are spouting the same rubbish that is regurgitated on the Glen beck show, Hannity rubbish and to a degree O'Reilly. One only had to watch the coverage of the USA elections in 2008 to realise the open racist nature of the GOP and their cohorts fox news. Explain to me how it is possible to create 5/ 6 million jobs in 7 months, all the guy has had a chance to do is to stabilise a sinking ship. Yes he should prosecute the GOP bankers and investigate the links between the bankers and the American elite that have caused this recession, the same as we should do in the UK to make sure that this fraud on nations cannot take place again but no one will. You will not allow a black president to do his job simply because he is black. He is the fall guy chosen by you people to clear your rubbish to allow your great white hope either from the GOP or the Dem to take over. The Liberal John Stewart said something that makes total sense, that the only time a black man can be allowed to run the USA is when it has sunk. All of you wonderful GOP commentators go back to the Senate hearings that took place on after the 2008 election had taken place and see one of your representatives asking how much money had been used out of the TARP bailout because the Republicans wanted to make sure that there was nothing left, to make sure that their friends had taken as much as they could before 20th January 2009, had raped the American public metaphorically speaking in this manner and yet he the same people still fall for it all the time. Ask how many of your Republican governors have taken stimulus money and refused to expand the times- period that you can claim unemployment benefit for. Have you ever seen pictures of Republican governor Bobby Jindal handing out large cheques from stimulus money and not telling people where that money came from. ask how many of your state governors are using money provided by the Federal stimulus passed by a black president to make sure that their budget deficits are reduced. These monies were provided by a black president and a Democratic Congress. Maybe you GOP people simply wanted that money handed over to the elite who own the USA. The said problem is that you people cannot see that you are being used and totally used by corporations and the people that own you. For people such as me that are aware of the USA history since Richard Nixon's resignation we have seen what the Republicans are capable of doing to the USA The Republicans are capable of taking everything down to the lowest base possible simply to win. They will lie , steal do everything that is necessary simply to retain power. Karl rove is the end product of all of this and if that is what you want for the USA , you keep it there. I have seen Oliver North on Fox News, the man who clearly in front of the Congress investigation committees admitted to destroying evidence and carrying out acts contrary to the Constitution now produced as a hero on Fox News.

The Democrats will never learn that you have to fight fire with fire, the GOP is without reason. It's members have only one belief that they are right and that they should be in power, they have no idea of statesmanship, how to govern properly and indeed no morality left. The Democrats you simply look at what was done to Clinton, with Whitewater,prosecutor starr impeachment everything over seven years to make sure that he could not function as a president and unfortunately after 2010 that is the fate that awaits this black president and I hope that I am wrong.

Mike M.|8.31.09 @ 4:52PM|#

A significant portion of Obama's unfavorability numbers are coming from liberals who are beginning to rate him that way.

Very little. It's true that the strength and intensity of his support among liberals and Democrats has decreased somewhat from the early days, but his general favorability numbers among them are almost exactly the same today as they were on the inauguration. The increase in his UNfavorability numbers has come almost entirely from independent voters who don't identify with either of the two major parties.

Pretty detailed trends are freely available on Rasmussen's site at

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/demographic_notes_barack_obama_approval_index

|8.31.09 @ 5:07PM|#

There is a way of turning this around and that is targeting the corporations legally with everything under the law, fight their negative adverts in every way possible their policies actions should be closely examined and where they contravene make complaints to the FBI, to the authorised bodies ,to the prosecutors responsible to hold the people that make these policies accountable. The lobbyists in Washington that are carrying out the lobbying for the healthcare corporations, oil companies no doubt will be carrying out the lobbying for the companies and other corporations and individuals target these people highlight who they are, everything but within the law. These people are feeding the citizens of the USA in deceit fraud to maintain their own lifestyle and profits. They have nothing to put forward to the American people. and they have and excuse me for using this word raped the American public financially morally in every sense and with the assistance of the GOP , their scare tactics will be continued so they maintain their power. Unfortunately for the rest of us outside the USA we are also affected by what takes place in the USA particularly in the UK because we seem to be the 52nd State. The world needs an America that is strong financially prosperous and able to act not merely in its own interests but also in the interests of everyone else. That America has never existed but one can hope. However this is a personal view, a prosperous America is necessary, to be dominated by Russia China and their value systems is not something that I care for and an America with the nutjob GOP at its helm is not one of the world needs either. It was hoped that when the election of this black president and the manner that he was dealing with things in intelligent sensible manner that he would be allowed the time to swing things round and we can go back to a sensible prosperous America but sadly those that wish to retain works in many forms and all you have to do is look at the manner in which the GOP and the corporation allies of the GOP are dealing with matters. what is being done in terms of the lies that have been spread to the American people by Fox News, rusho limbooo and others is sickening and it makes us wonder whether it is better simply to isolate America and turn elsewhere than to have to put up with what is taking place in the unnecessary destruction of a society by the so-called nut jobs and corporations of the right. That is not to say that you do not have your problems with the left and right ,we have simply discovered the same here where members of our Parliament had been carrying out fraud and theft in expense claims. This has led to effectively the stagnation and breakdown of democracy in the United Kingdom. This is further threatened by what is taking place in the USA and all we can do is comment to you people as to how you people affect us.

The person elected as president has only been in office the seven months. He has not done anything radical but unfortunately has tried to do what he considers best for America. His hands are tied financially since the money cupboard was left bare a long time ago. It almost seems that America is functioning like a large Ponzi scheme similar to Dubai is and if a small country like that can be run as a Ponzi scheme there was no reason why USA cannot be run the same. The right-wing GOP said right to the beginning when he won the election that they were not going to give Obama a chanceand they are pursuing their agenda. It is time to the dems to grow a pair and fightback before it's too late, it is not too late now. If these people are organising team bagging parties, tea bagging demonstrations then go and find two or 3 million of the uninsured who desperately need healthcare,find the funding and bus these people to Washington to demonstrate in front of the Congress, bus these people to Fox News buildings to demonstrate in front of them to stop the lies that being told by these media corporations. get these people to enter the town hall meetings but at all times act legitimately and within the law, get publicity that is necessary to show these people ,the nutjobs of the GOP that you will not put up with their misrepresentations and lies. Where Republican congressmen are openly racist in their meetings as can be shown by the tape recordings now showing on the mainstream media, get the people, black, white, yellow to ask them personally why they are racist and why have they made the comments that they have, act within the law, use e-mail, and demonstrate outside their homes, encourage others in the constituencies where necessary to do so. The so-called conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin, (who the hell is the Michelle Malkin,) who after seven months are writing about corruption in a new administration when they could not write about the corruption and decimation of the American Constitution by the previous administration over eight years. Where the hell was Glenn Beck over the last eight years. Was he not able to draw up nice blackboard charts over the last eight years or we're the last eight years perfect simply because there was a white president. Lastly some of you in the USA are talking about Sarah Palin 2012 and the sad thing is you are dumb enough to vote her in. The same was done with Margaret Thatcher in the UK. Everyone says that Margaret Thatcher was brilliant. Since Thatcherism gained power in 1979 until 1997 the entire manufacturing base of the UK was decimated and has never recovered. We are now a service based country with no manufacturing future. The entire basis of the UK culture was changed to the marketplace private enterprise culture like the USA and you have to see the decimation that has taken place in our society as a result of the same. Here's hoping that sensible Americans keep out the nutjobs particularly of the GOP.. One other thing, Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, Murdoch has denigrated decimated every thing he has touched. In the UK we had newspapers that had intelligent argument, intelligent journalism intelligent discourse that allowed the society to argue and develop and one actually had intelligent discourse from reading these newspapers etc. Since Murdoch has got his hands on each one of these papers for example The Times and introduced his sky TV network, dumbing down of everything has occurred to the extent that intelligent discourse reporting development within the media is simply not possible. Instead we have stupid celebrity crap, misleading misrepresentation in journalism where journalism is possible, demonization of whole communities individuals and argument. The misrepresentation and deceit put forward by Fox News is clear to everyone to see and it does not surprise me it is a Murdoch owned enterprise The people of the USA need to switch of the Murdoch owned media and start thinking for themselves, honestly when I read some of the comments that are made in these Internet sites and I see people quoting word for word what Glenn Beck says in his programs on Fox News it makes me despair about what is actually happening in America and how the American people can be taken in by misrepresentation lies and deceit so easily

Tony|8.31.09 @ 5:10PM|#

david,

As you will no doubt find out, these people don't like to be called supporters of the GOP. In principle they're "pox both houses equally" kind of people. In practice, to me, that means lending implicit and undue sanction to the worse of the two houses--which, as you have ably described, is the GOP. Dems have a hell of a lot of problems, not least is the increasing influence of corporate money, a system of legal bribery spearheaded by the GOP in the not too distant past. But what the GOP has been and has become is truly a dangerous thing. If these guys can't see that then they're really no better than Hannitybots.

|8.31.09 @ 5:15PM|#

"Are you trying to say Obama singlehandedly spent that money without Congress's help in a way that Bush didn't? If not, then how are they different"

The mechanics are of course the same as they are ingrained in our system of governance. But the difference is that Obama is out selling these policies, and the policies are firmly tied to his party's ideology. He tends to outsource his agenda to Congress, not caring what is actually done or how much it costs, as long as the title of whatever is passed can be used in some more glowing rhetoric. But he has repeatedly said he will 'send it back' until they 'get it right'. This is his agenda, this is his spending. It is his recession. It is his health care boondoggle.

The difference is the difference between the parties: while you can make specific cases of Republicans getting into the greed trough, or being corrupt, the ideological difference is vast: as Conservatives (the group that Republicans tend to represent) believe in small government, they do not tend to pitch gigantic federal boondoggles with tons of spending. When they do, Conservatives hold them accountable. Democrats, representing far-left liberals (mostly socialists and communists) DO pitch these ideas. Their whole goal is socializing the nation. They've said as much outright - look to Hillary Clinton's recent statements as Secretary of State. And their spending has the overwhelming support of their constituents - even when it bankrupts the nation.

There is simply no comparison: Obama has spent trillions on a vast inflation of federal power and steady erosion of our rights, all at his and his party's whim. Under the Bush administration Congress funded two wars for which they overwhelmingly voted, the most controversial of which was trumped for 8 years by the Clinton administration and for 10 years by the UN, and which started with overwhelming popular support.

The situations are nothing alike.

"rendering you mentally unfit to engage in debate with me, so I'll shut up now."

If by that you mean I am mentally superior, I agree.

'Progressives' are almost universally socialists and communists. They are usually proud of it, until they try to sneak some new socializing legislation past the people, at which point they try to sound moderate. Look at the bills being passed or proposed by our wonderful 'progressive' government: socializing industry (taking over car companies, taking over banks, punitive emissions regulations, etc) and socializing health care. Does one word stand out there?

If you're embarrassed at being called a socialist/communist, that's the fault of your outdated and fallacious ideology, not people who recognize it.

|8.31.09 @ 5:17PM|#

"Dems have a hell of a lot of problems, not least is the increasing influence of corporate money, a system of legal bribery spearheaded by the GOP in the not too distant past."

Nonsense.

Why would a corporation want to influence a politician?

Because that politician can affect their business.

Whose ideology insists that politicians should have their hands in private business affairs?

DEMOCRATS.

Furthermore, you can clearly show with publicly-available data that all the 'evil corporations' give more money to Democrats than Republicans - from Fannie/Freddie to the health care industry. Why? Because Democrats, in return, give them monopolies.

When the GOP fails, it is because it deviates from its ideology. When the Democrats fail, it is because they adhere to their ideology - and their failures are more detrimental to the nation (Vietnam, The War on Poverty, Medicare, Medicaid, ad nauseum). That shows clearly who suffers from the most problems.

|8.31.09 @ 5:23PM|#

...the Conservatives will win the next election here probably with a growth in the Nazi racist BNP vote which again is being funded and taught by USA racists...

david

That is truly fucking rich. There is absolutely nothing that Americans can teach the fucking British about being racists. As for American funding of the BNP, I can only ask, "evidence, please?"

Couldn't be bothered to go any further into your incoherent rant.

|8.31.09 @ 5:26PM|#

Oh, in case anyone wants to know, the reason the Tories benefit from the BNP is because all the BNP voters are former Labourites.

|8.31.09 @ 5:34PM|#

"They have nothing to put forward to the American people. and they have and excuse me for using this word raped the American public financially morally in every sense and with the assistance of the GOP"

It amazes me that you lefties lie so brazenly. Look at the campaign donations and you will see that all these 'evil' industries give more money to Democrats than Republicans.

"act not merely in its own interests but also in the interests of everyone else"

Here's a novel idea: why don't you take care of your business, and we'll take care of ours?

"members of our Parliament had been carrying out fraud and theft in expense claims"

Funny how you fail to mention that this was the Liberal Party.

"He has not done anything radical"

- Taking over car companies
- Taking over banks
- Passing a massive punitive cap/trade bill that is essentially a tax during a recession
- Trying to take over health care
- Disemboweling the CIA
- Opening 'torture investigations' against the previous administration
- Backing Castro
- Backing Ahmadinejad
- Backing Zelaya instead of the democratic actions of Honduras
- Bowing to the Saudi King
- Apologizing to the world
- Pretending that he doesn't represent his country, he represents a 'new era' heralded by himself, The One
- Eschewing the icon of the President for his own branding
- Politicizing the Justice Department by tossing out a suit against the New Black Panthers, refusing to investigate ACORN corruption
- Enlisting the NEA to help spread his propaganda
- Using PATRIOT ACT powers to spy on the opposition
- Appointing a science advisor who believes in forced abortions and euthanasia
- Creating multi-trillion-dollar deficits

The list can literally go on for hours. And as you say, it's only been less than a year. You don't think this is 'radical'?!

"His hands are tied financially"

Yes, that explains the multiple trillions in spending - if only his hands were free!

"It is time to the dems to grow a pair and fightback before it's too late"

Give me a break. How stupid are you? The Democrats CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT. What the GOP says is irrelevant to that fact. They cannot pass their idiotic legislation because they know they will have to answer to their constituents who do not want this radical, spendy government throwing more of their money into the toilet to take away more of their rights and freedoms.

"f these people are organising team bagging parties, tea bagging demonstrations"

Gu-hur! You said tea-bagging! Rachel Maddow would be so proud!

"the lies that being told by these media corporations"

Such as?

"Where the hell was Glenn Beck over the last eight years"

Doing the exact same schtick. Where are Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, et al now? Oh yeah, doing 'teabagging' jokes while Rome burns.

"Where Republican congressmen are openly racist"

Take the medication, nutjob.

"Since Thatcherism gained power in 1979 until 1997 the entire manufacturing base of the UK was decimated and has never recovered."

My god you are ignorant. Margaret Thatcher did more for the UK than you could ever measure. She brought about fiscal responsibility and helped you shake off the terror of the trade unions - do you ever watch late-60's, early-70's britcoms and hear all the jokes they made about "oh there's a strike"? That was ended by the Thatcher administration. Thatcher and Reagan helped bring two countries back from the brink of liberal stupidity. But the problem is you guys are always out there, ready with your lies and ignorance, to destroy what works for your 'change'. Which is why we have to always be vigilant.

"how the American people can be taken in by misrepresentation lies and deceit so easily"

And in the end, isn't that what really pisses you off? Because that's how you smug lefties always talk - the people of America are so stupid! They won't just blindly believe that the same people who came up with the Vietnam War, The War on Poverty, and other brilliant 'central planning' concepts will get health care perfect on the first try! My god they're so DUMB!

What really upsets you is that the American people are smarter than you. I know how galling that is to you lefties - those rural hicks with their snowmobiles and guns and Bibles, they just don't know what's good for them! Keep pushing that attitude. It's worked out real well for you so far.

Tony|8.31.09 @ 5:37PM|#

AC,

I hang around a lot of liberals and have for many years. I've known plenty of people who dress like hippies, don't wear shoes, don't eat animal products, and spell "women" wrong. Not a single one of them has ever called himself a communist or defended communism. Socialism is another matter, since it's not really strictly definable, but again, I've never met a liberal (except me on occasion and Bernie Sanders) who refers to himself as a socialist. Most liberals, like all people except an anarchist fringe, believe in mixed economies such as those that exist in almost every country in the world.

Your formulation about why the GOP and Dems fail, respectively, is cute but wrong. Dems enjoyed decades of success as a result of New Deal and other social policies. And as far as I can tell the GOP has yet to do a single thing to adhere to its allegedly minarchist philosophy.

And your excuse for the GOP's complete inability to shrink government is that the Dems don't believe in it? Give me a break. It was the GOP that initiated the K Street corporate welfare program. It wasn't evil Dems whispering in their ears either. You excuse the GOP for its excesses because they have the right rhetoric. In my book that's called hypocrisy. At least the Dems don't talk out of both sides of their mouth: they actually believe in government doing things and they sometimes have it do things. The GOP talks up small government but what they have always meant by that is small government if you're a small person, big government if you donate lots of campaign cash or you're a country with oil fields.

|8.31.09 @ 6:29PM|#

One other way in which right-wing hypocrisy can be seen is how people like Sean Hannity now think poll data is oh so important and constantly use it as proof that Obama is a terrible president. Where was he when Bush was polling in the mid-20's?

But yeah, Obama does suck a big on and I'm pretty happy people are starting to realize it, whether they have pure intentions or not.

|8.31.09 @ 6:30PM|#

"I hang around a lot of liberals and have for many years."

As have I. These would be the people who proudly wear Che t-shirts, speak of the evils of capitalism, hold up Cuba as a model place to live, and all that nonsense - right?

The far-left mentality has far more in common with the socialist/communist mentality than any other. There is a reason for this: the pernicious influence of pro-communist and pro-socialist thought since the early 1900's.

"I've never met a liberal who refers to himself as a socialist"

I've met many, but the fact that most don't doesn't mean it's not true. It's a little game they play. As they have repeatedly stated, they know we will not accept socialism, but they can gradually get us there through small steps such as socialized medicine.

"Dems enjoyed decades of success as a result of New Deal and other social policies."

Political success, sure - because they routinely blame every one of their own failures on the 'evil right wing', and anybody who enables whole groups to live at the subsidy of others will necessarily be popular with those groups.

But success? Not in the slightest. You can draw direct parallels between the 'success' of Democrat policies and the worsening of across-the-board status in our nation.

"And as far as I can tell the GOP has yet to do a single thing to adhere to its allegedly minarchist philosophy. "

That's a bizarre statement: they haven't done enough to adhere to their don't do much policy?

I'll agree that the GOP has a hard row to hoe. It's very difficult to be the party speaking up for independence and accountability when someone else is promising you the world. But that's why Conservatives need to fight NOW. We need to stop the expansion of the entitlement state, because it will never be rolled back.

"It was the GOP that initiated the K Street corporate welfare program"

But whose idea is corporate welfare in the first place?

"You excuse the GOP for its excesses because they have the right rhetoric. In my book that's called hypocrisy"

Not at all - my excuse for the GOP is that when they fail it's because they act against their ideology. When Democrats fail it's because they act in accordance with their ideology.

This does not mean I excuse GOP failure. I'm not even a Republican - I voted Republican in the last election but I am not a party member. I openly condone the exposition of corruption and cronyism in any political party.

I simply believe that the difference between the two is obvious, and the better ideology even more so.

"At least the Dems don't talk out of both sides of their mouth"

Oh come on - calling the insurance corporations 'evil' while taking huge bribes from them? Calling Big Pharma 'evil' and then cutting a sweetheart deal for them?

"small government if you're a small person, big government if you donate lots of campaign cash or you're a country with oil fields"

Again, the only reason the Republicans are able to be bought off for influence is because of the left-wing idea that government should have a hand in business. This is pure opportunism and is seen in any ideological group.

If you want our country to get better we need to adopt strict Conservative/Libertarian policies: get government out of business. Get government out of our lives. If there is no incentive for business and politics to get into bed together, it will not happen. That's the only real reform.

|8.31.09 @ 6:50PM|#

And as far as I can tell the GOP has yet to do a single thing to adhere to its allegedly minarchist philosophy.

And also the democrats have always been in bed with big business.. this isn't news to people on a libertarian site.

The GOP talks up small government but what they have always meant by that is small government if you're a small person, big government if you donate lots of campaign cash or you're a country with oil fields.

Just like the dems?

The history of big business is the history of big government. Big business likes big government to be able to buy policies to give them a market advantage or better yet a monopoly. In turn big government politicians (which is to say all of them) like big business so they can secure funds to get re-elected.

You think the answer is more government power. But that government power will always be bought by the rich.

That's the game and you're the sucker who buys it every time.

The only heartening thing is now because of Obama's impatience to secure a perpetual fascist state, some people on the left and right are starting to understand.

Politicians on the left promise socialism but in fact always act in favor of fascism. Politicians on the right promise freedom but in fact always act in favor of fascism.

They all have to get re-elected. And to do that they need more money than their opponents. And to get it they have to offer the rich something.

That something comes from us. You're 'stick it to the rich' dream is a pathetic fantasy. Even in the rare cases where that actually occurs.. the rich leave. That worked so well for Cuba.

Government can't create wealth, if it could it would. But politicians like the wealth and power and lifestyle, and to keep it they need private business and lots of regulations so they can shake private business down.

|8.31.09 @ 7:16PM|#

"You think the answer is more government power. But that government power will always be bought by the rich."

I, too, am amazed by the fact that leftists never see this basic fact. It was one of the more effective arguments against policies like the PATRIOT ACT, and is true of any expansion of government power:

No matter your reason - however benign you might think it - for expanding federal power, it will eventually be usurped for nefarious purposes. This is the best argument for keeping the power of government limited in scope.

"Politicians on the left promise socialism but in fact always act in favor of fascism"

This is also a universal truth. Where you can't see this in their direct statements of policy ("We will pass this health care takeover even if it costs us re-election", et cetera) you see it in their despondent rhetoric: "These dumb rubes don't even know what's good for them!" "I can't believe the public are so stupid that they're buying the lies of Faux News!"

It is the problem of the elitist: the belief that because they have been educated in one field, they are smarter than everyone in every field. Which is why I find their beliefs so offensive, and so should any freedom-loving American.

Any expansion of government power requires an equal or greater shrinking of individual liberty. And the benefit never justifies the cost.

|8.31.09 @ 7:20PM|#

"You think the answer is more government power. But that government power will always be bought by the rich."

amen

anonymous|8.31.09 @ 7:33PM|#

"There is a way of turning this around and that is targeting the corporations legally with everything under the law... The lobbyists in Washington that are carrying out the lobbying for the healthcare corporations, oil companies no doubt will be carrying out the lobbying for the companies and other corporations and individuals target these people highlight who they are, everything but within the law."

I suppose the president could start with the more moderate step of not meeting with health care and health insurance companies behind closed doors like Dick Cheney did with energy companies.

Colony 14 Author|8.31.09 @ 8:23PM|#

Good points all...

The Obama Timeline is now in print: 660 pages of hard-hitting, well-referenced evidence against the current temporray resident of our Oval Office.

The Obama Timeline is avaialble at your favorite online bookseller.

The Libertarian Guy|8.31.09 @ 9:12PM|#

"I've never met a liberal (except me on occasion and Bernie Sanders) who refers to himself as a socialist."

You're PROUD of this?

Y'know, when I was twelve, I seriously wanted to learn Russian because I believed in the communist system.






Then I grew the fuck up.

JB|8.31.09 @ 10:42PM|#

Holy blocks of text, Batman!

Joe C|9.1.09 @ 1:06AM|#

Nationalization of the auto industry? No regard for individual civil liberties? Control of the internet? Regarding legalization of marijuana and gay marriage as a joke? Appointing a slew of Marxist czars? Multi-trillion dollar spending sprees in the middle of a recession? If it isn't obvious to you that this is what most Americans voted in favor of...kill yourself.

A T|9.1.09 @ 2:05AM|#

Nein! Zi text walls!

Tman|9.1.09 @ 3:12AM|#

Fluffy wins the thread easy, and I'd just like to agree how stupefyingly inept the Obama administration has been at using a veto-proof majority in congress to achieve anything useful in terms of maintaining power.

Obama has simultaneously pissed off his base and ignited the opposition...Brilliant!!!

I guess the silver lining here is that even with the white house and congress, the liberal democrats still can't fool enough people in to trusting them to run things. And as we're seeing now, eventually they collapse under the weight of their own incompetence.

It gives me a bit of hope, one might say.

|9.1.09 @ 4:55AM|#

Tman | September 1, 2009, 3:12am | #


but how could Fluffy possibly win w/out typing 40,00o characters of poorly executed english?


david:

thank you for completely laying to waste the silly stereotype that the english are more eloquent than americans... your grammatic aptitude is a shining example for the rest of us to aspire to, really!

|9.1.09 @ 6:24AM|#

The GOP made a decision that they were going to oppose this administration right from the beginning and not co-operate.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Unfortunately, the GOP makes a lot of noise about opposing this administration, but the sad fact is that they went right ahead and let him get away with even greater fiscal mismanagement than they let Bush perpetrate.

-jcr

|9.1.09 @ 6:30AM|#

It was the GOP that initiated the K Street corporate welfare program.

Not even close. The lobbyist game started with the wall street crowd and Alexander Hamilton's pernicious influence on George Washington. It has never abated.

-jcr

The Libertarian Guy|9.1.09 @ 9:59AM|#

"The GOP made a decision that they were going to oppose this administration right from the beginning and not co-operate."

Tell us with a straight face that the Dems wouldn't have done the same to McCain.

Not that that would've been a BAD thing...

LarryA|9.1.09 @ 1:00PM|#

electorate "is"? or electorate "are"?
English majors?

Electorate is. Like "herd is" or "flock is."

To be fair to them (us) there wasn't a limited-government horse in the race. Hasn't been in a long time.

I've never met a liberal (except me on occasion and Bernie Sanders) who refers to himself as a socialist.

Everyone knows that every socialist economy ever attempted has sucked wind. Therefore socialists avoid the term, instead labeling socialist policies as "progressive" or "green" or "neoconservative" or whatever.

Socialism is another matter, since it's not really strictly definable

There are basically only two forms of government. Either the people limit the government to those tasks that require cooperative action (like national defense), or the government runs the lives of the people. Socialists = people who want the government to run people's lives. Other people's lives of course, since they believe that people who do not agree with socialists are too stupid to run their own lives. Unfortunately, the government will always use the power socialists give it to eventually betray the socialist ideals it benefitted from.

The only way to protect your right to live your life the way you want to is to protect other people's rights to live their lives the way they want to, even if you disapprove of their choices. Neither Democrats nor Republicans understand this.

|9.1.09 @ 1:15PM|#

@The Libertarian Guy

Y'know, when I was twelve, I seriously wanted to learn Russian because I believed in the communist system.

I did learn Russian, but not because I liked the Russian system, but because I like Russia. Although in retrospect I can see the propaganda that was Russophillic. At that point I don't think overtly praising collectivism was a good sell by the MSM.

It's really incredible to look back at my childhood and recognize how so much of what they say is laced with deceit.

I grew up thinking Reagan was an idiot, like every kid who watched TV. I believed that for years unquestioningly. Then I read this interview on this very site. Can you imagine? An America president who understood libertarian principles and read Mises, Hayek, and Hazlitt?! He was hardly all libertarian but what's astounding is that where he wasn't.. he made a case.. and took ownership of his stance.

What finally started to wake me up was an NPR piece praising Al Gore for his intelligence. By that point I was old enough to judge intellect from what someone said and wrote. So that really confused the hell out of me.

|9.1.09 @ 1:22PM|#

Unfortunately, the government will always use the power socialists give it to eventually betray the socialist ideals it benefitted from.

This can never be said enough nor in enough different ways.

There's only one political philosophy that stands for the little guy. That's the philosophy that expressly tries to protect the individuals rights. Freedom indeed.

Left and right both stand for the powerful. Even the terms left and right.. refer to the left and right side of a room where people jockey for power over others.

|9.1.09 @ 6:23PM|#

Nail. Head. Hitting of...

"Change" in the context of the 2008 election meant "Not Bush, not Republicans, not Iraq."

It most definitely did not mean "Yay, Americans are finally on board with the entire progressive agenda so let's all roll up our sleeves and start creating the socialist Utopia!"

This is just beginning to sink into the thick skulls of the Democrats and their vocal left-wing base. There will be much head-scratching and dismay over how average Americans can be so stupid. In other words, the same nonsense that went on in left-Democrat circles after Bush was elected for his second term.

Let's face it: NOBODY in Washington knows what the American people want. They're all too blinded by left- and right-wing ideology and wishful thinking.

The Libertarian Guy|9.1.09 @ 8:20PM|#

Good points, faithkills.