So, after avoiding any attempt to embarrass someone gifted enough to write for the Washington Post, I ought to focus primarily on his thesis which is, "Americans are sick to death of Bush. They don't agree with him on key issues of the day. That was one of the messages delivered -loud and clear- yesterday by decisively electing Obama." Gosh, where do I begin?
Perhaps with the benign statement that Dan is right on one recent fact; most Americans did not agree with Bush's idea of a Wall Street bailout package of $700 billion. Unfortunately, Dan, this does not support your thesis because the package was supported by the Democratic-controlled Congress and, believe it or not, President-elect Obama. Hmmm....
How about his statement of a "loud and clear....decisive election"? Forgive me, but I am a numbers guy so I tend to not lose myself in emotional rhetoric. Here are indisputable facts dealing with yesterday's election and current American sentiment: (1) Obama netted a massive 1.5% more of the popular vote than Bush earned in 2004. (2) The great youth base of Obama turned out at 18%, which is an outstanding 1% higher than the previous 17-point average over the past three elections and 3-points less than the 21% turnout in 1992. (3) Congress' approval ratings were dropping during the Republican-controlled years of 2004-06, and they subsequently have dropped to the lowest levels in the history of tracking this sentiment during the 2007-to-presently-Democratic-controlled Congress; Congress' current approval rating make Bush's numbers look like the silver lining in the thunderstorm of public disgust about the federal government. (4) Obama netted 53% of the popular vote to McCain's 46%; there are perhaps a handful of political scientists that would call the election "loud and clear" and "decisive." In 1984 Ronald Reagan won in 49 of the 50 states, earned 59% of the popular vote compared to Mondale's 40%; that in Political Science terms is a landslide, or in Dan's terms, "loud and clear." (5) Finally, over 50% of the American public believe the surge in Iraq is working. McCain pushed for the surge before anyone even knew what is was and Bush obviously enacted it. Obama however, is in the minority opposed to the surge and miraculously still opposed to recognizing its success.
Numbers are indeed funny things; they cannot help but be objectively non-partisan. Dan, I hope Obama doesn't follow your script of all show without substance.
4 comments:
the bailout bill is a quid pro quo for the corporate america that sends millions of dollars to "our" (their) politicians. check out obama's top campaign contributors; it is like reading a list of top financial companies in the wall street journal.
this was the coup de grace to the idea of the "free market" in America. the dept. of treasury (now mostly Goldman Sachs &Co.) is a $700b national investment bank.
This is a question moreso than a comment for goobernation to hopefully reflect on:
How can traditionalists and republicans convince the mainstream media to report on and discuss the recent media bias report issued by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism's findings?
This report, http://journalism.org/node/13436 no doubt paints the picture that the mainstream media as a whole reports overwhelmingly favorable to liberals, and in this case Obama. Some mainstream media outlets, trusted for years by every day Americans, were outright deliberate in their bias.
Again this question and concerned citizen looks to goobernation to shed light on this topic. As I see it, the only way to balance out the message is to balance out the media. Otherwise, average every day Americans will continue to take lead from what they are editorially being told in the mainstream media.
It was not a landslide. There was a definitive choice if you look at the electoral votes. Popular vote seems to be only a good argument for the side that loses. See year 2000 for a perfect example.
I do think it is telling that the sacred red state of Indiana went blue. I do remember someone saying "Indiana will go Democrat (legally)....never." That is the one state that has not wavered (since 80) even when Florida and Ohio went blue during the Clinton years.
I am sure there are a million reasons for this, but I think it is telling of a bigger problem for the Republican base.
I am no Sarah Palin fan, but the leaks that are coming out of the campaign is just rediculous. She could be the future of the Republican party after some good political exposure.
Fiscalparley...well stated. Lehman Bros. I guess did not commit enough funds so Paulson let them drown, however he would never allow his former Goldman company ever come into danger. If we think the selectivity of Treasury help was questionable under Paulson, just wait until Lawrence Summers (sp) gets the post; we might as put Castro in there. We will pay dearly for a long time for giving the Treasury that kind of power and discretionary ability.
BMac, that Pew report was talked about on Fox, and on KECT (sp) public television (PBS or someting) and nowhere else. On PBS they even had the guy on explaining the results, of course few if any of the mainstream public watch PBS political news. The Pew report simply statistical proves what we all know on the right and left: Fox is right and everyone else is left.
So, BMac, here is my answer: we will not convince them otherwise because they see the world through a different set of eyes. While Fox, the internet and talk radio is doing a yeoman's job, I believe the best solution is for Rupert Murdoch (sp) or someone else to start an additional right leaning station that includes a COMEDY show! Everyone loves comedy, so why not tap into that market. Look at SNL did to destroy Palin, while at the same time do nothing to Obama. Really, what scandalous jokes did they use about him....NONE...and it wasn't like there wasn't alot of material out there.
Chado, I have no explanation for Indiana. After living here for three months now I wouldn't have thought it possible. Now, I still believe that Lake county cheated its ass off, which is why people are being charged there, but still even the fact the vote was so close has dumbfounded me. Bush got over 60% of the vote in 2000 and 2004!
Here is the Republican problem: if they nominate an intelligent, experienced white man he is pinned as old-school conservative, out of touch, blah blah blah and they run the risk of alienating the middle which sways with the popular breeze. They need a younger hip and knowledgeable person and they are difficult to find. Or they could find someone that talks like a preacher; it worked for the Democrats this year :)
Post a Comment