Obama: You just don’t get how great I am
If you’ll all excuse a drive by posting by a really busy guy:
Obama told Charlie Rose today that his biggest failing as President was that he didn’t spend enough time communicating how successful he is to the spooked herd of sheeple roaming the American countryside which constitute the voting (or polled) public. You see, he’s been doing a bang up job as President, he just hasn’t worked hard enough to let you know about it. But don’t let me tell you, take it from him:
“The mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”
President Obama said he’s fallen short in “explaining, but also inspiring” the American public, which is why he has been spending more time traveling the country.
He continued, “It’s funny – when I ran, everybody said, well he can give a good speech but can he actually manage the job? And in my first two years, I think the notion was, ‘Well, he’s been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where’s the story that tells us where he’s going?’ And I think that was a legitimate criticism.”
Get it?
Now of course one can make a convincing argument that Obamacare, the largest give away from the rich and middle class to the poor since LBJ, is a huge PR problem. After all, it’s always been more unpopular than popular yet the Democratic Party has spent the past 50 years winning votes by giving away other people’s money in just such fashion. As George Bernard Shaw once said to inadvertently indicted his own Progressivism, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
So what’s the disconnect here?
Explaining away the rest of the tangible numbers over the past four years as him not spending enough time with the American public on his knee might prove to be a bit more difficult.
Category: Politics
@149- fine, upnorth. Look at the site and name the quote they took out of context. Go on i dare you, i double dog dare you. The “out of context” whine is getting tired stale and old. Like the Republican Party. Prove it.
insipid: actually, you were going further than attempting to show lack of affirmative action. You were using the scarcity of black national and “statewide” office holders (governors, US Senators) to imply that blacks faced an electoral disadvantage rather than to merely show that affirmative action was not a factor. You’d have had to do a much more complicated analysis for the latter.
All I did was use the same mechanism to point out just how absurd your rudimentary “analysis” of the issue based on cherry-picked data actually was using a similarly restricted sample designed to support a predetermined conclusion – just like you did. Such analyses based on partial data can be rigged to prove literally anything – as I showed in my admittedly ridiculous counterexample.
If you want to make a valid argument about racial bias in elections using statistics, please do so. But don’t throw out a few carefully-chosen cases that support your predetermined conclusions, then generalize from that. Such an analysis is BS.
“[I]n Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/12032142-460/prosecutors-trayvon-martin-case-led-to-racial-beating-in-oak-park.html
After Trayvon Martin there have been multiple incidents of such things. Don’t like facts?
“Obama’s entire economic program is reparations.”
Many would agree.
“NASCAR people understand that’s a little bit of a waste. They understand it’s a little bit of uppity-ism. First ladies have not been known to hop their own 757s four hours ahead of their husband when they’re both going to the same place.”
Such as being arrogant? Check the quote you put below for further clarification.
Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he’s smarter and better than everybody else. That’s what he was taught. He’s a Harvard man.”
So he doesn’t like him because he’s elitist and arrogant, but not because he’s black?(his own words)
“Obama has disowned his white half … he’s decided he’s got to go all in on the black side.”
Check Obama and when he said that Trayvon Martin would look just like him. I guess that isn’t picking sides now..
I actually pointed to a statistical analysis and the reaction from some (no, not you) was “New York Times liberal bias!”.
This is the type of thing that defies statistical analysis. Who admits to a pollster that they won’t vote for a black man? I believe it is best to look at the big picture. There have been less than 10 black people that have served in the Senate, the Presidency and Governorships combined in 100 years. I believe that, by itself, makes the case that there is a reluctance to elect black people to high office. There is also a reluctance to elect women and other minorities.
You seem to only mind “BS arguments” if it comes from the left. You admit that it is absurd to argue that there is an advantage to being black and seeking higher office, yet you seem to have little problem with the many folks on this board that say so.
@153- “Many would agree”.
Yes, racists. When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
@155 Wait so I’m racist for pointing out the truth? What’s next because I hate people like the KKK(since ya know, they’re actually idiot racists) I hate myself for being white? I might as well just call you racist for disagreeing with me, since obviously that is exactly what you just tried to do to me.
Easy, stupe, I don’t jump to your command. I said that MM isn’t factual, accurate and they are not in context. If you think they are, prove it. And the Limbaugh screed doesn’t prove anything. I won’t go so simple as to “double dog dare you”. If your “white shoe law firm” saw that, I doubt they’d even let you empty the shredder bins.
It’s so easy for you to throw the “racist” card, it’s just like you relying on “statistical analysis”, then qualifying your statements by hiding behind “This is the type of thing that defies statistical analysis”. IOW, statistically, everyone on the right is a racist, but no, I can’t statistically quantify that.
Oh for Gods sakes WHAT Obama program could be seen even vaguely as “reparations”. The health care bill is going to help WAY more white people then black people. The expansion of S-chip, pell grants, reform of student loans and bank overdraft fees helps everyone.
For arguments sake, let’s pretend that there is some program he has proposed that neither you nor Rush Limbaugh can name that has helped black people more than whites. So what? The voting rights act, the civil rights act and other programs passed by white presidents were never described by racist Rush as being “Reparations” Bill Clinton pushed for universal health single-payer care and i don’t recall him calling that reparations.
Barack Obama gets accused of seeking reparations without any evidence because he wants to paint the picture of the scary black man coming to take your stuff.
If you want to site a source, i’ll look at it. It’s not up to me to disprove my own sources and shouts of LIBERAL MEDIA have lost their credibility ten years ago. Media matters goes out of its way to put people in context. While Rush and Bill O’Reilly CLAIM that Media matters takes them out of context, you can’t name a time where either of those two windbags got specefic, can you? They failed, just like you did.
I never claimed to do a “statistical analysis” on whites voting for blacks. I merely claimed that there have been less than 10 blacks elected to governorships and Senate seats in over 100 years and that this speaks for itself.
I never claimed that “everyone on the right is racist” I was very specefic in my charges. You seem to be claiming that no one on the right is racist (and no, i’m not claiming no one on the left is racist- I think Michael Moore has earned that charge, as well as Glenn Greenwald).
If you want to rename everything that is racist as something else then I suppose there is no racism. Thus loaded phrases like “Affirmative Action President” “Reparations” and “uppity” are no longer racist. And i suppose that pictures of a white-house with watemellons in the front, and pictures of Barack Obama with a bone through his nose and a cartoon of cops shooting a chimp and making a joke about Barack Obama is not racist either. And the near-constant depictions of President Obama as angry or a radical or a muslim extremist and the demands that he show us his birth certificate and the screaming of “you lie” at the state of the Union are all things that White Presidents have had to endure. You can say that things are not racist by simply stamping your feet and denying reality all you want. But if you do that it is you, and not I, that is seeing what you want to see.
In case people weren’t aware, MSNBC the mouthpiece of BO administration is dissolving – becoming NBCNews. Mmm…ok i’m sure Mittens will get “fair & balanced ” treatment from now on…
“I actually pointed to a statistical analysis and the reaction from some (no, not you) was “New York Times liberal bias!”.
“This is the type of thing that defies statistical analysis”. I do believe that was you, up in #154. Now, it’s “I never claimed to do a “statistical analysis” on whites voting for blacks”. No , you didn’t, but you seemed to hitch your wagon to that, until it wasn’t tenable to do so.
As for your whining that “The health care bill is going to help WAY more white people then black people”, in my opinion, that’s simply not true. It would seem that the oppressors(whites) will have to shell out far more than the oppressed(blacks) if this mess is ever codified and put into practice. It ain’t free, somebody has to pay. And, don’t insult your own intelligence by saying “the insurance companies”. When Otaxacare has done what it’s intended to do, put private companies out of business, the feds will step in, which has been the plan all along. Now, for the learning-challenged like you, sip, it’s the taxpayers who will have to fund the whole banana. And that wasn’t meant as racist, though I’m sure you’ll see it that way.
It would appear that “liar” is another word we must add to our list of racist naughty words.
South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson tried the “you lie!” thing and got pummeled by MSM and House of Representatives. Yes it was bad form to do it while BO was addressing joint session of Congress, but c’mon man does it have to be about race also. I mean Dubya got heckled during his SOTU speeches – so that must have been racially motivated as well right?
Ya know Insipid, as an honest man, I must give you credit for your passion. I was raised in a Democratic household but my parents were “Zell Miller” Democrats. They wanted an opportunity, not a hand-out. Because of my upbringing I can follow the logic of your arguments. I don’t agree with ’em but I understand ’em.
President obama, I respect the office not the man, has lied. The SCOTUS had to rewrite the “obamacare” act to be able to make it legal. The act said if you didn’t get insurance you would pay a “penalty”. SCOTUS said they couldn’t do that so they reclassified it as a TAX, which comrade obama said he wouldn’t do. Have you heard about the ‘commercials’ on tv and radio that are urging people to sign up for assistance? There have been reports on Fox and even CNN and MSNBC. I have a number of liberal friends who are questioning his policies. THAT to me speaks volumes.
insipid: To reflect your own question in comment 154 back to you: who admits to a pollster that they’ll vote for a candidate solely because they’re black (or white, or Latino, or Asian, or . . . . )? I’d guess the answer is about the same number as would admit the opposite – very few to none. But only a fool would believe that many don’t do exactly what they refuse to admit.
And you still don’t “get it” regarding the use of numbers to “prove” discrimination. My contrived and absolutely bogus “proof” that Americans discriminate against Catholics is just as valid as your argument that statistics support the “self-evident fact” that blacks are today discriminated against by the electorate. In fact, it’s a better argument. Why? It uses the same methodology you did; it uses more consistent data (no questionable deletions); and it shows a greater departure from statistical expectation based on population fraction. But it’s still bogus – and obviously so. Inappropriate or incomplete data often yields invalid results.
You may or may not be correct in your thesis above – but your use of cherry-picked and misleading data to “prove” your point proves nothing. Using carefully selected examples vice complete data, one can generally support any conclusion one wants – whether or not the conclusion is true.
Hell, choose ridiculous enough data and you can even prove Social Security isn’t in financial trouble and is thus good “insurance”. (smile)
Mmm…yep there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
At 150, sip, you said:
“That’s what they are aruing when they say “Affirmative Action President”. They’re saying it is an advantage to be black and run for elected office. It is obvious from the most superficial glances that it is not. Besides President Obama there is one black Governor and not black senators. The case for elections being “affirmative action programs” is just not there.”
Uh, who said that? It is certainly not my understanding of the use of the term.
There you go again, sip. You make erroneous assumptions based on your own prejudices, apply faulty logic, and throw in some less than factual data. No wonder you end up out in lah-lah land with your conclusions.