Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just curious when the far left will begin its revolt. As one of the guest pointed out that many Democrats on one hand don't wish to be harsh on "their guy", they are also under a great deal of pressure from their constituents at home. Just as Obama is surely feeling the tension of keeping Wallstreet greased on one hand and appearing as protector of the little guy, so too are Congressional Democrats. Which will blink, which will give first and when?
I honestly think that the outrageous rhetoric and behavior of the far right prevents liberals from being as harsh...or revolting as much....as we would otherwise. While we would like to raise holy heck about the failure to live up to his promises, we hesitate to do so because the neo cons grab those comments and use them as "proof" that even liberals think he is a socialist, communist, muslim guy who was born in Kenya. Were we able to have honest discussions and raise honest concerns without the destructive element using our concerns to further raise a wall between us and the changes we so desire you would see the beginnings of a revolution. I think that many of us are probably expressing our concerns in written form to the President and our Representatives. There will, however, be a tipping point if things don't soon change.
FDR & LBJ were not extreme - nor was Reagan for that matter.
Do you consider FDR's strong pro-active position getting America involved on the Allied side (prior to Pearl Harbor) to be a typical Far Left position? How about LBJ's escalation of the Vietnam War? I don't think so.
LBJ took MASSIVE grief from the Far Left on Vietnam. I LIVED through those years and the Far Left DISDAINED LBJ.
Ken
It appears to me that you think that liberals are only concerned with issues pertaining to war. The majority of liberals...more than conservatives...agreed with FDR about entering WWII. And FDRs construction of the social safety net that protects us to this day was certainly a based on liberal philosophy.
And while liberals....and even some conservatives...rightly disagreed with LBJs escalation of the Vietnam War....I fail to understand why you disregard his War on Poverty, Voting Rights Act, and many things done to promote civil rights. Surely you must agree that those were indeed liberal positions.
That's silly BS.
How many folks from the Far Right do you see on this board praising the Health Care legislation - or cheering on the Bail-outs?
The answer is pretty much ZERO.
Neither the Far Right nor the Far Left is happy.
To me - that means he's doing OK.
Ken
Can't remember who said something to the effect of, The only time the American people are truly safe is when Congress isn't in session.
However, if no one is happy then doesn't this also suggest that something isn't quite right? Now I can't remember the days of LBJ as can you, but I must ask, how long has it been that the citizenry has had such a low opinion of its government in general?
The older I get, the less time I spend on the left vs right aspect and instead focus more upon the people v government/establishment or whatever you wish to call it. (a vertical aspect as opposed to a horizontal one) To use an analogy from the book, The Hobbit, where Bilbo gets the trolls arguing over how to serve him for dinner and they remain so intent on fighting among themselves that the sun comes up and they all perish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LML
I honestly think that the outrageous rhetoric and behavior of the far right prevents liberals from being as harsh...or revolting as much....as we would otherwise. While we would like to raise holy heck about the failure to live up to his promises, we hesitate to do so because the neo cons grab those comments and use them as "proof" that even liberals think he is a socialist, communist, muslim guy who was born in Kenya. Were we able to have honest discussions and raise honest concerns without the destructive element using our concerns to further raise a wall between us and the changes we so desire you would see the beginnings of a revolution. I think that many of us are probably expressing our concerns in written form to the President and our Representatives. There will, however, be a tipping point if things don't soon change.
I think this was the point that Robert Kuttner was trying to make during this interview even though he didn't state it as so. While I disagree with Obama and this administration on numerous things, there are a few things I do agree with and I only hope that this administration doesn't mucks up things so bad that nothing good comes of it.
Who and what has the most influence over the determination of popularity?
I recall after the 2004 Presidential election that Chris Matthews and a guest dedicated a portion of his show to talking about the then little known Barack Obama as being the mostly likely candidate in 08. I thought to myself at the time, how the heck would they know... yet here we are.
What it comes down to is voters vote for the most popular person (seen and talked about on MSM) who promises the most for the least.
Obama was the one..he promised everything to everybody and was all over the MSM.
Did anyone dig into his past and promote on MSM ? No..he came out of nowhere and won the majority of votes..why is that ? Do people not do their civic duty and research their candidates ? (I don't think so).
HappyTexan
Your so correct. He sure did make a lot of promises, and talked about his CHANGE. Why didn't the News Outlets look more into his past, and past assosciations, why let it go, They looked into all other canidates running for President. They had an obligation to the American Public, for researching Obama and his past acquaintances. Why was he so different, and why did the Media Outllets put him on a pedestal. Why!
It appears to me that you think that liberals are only concerned with issues pertaining to war. The majority of liberals...more than conservatives...agreed with FDR about entering WWII. And FDRs construction of the social safety net that protects us to this day was certainly a based on liberal philosophy.
And while liberals....and even some conservatives...rightly disagreed with LBJs escalation of the Vietnam War....I fail to understand why you disregard his War on Poverty, Voting Rights Act, and many things done to promote civil rights. Surely you must agree that those were indeed liberal positions.
I never said they didn't hold Liberal positions. I said, they weren't FAR Left. They were CENTER-Left - as Obama is.
Can't remember who said something to the effect of, The only time the American people are truly safe is when Congress isn't in session.
However, if no one is happy then doesn't this also suggest that something isn't quite right? Now I can't remember the days of LBJ as can you, but I must ask, how long has it been that the citizenry has had such a low opinion of its government in general?
Well, I think the 60's were FAR tumultuous than today in regards to politics and the general unhappiness and polarization of the electorate. Having said, that I DO think that the country is more polarized now that at any time SINCE then. A big part of that - I think - is the advent of the 24 hour cable news networks (FOX News in particular - which is VERY political - but also the others). The truth of the matter is that NONE of these networks really do a very good job of broadcasting the news - in fact, collectively they do a horrible job. The vast bulk of their time is NOT spent reporting news, but rather political opinion. Sure they broadcast 24 hours a day, but when you take out the time spent on commerical breaks (probably 6 hours or so), remove the poltical "opinion" shows (which really is just a bunch of blowhards spouting off on their opinions as if THEIR opinions are somehow more important than anyone elses), remove the "repeats" of those "opinion" shows - and then factor in the fact that even the "news" part of those networks broadcasts are really just the same limited of collection of stories (and not even in-depth stories at that) that are repeated over and over again every half hour - you really probably end up with AT MOST an hour and half of fresh news every day. That's pretty darned bad for 24 hours of broadcast time.
The result of all this though is an electorate who are largely manipulated (on both sides) by their favorite media source. Now in truth, that's really no different from the "old days" of newspapers etc - however, it seems to me that because those voters see SO MUCH of this same garbage broadcast, they somehow think that they are so much more informed than everyone else - when in fact, they are just watching GARBAGE - and it's quite possible that the MORE they watch, they LESS they are really informed - mainly because these sources are becoming increasingly BLATANT their bias and their obvious attempts of manipulation of their viewers.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 12-20-2009 at 01:23 PM..
Ken, I think you are only partially right here. I'd say that after the 1960's, the discontent towards the end of the Jimmy Carter term was pretty strong too. As far as media, and stuff like blogs, cable shows and posting sites, I think it provides an outlet for external validity that feeds into strengthening their discontent.
I guess I'd summarize it by saying that the historical polling has shown it to be there multiple times in the past, but the "progress" in technology allows it to be more externally discussed. Before, you just sat there and had "agreement reality" with some like minded neighbors, while now you can join "agreement reality" networks.
Heck, you can even facebook your "agreement reality".
I must agree that the media, by and large, care much for for having an "exciting story" than they do reporting facts. They decided early on in the last election that the "fun story" would be a race between Hillary and Barrack. And by golly that is exactly what they engineered by reporting it as a fact long before it was. Furthermore, the media has NEVER liked Hillary and the entire tone of their reporting made that clear. I don't agree with the right wing about almost anything but I will agree that most of the media was clearly in Obama's camp.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,774,755 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
FDR & LBJ were not extreme - nor was Reagan for that matter.
Do you consider FDR's strong pro-active position getting America involved on the Allied side (prior to Pearl Harbor) to be a typical Far Left position? How about LBJ's escalation of the Vietnam War? I don't think so.
LBJ took MASSIVE grief from the Far Left on Vietnam. I LIVED through those years and the Far Left DISDAINED LBJ.
Ken
LBJ did a lot of good things for this country. More than most Presidents. Have gave this country Medicare, Rural Electric Administration and greatly expanded the interstate highway system that Ike started.
Yes he went wrong on Vietnam and it cost him dearly. That is what happens when you listen too much to military generals- which is what is going on now with Obama. Sometimes you have to say no to them as Truman did when he fired McCarthur for questioning his authority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
