|
Obama scoring points with rural voters...
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I suspect many will take this as condescending. Perhaps it will get interesting |
Well, the Harvard graduate liberal elitist has finally come out. So much for change and hope.
This is more than condescending. This is a pretty direct statement accusing people of turning to racism and violence. The religion reference is amusing as well. I expect there are not many churches preaching as much hate, racism and ignorance as Barack's. Do you think this will matter too much though? Even if Hillary wins, her winning the nomination just seems impossible at this point. Did you see this on Fox News? That is where I caught it. I did not notice it on CNN, my local channels or MSNBC. I am not sure if it is being given the same level of coverage as snafus from the other leading candidates have been... |
But bro....it's all about chaaaange man. It's all about hoooope........
|
You are right, the news media will do anything to get him elected. I work in the entertainment industry in LA, which is the Land of the Pod People.
They are always chanting, “OBAMA GOOD” “OTHERS BAD”. The news will cover and air the opening of a local car dealership before putting anything on the air that is truthful, yet may be negative, about “HIS HOLY HIGHNESS”. His speeches continue to reveal his (lack of) character: Condescending. Yes, Obnoxious. Absolutely Hypocrite. Ah, that’s an affirmative Let's face it; he's a well-dressed phony, who’s bamboozled the fools who think he wants to help anybody but himself. I can’t wait to hear from the “Yada Yada Obama” Cultists. It’s so predictable. “It was taken out of context”, “10 second sound bytes”, “Racism!” “What about the others and what they said?” “You only listen to Fox News” “It’s just not FAIR!” P.S. He actually had the audacity to say, "We cling to God?" He wants us to cling to him as the supreme power for ch...ch....changes? AUAUUUU, there's some karma! I will take "GOD" "SPIRIT" "UNIVERSAL LOVING", "HIGHER POWER" "UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS" (remember I live in LA), any day, over him as my god. |
Wait....so what part did he say wasn't true?
The cut in aid given to small towns and farmers part or the antipathy part? 25 years huh: Hmmmmm.... Let's see if I remember coorectly , Reagan made cuts waaaay back in 1985, one that his Argicultural secretary John Block supported saying that farmers made it this long without govt support, and they can continue. Anyone remember a small concert called Farm Aid? George H while not adding taxes raised the existing taxes Bill Clinton while not as swift to take more money from farmers did hop on the NAFTA train and many jobs got outsourced. George W. has been cutting agricultural spending since 2000 and in 2005 cut well over 3 billion dollars from farmers' pocket. maybe it's just me, but I think that if I was in those folks' shoes, I would be a bit salty also come election time.... The above is the short version.... Obama an Ivy league (Harvard) elitist?? And I guess the fact that George Bush Sr and Jr along with Bill Clinton having ties with Yale and Oxford means they went to 'less elitist' schools... maybe that's what this is all about... Harvard vs Yale for the Big House FTW. hehe.....and so it goes. |
Heaven forbid we have a President who thinks we are all intelligent adults enough to comprehend a semi-controversial idea. Heaven forbid we have a President who actually cares about figuring out what the origins and causes of our problems (like hatred) are. Heaven forbid we have a President who thinks America can handle hearing the truth and isn't afraid to be the one to share it.
|
Quote:
A compassionate president? uh oh! |
You're right. Heaven forbid.
Heaven forbid we have a President intent on autonomy-stripping. God forbid we have a POTUS who looks to people holding on to their religion and says "well if we can fix these problems for these people, they can abandon that once and for all." One who looks at those who value the right to self-defense and says "If we can improve their living status, then we can go get those guns." One who looks at rural Americans and goes, "Why don't they vote in their self-interest, how could anyone possibly favor what is best for the country over what is best for them individually?" Obama supporters are the same type who bitch and whine about the Bush administration destroying individual civil rights, and then turn around and proclaim with broad paternalism that we, the liberal ivory-tower elitists who are less likely to serve in the military, less likely to do blue collar work that constitutes the backbone of the country, are the ones who know what is best for you. They look at southerners as morons because they think family values are more important than increased entitlement programs that they could benefit from. If only they'll listen to us, we can get rid of relics of the past like religion, pride, patriotism, and family. Heaven forbid, indeed. |
Read the book What's the Matter with Kansas?. What Obama said is certainly true (I find the religion dropped in there to be very odd in its phrasing, though), and those are things that the Conservative Right have preyed upon for political gain.
A lot of what's being said in this thread is exactly what I was expecting - the rhetoric that liberals can't be for family values, can't be patriots, can't have religious convictions. My undergraduate degree is in Sociology, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of immediately looking at how outside forces shape people's thinking, rather than focusing on "personal accountability" or making decisions in a vacuum like many psychologists make things out to be. I constantly look at the context in which a person makes a decision, how society has limited their options, or pushed other ideas to the forefront or so on. There's a subtlety in what Obama said, that when I read it, I found it to mean that it's NOT that people are "clinging" to these items/ideas and they're wrong to do so, but that they're "clinging" to them in their politics and politicians have used these ideas to win votes, when the economic policies that these politicians espouse are detrimental to these very same rural voters. It's that subtlety that is undoubtedly being lost by the talking heads, and has lead to Obama going into damage control mode. In What's the Matter with Kansas?, the author does a pretty impressive job of showing how for the most part, Conservative politicians who run on abortion, gun control, religion in schools, and similar platforms have time and time again failed to make any significant headway on these issues, and yet still win voters by using them over and over. Kansas in particular has essentially become a 3 party state in which there is a ton of infighting between Conservative Republicans (typically poor rural voters worried about cultural items), Moderate Republicans (upper middle class voters from the Kansas City suburbs worried most about economic issues) and Democrats (urban voters in KC and Wichita taking normal Democratic positions). What Obama said, pretty much sums up what has happened in Kansas. Rural voters go against their economic interests because of social issues, vote Republican, which typically results in economic decisions that further harm these rural voters. The mods, they're generally happy enough to take in the social issues for the larger economic goals. It's most notable in Kansas though, that the conservatives have made the Mods uncomfortable about these social issues, because of what that has resulted in (Kansas striking evolution from state science standards and the like). What this will ultimately end up meaning for Obama, I don't know. I appreciate how he avoids being a 'sound bite' politician, but sometimes it's hard to get your point across when you explain the shades of gray. |
Attributing peoples' beliefs to economic circumstances beyond their control is going to be insulting to the people who hold those beliefs though, and that's a big political problem with his comments.
It may seems strange to die hard Democrats, but some people would choose to hold onto religion, gun rights, immigration law even if their economic circumstances did improve. They don't believe what they believe because they are economically bitter; they believe it because they believe these ideas are valuable and true. (It's certainly possible that being more well off makes you be more tolerant as you are exposed to more, but there may be a point where tolerance becomes decadence culturally too.) It may be true that the Republican party has been more able to exploit this group of voters, but it's also true that if these issues are important to you, the Democrats haven't offered you anything on these issues. BigRedBeta, I don't doubt for a minute that Republicans are more effective at exploiting the type of voters Obama was talking about and it probably is something that needs to be discussed within the Democratic party, which may have been what Obama thought he was doing. However, that group of voters is going to be even less likely to embrace a politician who tips his hand the way Obama did, especially while he's in the middle of trying to become one major party's Presidential candidate. It basically floats the idea out there that the candidate, not only doesn't take the issues of gun rights, religion and controlling immigration seriously, but also regards the people who hold such beliefs as somehow being delusional. That's not helping bring them in to the party. Maybe we could right another book called The Only Thing More Wrong than Kansas is the Democratic Party's Response. |
Quote:
ETA: did you actually read the comment for yourself? I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone is fired up about the idea that economically these voters aren't in good shape, and yet your response seems to be about proving that the gov't hasn't been good to them. The problem is that the people that Obama is talking about are never going to see themselves as bitter about what the government failed to deliver economically. They probably don't see themselves are wanting a handout. |
Quote:
If Obama had want to have an open discussion with rural voters about the issues, he could have done that; instead we get reports of comments he made about these voters to a relatively disconnected group of affluent campaign contributers across the country who, in contrast with your take that he was opening the discussion, were likely to be in agreement with the "wisdom" he advanced. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
On the face of it, I found his remark insulting and condescending- but the greater matter here is that this, along with his recent interview on CNBC where he finally discussed his economic plan, is one more indication that Obama is very far left of where the nation is as a whole, and that his ideas are not all that new. BigRedBeta- I certainly agree that industrial communities in the Northeast and elsewhere are in a very bad way, and I would imagine there are a lot of bitter people out there. It is not just about job loss either. With consolidation and many companies going out of business, pensions have been lost for many too. But it is a big stretch to suggest that such bitterness drives people to religion, guns etc. I think this is very bad news for the general election. Centrism is the order of the day. Bill Clinton was a true centrist and that is one reason he accomplished a lot of important things- including some things that the far left of his own party were not too thrilled about (welfare reform.) Bush won on the promise he would also be a centrist- and we know how that came out. Early on in his Presidency, Bush actually spoke about the possibility of permitting same-sex unions- but that disappeared quick. He eventually caved in to the party line and a lot of the progressive social agenda he spoke about early on evaporated entirely. And now, despite the rantings and ravings of the far right of the Republican Party- we have another true centrist as the nominee, John McCain. I think Hillary is very smart and very flexible. I could see her working both sides to get things done. I just don't see that with Obama- and I think that is why he has no chance of winning the White House. This comment we are talking about is just one more piece of evidence about the true practical philosophy of someone who has been talking up to now on very high level intangible matters. |
I'm not offended by Obama's comments, for myself or on behalf of anyone else.
I do think it reinforces how I feel about him, however. I think he is a liberal elitist who thinks that the government knows better than the individual when it comes to spending money, protecting our families and raising our children. |
Offended is probably too strong a word, but I think it reflects a condescending attitude that I find distasteful and presents another example of how Obama is a whole lot more "political" in the traditional unpleasant associations of the term than a lot of us had been hoping for. Sometimes he just kind of says whatever he thinks his most immediate audience will be receptive to.
|
Quote:
Like . . . I can't decide which half of that sentence intelligent adults would prefer to reject first when handling this "semi-controversial" idea. Instead of figuring out the cause of a legitimate problem (such as hatred), this appears to be a smear campaign that both pigeonholes the problem to a very small subsection of the population and conveniently washes his hands of the problem by blaming nebulous actions of others. Whoever wrote this for him is likely already fired, but the shitcanning should be redoubled - this exact statement just doesn't say what it's supposed to. It doesn't seem like an honest appraisal, but rather a pandering gloss-over. |
Quote:
|
For once I'd just like to be able to have a President that tells me what he honestly thinks instead of whitewashing all the un-P.C. controversial stuff. We all have some opinions that are controversial and as soon as we start expecting to get a President who never offends us by something is the point that we end up with a mouthpiece-President that (a) doesn't have anything going on upstairs, or (b) baby-feeds us what we WANT to hear.
The bottom line is that I think there is some truth in what he said. I live in one of the states filled with negative backlash that he is talking about, and that is what I see as a cause of it all, in part. I don't think Obama is foolish enough to think it is the only cause -- it is simply one of them. I think if he could pick his words differently in hindsight he would have clarified the "religion" bit because I know from his other speeches and writings that he values religion a great deal and he did not mean it in a way to knock religion itself, but merely suggest that it is often manipulated for political gains. He had an idea that itself is simply a reflection on one of our nation's problems. He probably could have worded it better, but a simple look into anything else he's said on the subject before or since the incident clarifies what he meant. My prediction is that in 2 weeks this will have dinged him about as much as the whole Jeremiah Wright fiasco. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And I stand by it as one cause. I've talked to many people that when something like affirmative action, sexual harassment, environmentalism, etc. comes up, these people talk in a way that those that they make ties between that as a/the reason they haven't made more of their life. I think there's an overwhelming feeling of "hey, what about me?" among white, right-wing people that have had a hard time economically because they lived their lives honestly and feel cheated. I think it is human nature to want to find some blame. It is easier to blame the people who don't look like you or come from where you come from than to blame the causes closer to home and that are harder to identify. |
I want a President who isn't PC also.
However, until Barack openly admits what it is that threatens America (hint: it starts with islamofascism) I'm not really buying the "he gives it to us straight" thing. |
And wasn't what he said PC as we generally understand the term?
Isn't it more politically correct to blame people's not adopting the right attitude in the present on the government having failed to deliver in the past, rather than blaming them for their own intolerance or ignorance (as your audience would see it)? A non-PC response might have been "those rednecks are too stupid to get out of their own way and vote for the party and candidate that is more likely to deliver the goods." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Skylark, I am from Texas where things are still booming. Thanks in large part to higher oil prices and the continued migration of the tech industry to Austin (many CA companies coming over plus many companies bringing back outsourced jobs here in recent years), we are not hurting here at all. So I defer to a certain extent to your knowledge as someone who is living in the middle of what Obama was talking about. But the outrage and the damage comes from what UGAalum referred to above in the partial post I have quoted. Obama spent the early phase of his campaign promising hope and change and a new kind of politics. It is now becoming apparent (to me at least) he did this because he and his team knew that his very far left stances on many matters would make him easy pickings for his incredibly adept and versatile opponent Hillary Clinton- and also for Republicans. And so he chose to speak in very vague terms and set an impossibly high bar for himself in terms of the kind of campaign he was going to run and the revolutionary change he was going to bring. It was a brilliant strategy- and the right strategy. And it may still work. I think McCain will prove a formidable and tenacious opponent in the general election- but then again I thought Bob Dole would be as well, and Clinton creamed him in 1996. And I really do think that those opposed to the current President's policies are far greater in number and deeper in anger than was the case in 1996. I feel like I saw through Obama all along, but that does not matter since I would never have supported him anyway. The real question is what are the swing voters going to do. And I personally think (and I could be very wrong) that most swing voters/independents tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And that is an easy assumption to make since it is somewhat illogical for a person to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal. In a situation like this, Obama gets hurt very badly since he is going to be a "tax and spend" type running against someone who is fiscally very conservative but is also known for being an "across the aisle dealmaker" and a "maverick". I think it is a lot easier for a swing voter to assume that McCain will be more centrist on social issues than it is for Obama to be centrist on fiscal issues. (Bold accent added since that is the key to my argument.) The comment we are discussing here hurts Obama- but I think he is far more damaged by his gross mischaracterization of McCain's comments about a 100 year presence in Iraq and by his economic policy statements- which the media are not really talking about oddly enough. |
I guess my question to anyone, is how much exposure do you currently have to small towns? I spend at least two days a week in small towns in Nebraska - towns with populations 800 - 25,000. I've been visiting these communities for over a year and the same storefronts that were vacant a year ago, are still vacant. One of my clients in one of these communities told me last week that we needed to reinstate the draft - it would a) help our military out and b) provide jobs.
Does the comment hurt Obama? Yes and no. I think it just depends on who within the communities hears it and their interpretation of the message. Many in rural areas (at least Neb.) aren't Obama supporters anyway. As someone who grew up in rural middle America, minus the clinging to religion, I'd say the assessment is pretty spot on. Will his statement change the way people in small communities think? I doubt it. |
he might have been condesdening, but he was accurate
|
Quote:
|
What "he" said isn't brand new. This has been said for decades.
I agree with it. People cling onto things that they know to be true and consistent. This applies to religion and guns for many, evidenced when you actually let people put their guards down and talk and listen to them. They also look for answers to their problems or someone to blame for their position, particularly when they see a group of people who isn't "like them." And they find people or things to attribute moral decline, crime, a loss of jobs/competition for the good jobs because of cheap labor to. This is the age-old explanation for the -isms and inequality in this country. It isn't about bigotry just for the sake of bigotry. It's about economic competition and a perceived need to externalize struggles and find ways to position yourself against others. For instance, if you're economically downtrodden you will find other definitions of success, power, and prestige. This may lead you to place more emphasis on religion, guns, anti-immigration stances, anti-women's rights stances, anti-minority stances, or whatever position you feel answers your need to create an "other" at the time. Nothing new...but perhaps it would've been best received if it had not targeted a group that is not used to being targeted. :) |
Quote:
Poor rural people are never the targets of condescending social commentary? Really? |
Quote:
But, REALLY. ETA: As I said before, his comments are nothing new. But the fact that they are receiving so much negative attention means there's a disconnect somewhere. :) The disconnect has to do with the people his comments are interpreted as being about---frame of reference provides the context. |
Quote:
ETA: oh, I guess you did say that his comments weren't condescending, which might be your opinion, but doesn't necessarily correspond with reality. |
Quote:
The "ETA" part: The frame of reference provides the context. Meaning, he's offending the sensibilities of the "hard working," "hard praying," "right to bear arms defending" or whatever else people think characterizes the rural voters that he's talking about. That is interpreted as not only condescending but even "anti-American" to an extent. But removing the emotion from it all, even many rural voters can understand where he's coming from. Quote:
That doesn't remove the truthfulness of what he and others have said regarding this topic. I certainly hope he does not apologize for his well-delivered and accurate comments. |
Ouch - it's getting heated in here.:eek:
I live in PA and there are mixed emotions to Obama's comments. However, I doubt that the comments will negatively impact his voter base in the state. But on top of the 'bitter' remarks what has caused additional stir in the Philly and Pittsburgh press is Obama's decision to not campaign in Black neighborhoods. I'm not sure I would have recommended this strategy if I was working on his campaign. PA is an ify swing state that is very Republicrat. Voters are conservative in thought, liberal in many policies, and loyal to no party. It is one of the few states documented to have many people vote split ticket. From what I have observed (and what insiders in his PA campaign have stated), Obama's reception in PA has been far less than what they expected. Both the Governor of PA and the Mayor of Philly are endorsing Clinton. I think his comments may have been made out of frustration that his PA reception has been kinda lukewarm. I have been guilty of trying to work something out in my head and then speak on it at an inappropriate time. I believe the intellectual in him was trying to understand (and rationalize to himself) why he hasn't won over PA yet. The comments were probably better for a 'closed door' discussion and he has stated that he regrets making them now. The percentage gap is closing between him and Clinton but it's still very possible that she may win PA. I can see this fight between them going to the DNC Convention. |
Quote:
We'll see how his comments ultimately play out. I don't know if you'll be as happy he didn't apologize or that spoke this particular, pretty meaningless "truth" (or opinion, for the rest of us) if it costs him votes in states he still needs to win. But hey, it doesn't matter to me. People who were going to vote for Obama already can keep wanting to vote for him, and everyone else can feel insulted or disgusted by his condescension and vote for Hillary or better yet, just vote for McCain in the general. But nobody with any sense can say that this dust up helped Obama get closer to the Presidency. |
Obama
We in Philly are mad about the way the dems and rep ran this place into the gound and made millions doing it
they don t care about any of us and it is about time we start caring about our self and the people around us and start changeing the way thing run in this country That is why Obama is the man |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.