Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Will do.

TM

Doesn't club live in sf? Careful T he's trying to get you out of the way - maybe for election day?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Will do.

TM

Are you agreeing to bring the pillow or does your lack of inclusion of that part indicate that you expect him to provide one?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

This sort of shit happens every. single. damned. election, and only to the benefit of Republicans. Forgive me if I'm not inclined to think favorably on that party on anything having to do with race. Especially when the damned governor of the state releases this ad today, the LAST day of early voting, not the first, which was nearly two weeks ago, as the ad says.

I'm sure Republicans are shiny happy rainbow colored people in other states, but around here they certainly don't act like it.

Intimidation is loathsome, but a con job is a whole different animal. If voters can be so easily tricked and confused, be they black, white, whatever, that's their fault.

I'm quite uncomfortable with any non-compromised adult claiming he was unfairly duped. Life's a series of people trying to screw you out of things. Hell, almost all marketing is on some level a con job. Get suckered, tough shit on you.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The fact is that a majority of the population simply does not agree with him (to be kind).

What the majority believes is a very slippery concept, but when adequately defined in the polling, I think you are wrong.

His real problem is that of the centrist. He keeps compromising, thus pissing off his base but still being totally open to (often silly) criticism from the right. But it is exactly that pragmatic compromise for which he should at least get respect (even if like me you think it is getting in the way now).

Oh, yeah, and there is no small number of racists in this country who are predisposed to disagree with him because he's black.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

And he is, apparently, chronically tardy.

See also.

Do you know any big shot law firm partner, much less leader of the free world, who isn't chronically tardy?

It isn't third grade spelling.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

What the majority believes is a very slippery concept, but when adequately defined in the polling, I think you are wrong.

His real problem is that of the centrist. He keeps compromising, thus pissing off his base but still being totally open to (often silly) criticism from the right. But it is exactly that pragmatic compromise for which he should at least get respect (even if like me you think it is getting in the way now).

Oh, yeah, and there is no small number of racists in this country who are predisposed to disagree with him because he's black.

As of a poll this week, 65% of the country would not vote to re-elect him were the election to be held today.

This is not a problem of being too centrist, offending his base, etc. The problem is that the country does not agree with the direction in which the country is heading. Part of that is unfair to Obama, because he inherited a total fucking mess. But those are the breaks. The other part is squarely on his shoulders. He has rammed through unpopular items (see HC, bailouts, etc.) and his administration has generally been viewed as incompetent (see BP). You can put various percentages on the each of these items, but the end result is the same.

And mind you, the same electorate you claim to be racist hasn't changed much from that which elected him.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Doesn't club live in sf? Careful T he's trying to get you out of the way - maybe for election day?

Club lives in LA (born and raised). He did a 6 year stint in SF on a cultural exchange program.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think people would understand that their taxes are currently lower than they were when he took office.

I think more people would understand, but not all. Some of them just think "deficit is bigger, spending must be higher, therefore taxes must be higher." Even though 2/3 of that is wrong.

Well, maybe not on the last two, since I think a huge percentage of the population consists of morons.

TM

Indeed.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Obama has been treated with far more respect than Bush II ever was.

I don't know whether to ask what color the sky is in your world or whether you really don't see the difference between the treatment of a below-average ideologue and a sincere pragmatist.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

As of a poll this week, 65% of the country would not vote to re-elect him were the election to be held today.

You know this is non-responsive, right?

The problem is that the country does not agree with the direction in which the country is heading.

A good part of that is the very common misperception of reality. If you really think that the country understands that (1) their taxes went down, (2) there are no death panels, (3) bailing out wall street actually helped (even if it wasn't done exactly how anyone outside of government would have liked, and (4) the stimulus didn't solve the problem, but was benificial, but nonetheless disagrees with "the direction" of the country, then there is no point in discussing further.

He has rammed through unpopular items (see HC, bailouts, etc.)

Confirmed. No point in discussing further.

his administration has generally been viewed as incompetent (see BP).

You are teetering on brooks territory now.

And mind you, the same electorate you claim to be racist hasn't changed much from that which elected him.

The thing is, the differences in opinion we are talking about are on the margin. It's a few hopeful students staying home, or a few previously hopeful anemically-informed middle class voters buying into the R propaganda (death panels!, bail outs!, higher taxes!).


With SAM's admonishments in mind, it's really about people like you. People who for whatever reason are angry at Obama for doing exactly the same things as people like Bush and Romney, but paying lip service to the left while doint it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I don't give two shits about Brooks and frankly, could barely comprehend the point he was trying to make.

It's hard for me to believe that someone who can make a living as a lawyer can barely comprehend what Brooks was trying to say. He writes in English. It's not rocket science. Try to imagine a New York Times columnist saying this:

Culturally, George W. Bush will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility.

or this:

Culturally, Bill Clinton will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility.

Never in a million years would Brooks say that about a white President.

Something you apparently share with most conservatives is that you are far more bothered by the notion that someone might be accused of racism than you seem to be the suggestion of actual racism. If you actually could give a shit for a second about the offensive shit in Brooks' column, it would be a little easier to be sympathetic to your outrage at the horrible injustices done to the Tea Party movement. (And I say this as someone who has been more sympathetic here to that outrage than most.) But, as you say, you don't give two shits about it.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

As of a poll this week, 65% of the country would not vote to re-elect him were the election to be held today.

His polling numbers most closely track Reagan's. Even today.

Reagan wouldn't have been elected after year 2 either. But in both Reagan's case and in Obama's case that doesn't matter. So who gives a shit?

[Adder]

Bigotry totally isn't an issue today.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's hard for me to believe that someone who can make a living as a lawyer can barely comprehend what Brooks was trying to say. He writes in English. It's not rocket science. Try to imagine a New York Times columnist saying this:

Culturally, George W. Bush will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility.

or this:

Culturally, Bill Clinton will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility.

Never in a million years would Brooks say that about a white President.

Something you apparently share with most conservatives is that you are far more bothered by the notion that someone might be accused of racism than you seem to be the suggestion of actual racism. If you actually could give a shit for a second about the offensive shit in Brooks' column, it would be a little easier to be sympathetic to your outrage at the horrible injustices done to the Tea Party movement. (And I say this as someone who has been more sympathetic here to that outrage than most.) But, as you say, you don't give two shits about it.

2 points 2 posts- point 1-

and (edit- I'm mostly interested in whether others read the guy's point differently than how i have)

what i read the guy is trying to say- "obama needs to win back independents (read white independents)- and they might fear obama is really on the side on the shiftless poor (read whatever you want there) so he needs to show he isn't, and that he is really on the side of traditional hard working values."
that is, it seems like he's saying obama was able to get votes from some people who have racial baggage in 2008 and he needs to reassure them.

I'm not sure if this Brooks guy is a closet klan guy or what, and maybe what he said is improper, I swear I get lost in what's apprpriate and what's not, but right on this board I asked the question-

How could Obama be way ahead in Michigan in 2008 when we outlawed affirmative action by a large margin in 2006?

there is a foul truth buried under that, isn't there?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's hard for me to believe that someone who can make a living as a lawyer can barely comprehend what Brooks was trying to say. He writes in English. It's not rocket science. Try to imagine a New York Times columnist saying this:

Culturally, George W. Bush will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility.

or this:

Culturally, Bill Clinton will have to demonstrate that even though he comes from an unusual background, he is a fervent believer in the old-fashioned bourgeois virtues: order, self-discipline, punctuality and personal responsibility.

Never in a million years would Brooks say that about a white President.

Something you apparently share with most conservatives is that you are far more bothered by the notion that someone might be accused of racism than you seem to be the suggestion of actual racism. If you actually could give a shit for a second about the offensive shit in Brooks' column, it would be a little easier to be sympathetic to your outrage at the horrible injustices done to the Tea Party movement. (And I say this as someone who has been more sympathetic here to that outrage than most.) But, as you say, you don't give two shits about it.

the thing that gets us independents pissed, and what I think club was referring to, is that when a racist pops up, his action is sometimes attributed to people that have not business being tied to the statement-

remember when GGG said "mccain staffers were selling obama as some stereotype buttons?"

or even my sweet RT today, stretching the actions of anti-black crazed to Rs generally.

it's not different in substance from when Rs try to tag main stream Ds with the dailykos/DU/GGG fringe, is it?