Quantcast FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: White Approval of Obama

9.11.2009

White Approval of Obama

Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times pubbed a major piece by Peter Wallsten on the subject of Obama's growing "problem" with white voters. The article cites a series of developments since the president's 100-day mark in office--from the Van Jones episode to some comments by Congressman Charlie Rangel to a Ramadan dinner at the White House--as possible contributors to declining white support for the president and his agenda. Nate blogged about this article recently here.


Because Obama's support among blacks has held constant, white voter support levels more or less account for the president's declining overall numbers.

Wallsten writes:

New surveys show steep declines in Obama's approval ratings among whites -- including Democrats and independents -- who were crucial elements of the diverse coalition that helped elect the country's first black president.

Among white Democrats, Obama’s job approval rating has dropped 11 points since his 100-days mark in April, according to surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It has dropped by 9 points among white independents and whites over 50, and by 12 points among white women -- all groups that will be targeted by both parties in next year's midterm elections.


There are (at least) two things to keep in mind when considering the potential political and (in 2010, 2012) electoral impact of Obama's white support. First, remember that Obama only received 43 percent of the white vote last November, according to exit polls.

Second, there is of course quite a bit of state variation in Obama's white support. The figure above reports white support from 13 statewide polls taken in the last week of August, as compiled by SurveyUSA. Though not a perfectly representative sample, the 13 happen to include states large and small; from the North and South; whose populations are largely white or mixed-race; featuring high median incomes and low; and that were swing states as well as blowouts in the 2008 presidential. For these 13, I then provided Obama's share of the statewide white vote last November. (CNN's link here for Alabama; you can use the menu bar at the top of the page to select any of the other 12 or all 49 other states.)

And guess what? The president's late-August approval numbers among whites aren't much different from his share of the white vote on Election Day. Approval rating is not a pure proxy for voting behavior; people who "approve" of Obama may not have, and may not again in 2012, vote for him, and vice-versa.

But the point I'm making is that Obama's white voter "problem" is a bit overstated. Yes, he seems to have dropped a bit in Virginia and Wisconsin, two states he won by a somewhat slim and very comfortable margin, respectively. And maybe he had better pay attention to New Mexico. But his numbers are actually up in some states, and overall they track pretty closely in all 13 states except Alabama--where his approval far exceeds his white vote share 10 months ago.

116 comments

wadingheron said...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/dept-of-stupid-headlines-la-times.html

rc said...

OTOH, one could say that Obama's support has declined by up to 11 points in more than 60 percent of the states surveyed.

ravi526 said...

This white voter thing is a bit misleading due to marked disapproval among southern white voters as compared with other white Democratic presidential candidates (and yes, race is a big reason to explain the differential). If you take the south out of the equation and look at the remainder of the country, I think you will find that Obama in fact won a majority of the white vote in most of the states that he won outside the South in 2008, with the possible exception of Indiana. I don't need a regression analysis to figure out that if Obama won Iowa by 10 points that he won the majority of white voters in that state because the state has may be 10 black people in it.

Norwegian Shooter said...

Thanks, wadingheron, I didn't see the earlier 538 post. And I didn't see the graphic accompanying the LA Times article either. I read it online and can't figure out how to see it even today.

My stats issue is another chart linked from the article. The Pew document cited was a custom made 3-page "report" that was jerry-rigged from two different Pew surveys (536 and 539 for those familiar with Pew). It had a typo on April vs. July as well. How common a practice is this to use custom made charts from Pew?

My journalism issue is the rest of the article. What a piece of crap! It repeated every single "controversy" and conservative talking point with complete credulity. The statistical issue is a drop of blood in the full bucket of raw tripe that describes this article.

Wolf of Aquarius said...

But what about the Bradley Effect?

...

I thank all the gods we'll never be hearing about the Bradley Effect again. It was frustrating to hear right-wing pundits pin all their hopes on the Bradley Effect. I thought that they were wrong but still had nagging doubts. Going into 2012, I think we'll all be much more trusting of the polls.

Obama 2012!

harold said...

Here are some obvious things that have been easily observable at least since Obama got the nomination -

1) Obama is the first African-American to have been successfully nominated as a presidential candidate and elected president.
Furthermore, he is not some "maverick black conservative", but a Democrat in tune with the basic values of the majority of African-Americans. Therefore, DUH!, he can be expected to have consistently high ratings among African-Americans. Duh. Seriously.

2) Obama is a charismatic speaker, an excellent speech-giver, and promotes policies that are centrist and incremental - he's actually marginally less liberal than the "average American" on a fair number of issues. He sometimes frustrates progressives, including me, but when he is visible in the media, his popularity goes up.

3) The media is still pro-Republican overall, and with the possible exception of Barney Frank, prominent Democrats like Pelosi, Reed, et al tend to be poor communicators and transparent hacks (which is still better than being addicted to an insane ideology). When Obama is not in view, the media pounds away with wingnut commentators and the like, and the popularity of Obama and the Democrats reduces a bit - but never to the extent that the electoral landscape looks good for Republicans.

Then Obama makes a speech again and his approval among the general population goes back up.

Aldous said...

You write: "Approval rating is not a pure proxy for voting behavior; people who "approve" of Obama may not have, and may not again in 2012, vote for him, and vice-versa."

And immediately afterwards: But the point I'm making is that Obama's white voter "problem" is a bit overstated."

But how can we tell? Admitting that approval is not a pure proxy for voting behavior, we don't know anything from the post about how rough a proxy it is, whether presidential approval tends to be systematically higher or lower than electoral outcomes in the year following the election, and so on.

Wouldn't a much better indication of any current "problem" with white voters be the change in approval among white voters over the past months, in lieu of data on Obama v. a generic Republican opponent?

dorkenergy said...

@harold: You've captured much -- kudos to you.

Aldous said...

Hmm, I see that the earlier post linked by wadingheron does precisely what I suggest. Still, it's hard to see what the analysis here adds to the argument - the LA Times article's poor use of evidence already having been pointed out.

Eli Blake said...

You're missing the obvious here:

States where Obama is up: AL (Republican Governor), CA (Republican Governor), KS (Republican Governor) and MO (Democratic Governor.)

No change: MN (Republican Governor)

States where Obama is down: All of them have a Democratic Governor.

I'd add, anecdotally that I live in Arizona where the state is now 100% run by the GOP and I believe that Obama is now more popular than he was on election day last year.

So the correlation seems to be that the economy sucks everywhere, and with statewide elections looming in all of these states the voters are blaming the party in power. Obama benefits in states where Republicans are running the show but not in states with Democrats in charge.

Persuter said...

This seems to throw race in where it kind of isn't needed. Black people historically support the Democratic Party pretty unreservedly, so whenever a president loses approval, it's likely among whites more so than blacks.

hurricanexyz said...

I just did a little analysis of shift from Obama vote in 2008 exit polls, nationally, with the most recent set of Rasmussen cross-tab data. Now, I don't love Rasmussen data, even approval ratings at this point, but it has good crosstabs, and it means I'm bending over backwards not to use data that makes Obama look good. I find:

No particular gender gap in the declines.
No shift among whites or blacks, 20-point decline among others.
No shift among the young or the old; modest shift in the middle.
Conservatives holding dead steady, moderates down insignificantly, liberals down 7 points.
Democrats and Independents down 15-ish points, Republicans UP 8 POINTS.
5-7 point declines among all income groups, except a +2 shift among >$100,000 and a -14 between $40-60,000.

Edward said...

The statistically interesting fact here is that Obama's approval in Alabama is currently nearly triple his vote share in November. We don't have any other Old South states in the sample.

Does this mean that White Alabamians are deciding that Obama is not The Sum of All Fears after all, contrary to the constant drumbeat of the noise machine? I would particularly like to know whether this effect is being felt in South Carolina, since North Carolina went for Obama, and South Carolina was in play.

Amanda said...

Because Obama's support among blacks has held constant, white voter support levels more or less account for the president's declining overall numbers.

What about Latino voters? Is there any data regarding their approval of President Obama?

Dwight said...

I'm about to use up my Get Out Of Jail Free Card to make an off topic post. Forgiveness begged in advance....

Anyone up for a rousing game of spot xkcd's latest 538.com reference?

Anyway, take care everyone. I've got matters other than the web to attend to for an extended period so likely won't be by. Tony C., to you from failing hands I throw the torch; Be yours to hold it high. :)

Kid G said...

@ Eli Blake:

That correlation was not obvious to me at all, but I think it is very insightful on your part. I think your argument makes a lot of sense.

Capriccio said...

Bottom line: A health care reform bill passes by Thanksgiving (I can see the Oval Office photo-op now--beaming from behind the President: Baucus, Conrad, Nancy, Steny, The Widow Kennedy, Bill & Hillary. Missing, alas, Tony Weiner). All the reading between now and then of polls, tea leaves, and Teabagger T-shirts is the stuff we do between football games.

Preston said...

Edward, as an Alabamian who follows state politics very closely, I have good reason to doubt that his % of the white vote was actually as low as 10% and that his % of white support now is as high as 28%. 28% white approval would put Obama within shouting distance of winning Alabama's electoral votes come 2012 (it usually takes between 33 and 37% of the white vote for a Dem to win here). Based on county by county results and historic voter trends, Obama looked to have received at least 15% of the white vote in the general election. I know very few people who have changed their minds about him since he got elected.

All that I can figure is that they chose bad areas to sample from. This is likely because the counties where racial composition is most closely analogous to the state as a whole tend to have white voters who are less likely to vote Democratic. Paradoxical though it may seem, white voters in predominantly (or in some instances singularly) white areas of north Alabama are more likely to vote Democratic than areas in central and south Alabama in which the races are fairly evenly populated.

I can tell you from on the ground experience that attitudes have hardened about Obama here among conservatives, especially, sadly, for conservative Democrats.

That said, the stimulus money has proven popular with many outside the hardline GOPers, as has Cash for Clunkers. If I had to guess, these results came from an AEA poll measuring black Democratic candidate Artur Davis' viability as governor. They are a good polling outfit and I am not saying they cooked the numbers, but I don't know anyone on the ground who believes Obama's approval ratings are that high. I could certainly buy that his approval rating has inched upwards a few points since the election. But there is no way that he has seen an 18 (or 13) point bump.

nirad said...

Oddly enough, the charts you show here may be the best indication i have seen that the economy in California is finally improving.

If things are finally improving here, the rest of the country will follow the trend, both economically, and politically.

Chris said...

This type of poll fails to break out the source of the disapproval. In my case, i am a liberal white voter who has been disappointed by Obama's lack of teeth in his negociation with wingnut right wingers. His recent speech was an improvement, but still not enough.

So, I have been lumped in with the Tea Baggers who have increased their disapproval because Obama is the secret love child of Hitler and Dr. Kevorkian. However, there is still no chance in hell I will vote for ANY Republican. Obama has my vote locked up.

shiloh said...

Edward said...

The statistically interesting fact here is that Obama's approval in Alabama is currently nearly triple his vote share in November. We don't have any other Old South states in the sample.
~~~~~~~~~~~~


If true, this may indicate the "Bradley Effect" still exists in AL or not and few other southern states.

Interesting to note Kerry outperformed Obama in Arkansas and Oklahoma and a few other solid Rep states, but Obama didn't do much if any, campaigning in these states

STepper said...

"Pubbed"? Like at my local pub?

Pragmatus said...

harold…

I would add to your list of Democrats who aren’t afraid of controversy the name of Howard Dean, although for reasons inexplicable to me he has been marginalized by this Administration.

It was Dean’s hard work that resulted in the stunning successes in Congress in 2006 and 2008. How did he do it? He wasn’t afraid to call the GOP on its lies and bullshit.

(Yes Virginia, the GOP is all lies and bullshit.)

GROG said...

@pragmatus:

"(Yes Virginia, the GOP is all lies and bullshit.)"

If you want to have a true debate over who the liars are, why don't you give a rundown of GOP "lies and bullshit".

Then I'll give you my rundown of the "lies and bullshit" from the liberals and the Obama administration.

shiloh said...

Since you asked ...

Lies, Damned Lies and statistics

"And finally, as promised, a Special Comment about the shout of "You Lie" during the presidential address to the joint session of Congress last night on the matter of health care reform.

The 43rd president of the United States lied the nation into the war, lied 4,343 of his fellow citizens to death in that war, lied about upholding the constitution, and lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

He lied about how he reacted to Al-Qaeda before 9/11 and he lied about how he reacted to Al-Qaeda after 9/11.

He lied about getting Bin Laden, and he lied about not getting Bin Laden.

He lied about nation-building in Iraq, lied about the appearance of new buildings **in** the nation **of** Iraq, and lied about embassy buildings in nations like Iraq.

He lied about trailers with mobile weapons labs in them, and he lied about trailers with Cuban prostitutes in them.

He and his administration lied -- by the counting of one non-profit group -- 532 times about links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Only 28 of those were by that President, but he made up for that by lying 231 times about W-M-D.

And yet not once did an elected Democratic official shout out during one of George W. Bush's speeches and call him a "liar."

btw, GROG, those (4) names you don't want me to mention anymore. Put any of those names in google search along w/lie and see how many results appear in 0.13 seconds ;)

take care

p.s. like Olbermann, I don't have to use his name, just say 43rd president ...

GROG said...

You're a master of google.


Who funded the wars because they knew Sadam had WMDs? The Democrat controlled Congress.

You're whole premise above is one of the great liberal lies.

He used the same intel the Dems had. Where did Hillary and her cronies stand before we went in? She was 100% behind the president.

Come on Shiloh. You can do better.

Pragmatus said...

GROG…

Lies and bullshit from the GOP? All you have to do is click here, starting with their “splash” claiming that Obama is an experiment that has failed in only 200 days.

The only question—is this lies or bullshit? Actually with the GOP, the two are interchangeable.

Your trouble is you’ve been fed shit so long from the GOP that you’ve developed a taste for it.

Most people are more discriminating than you.

shiloh said...

GROG said...

You're a master of google.


Who funded the wars because they knew Sadam had WMDs? The Democrat controlled Congress.

You're whole premise above is one of the great liberal lies.

He used the same intel the Dems had. Where did Hillary and her cronies stand before we went in? She was 100% behind the president.

Come on Shiloh. You can do better.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Speaking of doing better ie deflection er red herring. Who was in charge ie leadership from 2001 to 2009. Who provided the false information to congress re: making a decision to go to war w/Iraq. btw, the media was totally in the tank for the Reps from 2001 to 2005. Is one trying to pass the buck to the Dems who, btw, did not control congress until 2006.

Would say right back at ya', but alas GROG, from what I have seen of your drivel, you can't do any better, just straw men, deflections, passing the buck, etc. Too funny trying to deflect who was responsible. (2) elections say otherwise, 2006 and 2008 pretty much tell the story on who was responsible for Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, corruption, incompetence, tanking the economy, Harriet Miers, Scooter Libby, turdblossom outing an undercover CIA agent, Rummy, Condi, Gonzo, macaca allen, santorum/I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts., frist/Schiavo, etc.

This is your Rep reality.

Heck, even Mule, BDP, MPM, and several other Rep trolls would not make the attempt you are now making of trying to defend the indefensible. Give it up buddy, it's a lost cause.

2001/2009 was one of, if not the biggest, clusterfuck/FUBAR periods in American history!

Count your losses/casualties, no pun intended :( and move on ...

p.s. did one notice there were (4) liars I didn't mention by name :)

btw, you should have used Clinton instead of Obama in your first reply as if nothing else, one would have had an (8) year period to investigate rather than 7/8 mos. of Obama.

Here's the rub, most voters don't remember Clinton and he's looking better and better anyways after the last (8) years, but they have a very clear memory of what caused the current mess the U.S. is in ie the previous leadership er lack thereof of the last (2) term administration.

carry on

on the bright side GROG ;) your posts are becoming sooo pathetic, may have to start ignoring you altogether!

ciao

morton said...

What would be more relevant is the percentage of white voters for Obama in 2008 averaged over the states that he actually won PLUS the states that might actually vote for a Democrat in the future. Thus, eliminate SC, AL, MS, LA, OK, NE, KS, WY, UT, ID, and maybe a few others like AK, which will not vote Democratic in my lifetime. Then, what's the average?

Matt said...

morton: Look at the graph. notice only 13 states are listed. Read the post. Notice that only 13 statewide polls were included. This leads to the conclusion that the list of 13 states is a complete list, so of your list, only AL was included in the first place.

Brian said...

GOP "lies and bullshit"..."lies and bullshit" from the liberals...Al-Qaeda...Cuban prostitutes...master of google...they knew Sadam had WMDs...Hillary and her cronies...is this lies or bullshit...false information to congress...media was totally in the tank...I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts...frist/Schiavo...sooo pathetic.



morton said...

What would be more relevant is the percentage of white voters...



Get with the program Morton.

You're way off topic.

morton said...

Matt: I think, with respect, that you misunderstand. I was referring to Tom's claim that Obama received only 43% of the white vote NATIONWIDE last year. What I think is more relevant is the percent he received from white voters in all the states EXCEPT the ones that I cited that will never vote Democratic.

shiloh said...

Brian said...

Get with the program Morton.

You're way off topic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


For the record, (((GROG))) made an O/T post and I replied. Then he used standard Rep deflection in his response and I pointed out the truth er Rep reality of the last (8) years and GROG apparently is now enjoying his weekend :)

carry on

p.s. is it just me who thinks Reps want no part of discussing the last (8) years ~ of course, most Rep trolls at 538 won't even admit they are Reps lol

We now return you to 'White Approval of Obama'

But the point I'm making is that Obama's white voter "problem" is a bit overstated.

Since the day Obama announced his candidacy most everything re: Obama and his campaign has been a tad overstated or understated if you will: the "Bradley Effect", PUMA's, Hillary and Bill's support, he's young, inexperienced and yet his political campaign was the best run in presidential history, no drama Obama, but maybe it's just the nature of the beast in today's ad nauseam political minutia society where in order to be noticed a political writer/pundit must exaggerate to the nth degree ie billo, hannity, beck, limbo.

and speaking of overstated, how much of an effect that maverick from Alaska was gonna have on the election. hmm, she did have an effect lol ok, O/T nevermind ...

that is all

Persuter said...

Well if you guys don't have the stones to go off topic then I will.

I'm surprised this video hasn't been getting more play. Joe Wilson once again prefers name-calling to examining the facts.

Wayward Son said...

At least Rep. Wilson's outburst puts an end to one Limbaugh talking point..

If Obama were Hitler, Joe Wilson would be dead right now.

GROG said...

@shiloh:

"Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, corruption, incompetence, tanking the economy, Harriet Miers, Scooter Libby, turdblossom outing an undercover CIA agent, Rummy, Condi, Gonzo, macaca allen, santorum"

Well let's see. Bush won in Iraq and kept the country safe for 7 1/2years after 9/11. Afghanistan is Obama's failure right now. Bush was so smart he was able to create a hurrinane? corruption, incompetence, tanking the economy...all descpriptions of Democrats. William Ayers, Rev Wright, Van Jones and the myriad of other corrupt "Obama Czars". Voter registration and prostition ring supporting Acorn.

GROG said...

prostitution

Dwight said...

>> Afghanistan is Obama's failure right now.

Because Bush ignored it for 7 years?

harold said...

GROG -

You're not helping future Republicans by apologizing for Bush.

Well let's see. Bush won in Iraq

What? Won? How can you tell? You can't "win" a war with no clear objective, "fought" against someone who never attacked you.

First of all we shouldn't have invaded Iraq - Iraq wasn't a threat, wasn't associated with 9/11, and it was a waste of trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of young American lives (counting lives permanently disrupted by disability and disfigurement).

Literally millions of Iraqis were killed, disabled, disfigured, made refugees, and psychologically traumatized. Of course, they got rid of Saddam Hussein. Maybe a strained argument can be made that the net effect of the war was "good for" the Iraqis who survived it. Who cares? It was bad for Americans.

Our armed forces should be used to defend our national security, not squandered uselessly.

Whether Bush was dumb enough to think that Iraq was a threat, or slimeball enough to start a useless war for short term domestic political gain, either way, it was one of the worst decisions in this countries history.

and kept the country safe for 7 1/2years after 9/11.

There's an episode of the Simpsons in which the town sets up a useless and wasteful "bear patrol" and Homer thinks it's working because he doesn't see any bears.

Afghanistan is Obama's failure right now.

Unfortunately, this does reflect an element of Bush policy. Deliberately or coincidentally, he created a huge mess, guaranteeing that his successor would face enormous challenges.

When Bush was elected the country was at peace, with a booming economy and a budget surplus. And he was warned about Bin Laden.

Bush was so smart he was able to create a hurrinane?

Stuff like this reveals to me that it's impossible to have a sane conversation with a member of the Bush cult.

Are you so stupid that you think someone is blaming him for "creating" a hurricane?

corruption, incompetence, tanking the economy...all descpriptions of Democrats.

I disagree with the "tanking the economy" part, but corruption and incompetence? Sure, there have been plenty of corrupt and/or incompetent Democrats. That's irrelevant. That's the logic of the elementary school playground - attempting to deflect criticism by pointing out that others aren't perfect.

I can't stand the Democrats, with a few exceptions. But the Republican insanity cult is massively worse.

William Ayers, Rev Wright,

Not Democrat politicians.

Van Jones

Not criticized for being "incompetent", and certainly not for being "corrupt".

and the myriad of other corrupt "Obama Czars".

Worthless innuendo, and irrelevant.

Voter registration and prostition ring supporting Acorn.

More of the same.

GROG said...
This post has been removed by the author.
GROG said...

harold:

Last night Pragmatus made a statement that the GOP is all "lies and bullshit", which is a common theme among the left and here on 538.

I challenged him to a little exercise where he would list the lies and bullshit from the GOP and I would respond with lies and bullshit from the Democrats. He was smart enough to not take me up on the challenge.

Are there "lies and bullshit" from the right? Of course. Are there "lies and bullshit" from the right? Of course.

The point is that no matter how many GOP "lies and bullshit" he comes up with, I can come up with just as many "lies and bullshit" from the left.

Persuter said...

the myriad of other corrupt "Obama Czars"

lol, I'm so glad that Republicans are anti-corruption now, just like they're the golden defenders of Medicare. When George Bush nominated Lester Crawford as FDA commissioner while good ol' Les continued to hold stock in companies highly regulated by the FDA and repeatedly lied about it, that was cool, but when Obama appoints Vivek Kundra, who shoplifted some shirts when he was 21, THAT'S terrible.

GROG said...

persuter:
Again, the point is that it happens on both sides.

You have the Obama tax cheats.....Geithner, Daschle, Solis, Killefer and Ron Kirk.

You have Chris Dodd, the recipient of the sweetheart loans from Countrywide.

You have Barney Frank and the Freddie fiasco.

You want to keep going?

Matt said...

@GROG:

Are there "lies and bullshit" from the right? Of course. Are there "lies and bullshit" from the right? Of course.

Heh heh.

Reading your posts, I have to agree with you.

For e.g., where earlier you said that the Iraq War was approved by a "Democrat sic controlled Congress." That's a lie. It's a lie because surely you know that the Republicans controlled the House from 1995 to 2007, when the reality-based party regained control. It's bullshit, too, because while the Senate was in Democratic hands from mid-2001 into early 2003, the Dem majority was so tenuous that all Dubya needed to do was to find one hawkish Democratic senator to vote for his war.

It's also bullshit, because you claim that the Congress had the same intelligence as the President. That is simply untrue. Nobody in Congress--even those on the Intelligence Committee--sees the Presidential Daily Brief, or a myriad of other intelligence. The Bush Administration carefully parceled out the intel that they wanted the Congress to see, so there's no surprise that they were able to snow some Democrats with their lies and bullshit.

But we have access to the same info as you, GROG, so you can't so easily mislead us. I'd say "nice try," but it was actuary pretty fuppin' weak.

Todd Dugdale said...

The only country that that "won" when Bush invaded Iraq was Iran.

Saddam was an extremely effective check on Iranian regional influence. If he could have been controlled and manipulated by Bush, there would have been no qualms about him, just as Bush had no qualms about supporting the dictator Musharraf in Pakistan. Bush only backed away from Musharraf when he lost power; who needs a powerless puppet?

Aside from making Iran the regional power and destroying our alliance with Turkey, Iraq clearly demonstrated to the world's oppressed that the last thing you want is for the U.S. to "liberate" you. Simultaneously, it also proved to the world's oppressed that, unless their country has oil, the U.S. does not care about your dictatorship problem.

Also, $23 billion simply disappeared during the war under the careful watch of those fiscally conservative Republicans. No teabags were waved around then, though. No manufactured outrage over entire pallets of cash being misplaced or massive fraud taking place by the contractors. Nope, it was "the Decider knows best" for the teabag set, wasn't it?

But more to the point, as harold wrote:
"You're not helping future Republicans by apologizing for Bush."

Bush was considered to be a disaster by the vast majority of the electorate. The polling numbers proved it on a regular basis. Please keep embracing Bush and explaining away his unpopularity as not being conservative enough.

Until the Republican Party admits that Bush was a gigantic mistake and explains how they will never allow something like him to happen again, the GOP will not be taken seriously outside of the South and the Mormon Belt. Sadly, the Party doesn't even have to sincere about repudiating Bush, but they do have to be seen as going through the motions. Even more sadly, the Party is so beholden to the discredited neocons that they cannot even manage an insincere repudiation of Bush.

Pragmatus said...

GROG…

Wake up, princess.

I responded to you last night, showing you first hand the lies, distortion and bullshit on the very first page of “gop.com”. The first thing that greets a visitor is this assault—reinforcing, for anyone who doesn’t already know (people from Mars maybe) what the GOP is all about, which is hate, attack, fabricate, spin, lie, NO-NO-NO. The best thing the GOP can say to announce itself is to insult the President. They even made a video for the sole purpose of denouncing him. In light of the economic crisis, millions of lost jobs, Americans losing their health insurance by the tens of thousands, soldiers losing their lives in wars mismanaged by the GOP, the only thing they can think about is trying to score political points. I forgot to add one more adjective for them—pathetic.

By contrast, this is what you get visiting the Democratic Party online. At top there is a piece about public service in remembrance of 9-11, then there is a link to the President’s weekly radio address, then there is a link to his speech this week before a joint session of Congress.

So if you want negativity, spin and propaganda, and same-old same-old divisive, hateful politics, go GOP!

It comes down to a simple mathematical formula: GOP = lies and bullshit.

GROG said...

Todd:

You're still completely missing the point. Democrats approved of the war and the funding of the war prior to attacking Sadam's regime. Only when the war lost public support did many Democrats go against it.

Sen. Clinton: But the fundamental fact remains that this man posed a threat to his neighbors. There is no doubt in
anyone's mind - because we had already seen him use it - that he would have employed weapons of mass destruction at some
future date. Although we may have gone a little too far, we believe we made the right decision.
" (Sen. Hillary Clinton,
Congressional Record, 10/17/03, p. S12828)
2 /

Pragmatus said...

GOP and GROG = lies and bullshit.

Matt said...

@GROG:

Democrats approved of the war and the funding of the war prior to attacking Sadam's regime.

That's a distortion. It would be correct to say that some Democrats voted to approve the authorization of the use of force (based on the exaggerated threat that the Bush Administration insisted Saddam posed--lies told to the US Congress and the American people). However, the majority of Democrats voted against the use of force.

Why you insist on digging an ever-deeper hole with your right-wing lies, distortions, and bullshit, is beyond me. You must think we were all born after 2003.

GROG said...

The Democratic-led Congress then approved $88 billion for the war in 2007.

GROG said...

Facts hurt sometimes.

GROG said...

based on the exaggerated threat that the Bush Administration insisted Saddam posed--lies told to the US Congress and the American people

That is an absolute lie. The "exaggereated threat" came from US intelligence. There is no evidence that Bush fabricated or exaggerated any threat.

Governments worlwide came to the same conclusions.

shiloh said...

GROG said...

The Democratic-led Congress then approved $88 billion for the war in 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~


The U.S. troops who were already put in their foolish position, still had to be supported by their govt.

again, just like the Vietnam war will always be a 100% Dem war, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will always be 100% Rep wars. 20,000 U.S. soldiers and 300,000 Vietnamese died under nixon's watch from 1969 to 1974 and yet he won a landslide victory in 1972, because he did not start the Vietnam war.

This is your political reality GROG.

Know it, live it, believe it!

p.s. thanx for playing and god you're clueless!

take care

If at first you don't succeed try, try again, then quit, don't be a damn fool!

ciao

Joseph said...

Grog is a troll. Don't feed him.

Matt said...

morton: Thanks for the explanation. Obviously completely misunderstood.

- The other Matt (Not the one arguing with GROG). Maybe I should change my name to Jim. Fewer Jims seem to post here :)

GROG said...

Joseph:

Take a minute to read the posts. I didn't bring up the "bullshit and lies" statement. That was Pragmatus. I didn't bring up the war discussion. That was shiloh.
I haven't insulted anyone. That was harold, shiloh, and Pragmatus.

It's interesting that you think I'm the TROLL. Unless you think a TROLL is anyone who is not a progressive or liberal.

Brian said...

@morton

"What I think is more relevant is the percent he received from white voters in all the states EXCEPT the ones that I cited that will never vote Democratic."

If we're using for elections, why is the percentage in states that will always vote Democratic more relevant than that in states that never will?

Todd Dugdale said...

GROG wrote:
"Todd:
You're still completely missing the point. Democrats approved of the war and the funding of the war prior to attacking Saddam's regime
"

So when you said:
"Well let's see. Bush won in Iraq"
your "point" was really that Democrats supported the invasion along with Republicans? Is that even supposed to make sense?

Or did your "point" change when it became untenable?

Republicans want it both ways on Iraq. They want all of the credit, but they are quite insistent about sharing the blame. That is exactly what you are now doing.

Bush, and especially Cheney, strongly implied that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. They did nothing to dispel that impression, though it was completely false and was known to be false when they first implied it. Then they advanced the implausible argument that invading Iraq would somehow keep us safe from AQ, though AQ wasn't in Iraq before the invasion. They then proceeded to "volunteer" Iraq to be the battleground between AQ and the Coalition, without bothering to ask Iraqis if they wanted to play host to such a conflict.

Of course, this leaves out the "Bush Doctrine", which essentially states that we can invade any nation anywhere as long as we can falsify a pretext and prevent it from being examined by invoking "security reasons". The corollary of this doctrine is that anyone who would wish to examine such a pretext is a traitor and probably a terrorist themselves.

shiloh said...

GROG said...

I didn't bring up the war discussion. That was shiloh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You asked re: Rep lies and I replied.

Asked and answered!

When you cowtowed/pandered ;) to Mule the other day: GROG said...

Mule Rider,

Remember, you're trying to have a debate with people who end every discussion with: "you're repeating talking points" or "you listen to 'Faux News" or "Sarah Palin is dumb" or "you're a Freeptard"


pretty much told your story as you had your head so far up Mule's butt ...

btw, GROG, you post nothing but deflection er Rep talking pts. fixednoise is entertainment, not news, palin is dumb as a rock, apologies to rocks! and yes, most of the sorry Reps at 538 are pathetic trolls, like yourself.

again, live it, know it, believe it.

You asked for lies !!! and I answered !!! catch a clue!

ciao

p.s. as I said at the time, you and Mule make quite a team!

PeteKent said...

Why are y'all taking about 9-11 and Bush's war?

See how poorly Obama controls the debate.

"You lie!"

"Death Panels"

Just a couple of words and he gets off track. A total irrelevance.

The shout out at the speech only shed light on Obama's lack of credibility. There is a growing and hardening view that Obama is something of a subversive, a Trojan Horse of sorts.

His initiatives are doomed to failure now as the people reflexively distrust him.

Obama totally misread the people and has failed to execute his policy goals well. He sucks at being president.

petekent01 (on twitter)

Brian said...

How is it pejorative to say something is a talking point? If it is a talking point, it's true or not true. If it's not true, that's its problem. If it's true, then what's the problem?

wv: barrys

shiloh said...

PeteKent said...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


A day w/out PK's spam is like a day w/out sunshine! ;)

Pragmatus said...

Brian…

I’m going to guess that your question—

“How is it pejorative to say something is a talking point? If it is a talking point, it's true or not true. If it's not true, that's its problem. If it's true, then what's the problem?”

—was meant as a joke, but just in case it wasn’t; don’t you think that, in a discussion, it’s better to argue using logic and facts rather than just mindlessly regurgitating “sound bytes” whose purpose is trivializing the discussion?

Brian said...

OK, I agree if you define talking point as a "...“sound (byte)” whose purpose is trivializing the discussion...", but then what do you call an accurate but short argument or summary of facts that happens to be commonly prepared for politicians before they speak?

Pragmatus said...

Brian…

Language evolves continuously, words as well as phrases. Nobody using the term “talking points” as part of a discussion of politics nowadays is referring to anything other than the simplistic phrases one side or another uses as a catalyst to inflame rather than add to the discussion.

“Obama wants to establish government ‘Death Panels’ who will decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t.”

“Obamacare is government-run healthcare.”

“Obama is a socialist trying to impose socialism/communism/Nazism (take your pick) in America.”

The above sentences made an appearance on a PR release send to Republican leaders this summer, complete with bullets, as phrases to repeat over and over in order to instill, through repetition, that all were true (they aren’t).

That’s what a talking point is, and they have no place in any honest discussion.

(I wonder how long it will take for GROG to whip together a set of “Democratic talking points”. A big part of his philosophy seems to be trying to prove that two wrongs make a right.)

Brian said...

Even if you define "talking point" to mean only things that a while ago would have been called a "false talking point", it's still not an effective counter argument.

The problem is that you're imputing a motive to the person making the argument, which you can't possibly know. The same argument from one person might be the first round of repeating it over and over, and from another person it is a conclusion they'll attempt to support with evidence when asked about it. You're essentially calling them dishonest when they've merely begun an argument in a way both honest and dishonest people do.

Mike in Maryland said...

The one who drinks watered down wine said...
It's interesting that you think I'm the TROLL. Unless you think a TROLL is anyone who is not a progressive or liberal.

The recognized definition of a TROLL is "someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

The topic originally posted by Mr. Schaller was "White Approval of Obama". A review of the posts by the one who drinks watered down wine reveals that:

The first post on this thread was a challenge to pragmatus to recite 'GOP "lies and bullshit" '. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be an illustration of TROLL behavior.

The second post on this thread was a recitation of factually lacking talking points of the pro-shrub/pro-cheney bootlickers about who supported the War on Iraq. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be an illustration of TROLL behavior.

The third post on this thread was a recitation of incorrect information about the various wars that the cheney/shrub administration got us involved in, and a peripheral and derogatory mention of administration 'czars'. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be of an illustration of TROLL behavior.

The fourth post on this thread was a correction of one word in his previous post. Still not on topic, though.

The fifth post on this thread was basically a repeat of his first post, except this time he/she/it directed his poison pen at harold. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be an illustration of TROLL behavior.

The sixth post on this thread was aimed at pragmatus, with a listing of Conservatard talking points. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be an illustration of TROLL behavior.

In the seventh post on this thread, the poison pen was directed towards Todd, basically a repeat of his second post. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be an illustration of TROLL behavior.

The eigth post on this thread was factually correct, but taken completely out of context, and therefore another post of Conservatard talking points only, not a discussion of actual facts in the full context of what the action meant. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be an illustration of TROLL behavior.

The ninth post on this thread was a recitation of an old saw that does not apply to Conservatards, as they would not recognize a fact if it was their only hope for survival. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be an illustration of TROLL behavior.

The tenth post on this thread was more spinning of the truth about the facts that led up to the US War on Iraq. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be an illustration of TROLL behavior.

And, finally, the eleventh post on this thread was what I partially quoted above. Since the post was not on-topic to Mr. Shaller's post, I would consider the post to be an illustration of TROLL behavior.

In summary and to this point on this thread, the one who drinks watered down wine posted eleven times, not once on-topic to the post by Mr. Shaller. I would call that type of posting behavior to be totally symptomatic of TROLLish behavior.

You know the old saying - If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well then by gosh, it MUST be a duck.

Mike in Maryland

Pragmatus said...

Brian…

You missed the important part of my previous post.

This—

“Obama wants to establish government ‘Death Panels’ who will decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t.”

—is a talking point not because it is a “concise summary of an idea” but because it is lying bullshit.

Translation: Anybody that uses lying bullshit instead of facts or logic is not carrying on a discussion, he is blabbing talking points.

shiloh said...

talking pts. aka spin ...

again, the party of No!'s current meme: We suck and FUBAR'd the country every which way to Sunday from 2001 to 2009! but, but, but the Dems are worse. ;)

On election night mentioned what Obama was inheriting after (8) years of incompetence/corruption/fraud, waste and abuse/constitutional violations by the previous administration. Plus a banking crisis and economic recession(s).

and said damn, a brother can't catch a break! lol

He becomes captain of a ship which is already half sunk!

and speaking of white folks approval of Obama, how 'bout those 100% racist signs re: Obama and the Dems at today's astro turf farce!

The astro turfers got nothin' on the KKK, eh.

Yes Virginia, this is how the party of No! is gonna win over moderate independents, the youth vote, minorities, the well educated, the upper class. By showing the Rep party has become a party of southern racists, that's the ticket!

When the other side is imploding, get the hell out of the way ...

shiloh said...

should have said the KKK has got nothin' on the Rep party and it gives me another opportunity to mention KKK/Reps in the same sentence. :)

carry on

Brian said...

"“Obama wants to establish government ‘Death Panels’ who will decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t.”

—is a talking point not because it is a “concise summary of an idea” but because it is lying bullshit."


The person saying even this is not necessarily lying to make people believe something by repetition. That's my point. They either heard it from somewhere or pieced it together independently from other things they heard, true and/or false.

It's also something I don't think anyone here ever said. You picked something that is easy to disprove and not susceptible to being proven by any foreseeable additional evidence. That's qualitatively different than knowing how much evidence on Iraq each member of congress had, what the CIA really thought, counter factuals about how many Iraqis and foreigners Saddam would have killed had we not invaded Iraq versus doing it differently versus not doing it at all, Afghanistan, the economy, domestic security, how to measure "support" for policies aside from looking at congressional votes, etc. which are the sort of things currently being...discussed.

Pragmatus said...

Brian…

Another GOP SOP is to parse irrelevant minutiae and so deflect a discussion from anything of substance.

You can define “talking point” however you want, it’s not going to change what it is. Abraham Lincoln said—

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

shiloh said...

Brian said...

The person saying even this is not necessarily lying to make people believe something by repetition. That's my point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


That's exactly why ie repetition, spamming the board when you can't argue the facts.

and you have no point, only gobbledygook minutia!

Pragmatus said...

More GOP family values.

Pragmatus said...

Someone was saying here a couple of days ago that Newt Gingrich is his idol. I wonder what old Newtie (rhymes with “nudie”) has been up to…

Brian said...

"...parse irrelevant minutiae and so deflect a discussion from anything of substance.

You can define “talking point” however you want..."

Glad to hear such respect for and interest in English and dialectics. Speaking of which:

Shiloh said...

"...Yes Virginia..."

Pragmatus said...

"...Yes Virginia..."

I'm not idealistic enough to think that pointing out how repellent your patronizing locution is would have any effect, but do try and keep it fresh. That phrase stops being cute when it's used repeatedly in every thread by multiple people. Thanks.

"Another GOP SOP is to...deflect a discussion from anything of substance."

To abandon a trite and distorted rehash of politics in America since 1994 by rancorous people who've already made up their minds is the best way to have a discussion of substance.

Brian said...

shiloh said...

"That's exactly why ie repetition, spamming the board when you can't argue the facts.

and you have no point, only gobbledygook minutia!"

Neither of those paragraphs are sentences. Try again.

Gen Sherman said...

When trying to explain away the right wing "talking points" (IE., death panels, socialism, fascism, or whatever the meme for the day)

Brian said

The person saying even this is not necessarily lying to make people believe something by repetition. That's my point. They either heard it from somewhere or pieced it together independently from other things they heard, true and/or false.

Brian, ignorance is not a defense. Just because someone might not know that something is not true does not justify the fact they chose to believe it as true. They chose to believe it, whether consciously or unconsciously. They made that choice out of their own free will.

We are talking about adults here, is that not true? So don't try to make some lame excuses for them, or for yourself. These are not children that need to be cuddled about life and consequences. These are adults (never mind whatever mental disorder they might have).

Take your inexcusable, indefensible, outrageous and totally irresponsible argument elsewhere. Your argument all boils down to the murderer did not know killing was wrong. It is NOT going to work.

Pragmatus said...

Brian…

Just out of curiosity, how is shiloh’s second paragraph not a sentence? “You” is the subject, “have” is the verb, “no point” is the predicate, plus a dependent clause.

That’s a complete sentence in my book. Beginning a sentence with a conjunction doesn’t violate any complete-sentence rules.

Pragmatus said...

Which reminds me, I’m going to have to order more “patronizing locution” repellent.

Pragmatus said...

Brian…

One last question, if you’re up for it. In the following sentence, what part of speech (you know—noun, verb, preposition etc.) is “Swimming”?

Swimming is fun.

Brian said...

"Just out of curiosity, how is shiloh’s second paragraph not a sentence? “You” is the subject, “have” is the verb, “no point” is the predicate, plus a dependent clause.

That’s a complete sentence in my book. Beginning a sentence with a conjunction doesn’t violate any complete-sentence rules."

Good point.

Brian said...

"Swimming" is a gerund. It is the subject of that sentence.

Pragmatus said...

Brian…

Very good!

(I wasn’t being patronizing—it’s just that most people who take stabs at others’ English haven’t a clue what a gerund is, or how it functions.)

Gen Sherman said...

Pragmatus,

Jeez, why did you have to be so hard on the poor guy. I had just gotten started and now he's gone. ; )

Tsk, Tsk...


Save some for others.

Mike in Maryland said...

Brian said...
[Yes Virginia] stops being cute when it's used repeatedly in every thread by multiple people. Thanks.

Massa?

Sorry that so many of us have offended you by saying 'Yes Virginia' on this thread. We'll try to not say 'Yes Virginia' any more.

Massa?

Are you please that we will stop saying 'Yes Virginia' on this thread? Are we permitted to say 'Yes Virginia' on other threads? Or are you requiring us to not say 'Yes Virginia' at all?

Oh, and TROLL Brian, you can take your talking points and shove them where the sun don't shine.

Yes Virginia, I did call Brian a TROLL.

Mike in Maryland

Brian said...

"When trying to explain away the right wing "talking points"..."

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I was explaining that those who put forth arguments you disagree with are usually not doing so in bad faith.

"Brian, ignorance is not a defense."

That does not make it accurate or constructive to conflate it with maliciousness, even if both are treated the same way under the law (largely for mere administrative reasons). While the death panels thing is an extreme example, for many other complicated subjects it is not just possible but overwhelmingly likely the other person has relatively legitimate reasons for believing something, just as you do, neither having total access to all facts. The ignorance you decry may be your own.

"Your argument all boils down to the murderer did not know killing was wrong."

If you're going to make something up and call it my argument, at least spot me a premise or two and a conclusion.

Mike in Maryland said...

Brian said...
While the death panels thing is an extreme example. . . .

So we should just follow the example of Senator Grassley, and say "they will decide to pull the plug on Granny"?

TROLL - Are you capable of hearing and understanding? There ARE no 'death panels', yet you keep repeating the term on this forum, and the Conservatards, especiallly on Faux News, New York Post, Limpballs, Manthrax, and other Conservatard retards keep repeating that lie whenever they spew, in whatever form, their male bovine droppings talking points.

I don't think you have two functioning neurons in your brain, let alone the billions that most cognizant people have. If you don't know why the number of neurons is important, look it up.

Oh, that might not be possible for you to do. To read and understand anything, you need several functioning neurons in the brain.

Mike in Maryland

shiloh said...

Brian, congrats on "dominating" the last part of the thread, really.

At 538, even Mule has dominated a thread, so it's obviously not that difficult. ;)

and your minutia was somewhat entertaining ...

btw, couldn't tell you what a gerund is, although I'm sure the Nuns at St. Pat's taught me, probably 6th or 7th grade.

take care

p.s. your the first person to ever comment on my sentence structure or lack thereof since I've been on the web (1996) I want to party with you, cowboy.

Gen Sherman said...

Brian said...

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I was explaining that those who put forth arguments you disagree with are usually not doing so in bad faith.

Bad faith, delusional, or plain old crazy, call it whatever you will... the fact remains...


CHEEK v. UNITED STATES (January 2001)

In instructing the jury, the court stated that an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense, and does not negate willfulness, and that Cheek's beliefs that wages are not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the Code were not objectively reasonable.

PENNSYLVANIA v. DIODORO (May 2009)

“. . . ’[w]hether accessing and viewing child pornography over the internet constitutes ‘control’ of such pornography under 18 Pa.C.S. sec. 6312(d)?’ Yesterday, a unanimous Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by a vote of 4-0, affirmed the en banc Superior Court’s decision upholding the defendant’s conviction.”

Stupidity, and more stupidity did not past muster...

If you're going to make something up and call it my argument, at least spot me a premise or two and a conclusion.

Ah, I see. You want stupidity to past muster now? Try ignorance for a defense when you break the law.

"Ah, officer, I didn't know I was banging my sister." "Ah, officer, I don't know where all these drugs came from." "Ah, officer, honestly, I didn't know five beers is too much to drive."

While the death panels thing is an extreme example, for many other complicated subjects it is not just possible but overwhelmingly likely the other person has relatively legitimate reasons for believing something, just as you do, neither having total access to all facts. The ignorance you decry may be your own.

Well, obviously, you do not get my point. Mommy must have kept you home from school to protect you from indoctrination.

Brian said...

I'll try to clarify so that even those incapable of grasping nuance or inferring from context can understand. I'm sure Mike will let us know if I succeeded.

Brian said

"While the death panels thing is an extreme example..."

It is an extreme example of an argument someone could put forth in that it is inherently unbelievable, and there is a relatively high probability person saying it does not believe it, and is saying it because it would be useful if others believed it. Yet even here, it is possible they do believe it, and are arguing in good faith. Most things, including everything I saw GROG discussing, are more complicated than that, and it is almost certain they can be constructively discussed, rather than simply dismissed as lies, and their advocate as a liar.

"There ARE no 'death panels', yet you keep repeating the term"

I repeat the term as an artifact of what people say...much as Pragmatus did when he used it as an example of a talking point...and much as you are now. That's different than asserting the proposition is true.

In general, my argument is that people can disagree without one side being evil, and without either side having a wildly distorted picture of reality.

Mike in Maryland said...

"Are you please that we will stop saying 'Yes Virginia' on this thread? Are we permitted to say 'Yes Virginia' on other threads?"

Considering your limited vocabulary, I think we can make an exception in your case. After all, you're already reduced to using words in all capital letters to express yourself.

Mike in Maryland said...

Massa,

I thank you for acknowledging (in a round about manner) that you read my post.

But Massa? You still didn't answer my questions.

To be precise, these questions:

Are you please that we will stop saying 'Yes Virginia' on this thread? Are we permitted to say 'Yes Virginia' on other threads? Or are you requiring us to not say 'Yes Virginia' at all?

Mike in Maryland

P.S., TROLL, I presume that you'll notice that the vast majority of characters in this post are in lower case letters. I've inserted upper case letters at the beginning of sentences and proper names, and in one other place, to emphasize my opinion of you.

Gen Sherman said...

Brian said...

In general, my argument is that people can disagree without one side being evil, and without either side having a wildly distorted picture of reality.


Ah! Are we being a little sly tonight?

Originally, I STATED;

Just because someone might not know that something is not true does not justify the fact they chose to believe it as true. They chose to believe it, whether consciously or unconsciously. They made that choice out of their own free will.

By their own free will... the choices we make is the determining factor, whether or not it is made on valid or invalid information. Is that evil? No.

Misinformed? Yes. Ignorant? Yes. Excusable? No. Disagreements is a part of human nature. A point I am willing to concede. However, ignorance (IE, false information concerning the current debate) based on willful choices made out of misconceived arguments based on zero validity, No!

Are you not able to research your arguments? Are you not able to choose what you believe in? Are you not able to understand the difference between intelligent reasoning and brainwashing?

It is an extreme example of an argument someone could put forth in that it is inherently unbelievable, and there is a relatively high probability person saying it does not believe it, and is saying it because it would be useful if others believed it. Yet even here, it is possible they do believe it, and are arguing in good faith.

How is that possible? You believe it, or you don't believe it, but you will still argue in favor. That is such a piece of CROCK.

Make no excuses for the ignorantly bliss. Their choice is made out of their own free will. Defend yourself.

Gen Sherman said...

Brian,

Wait, wait, wait...

Are you trying to say Republicans really do believe in something, but are willing to argue something different for some other reason?

It all makes sense now.

Mike in Maryland said...

The one who drinks watered down wine said...
The "exaggereated threat" came from US intelligence. There is no evidence that Bush fabricated or exaggerated any threat..

They did? He didn't?

Wasn't it the CIA that warned the White House about serious doubt about, then proof of those documents being forged, of the supposed yellow cake documents?

Didn't shrub change the wording of his State of the Union speech? Remember the controversy over the "sixteen words"?

Didn't (then) Secretary of State Colin Powell remove reference to the yellow cake documents when he addressed the UN?

Are you stating that the CIA is NOT part of the US intelligence community?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

It is inconceivable to me how the Conservatards cannot do ANY research. And then, when their point is proven wrong, they either continue with the same line of male bovine droppings, or pick up a new talking point, but they NEVER admit that in any way, shape or form they might have been inaccurate or outright wrong. And when a Conservatard TROLL posts, it's ten times worse!

Mike in Maryland

PeteKent said...

I guess the Prez failed to move the needle on healtcare reform this week.

He lied.

His speech was a failure.

Obama sucks at being president.

petekent01 (on twitter)

harold said...

Brian -

My understanding of the working definition of "talking point" in American political discourse, is this -

"a terse but inaccurate or vague sentence or phrase, containing loaded language designed to appeal to and reinforce some sort of social bias, manufactured by a political or PR professional, and distributed to members of one political party or movement, with overt or strongly implied instructions that its content be repeated."

A talking point, in this context is very, very similar to a slogan. However, a talking point is slightly more complex and specific than a slogan, and need not be repeated verbatim.

"Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" is a slogan. It has to be repeated verbatim. "The Obama health care plan will include 'death panels'!" is a talking point.

The early use of talking points, and the term "talking points" itself, are both strongly associated with Newt Gingrich. However, in economics, talking points long pre-date Newt.

Currently, the use of talking points is strongly associated with the Republican party and the right wing media. At least until very recently, Republican sources continued to use the term "talking points" in a favorable light.

Of course Democrats try to do the same thing from time to time, but they don't use the term "talking point" and their talking points don't tend to catch on or be repeated.

People may "believe" or "not believe" talking points. That's not the point. The point is that when their own discourse consists of uncritical repetition of talking points originated by others, certain conclusions can be drawn.

GROG said...

@Mindless in Maryland:

Since you brought up yellowcake.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

The truth hurts.

It is inconceivable to me how the Conservatards cannot do ANY research.

Are you still trying to get your mind unscrambled?

GROG said...

@Mindless:

The definition of TROLL you posted earlier describes you to a tee. You post comments full of filth and hatred constantly, for the sole purpose of getting a reaction. You bring nothing constructive to discussions on here.

Again, I only finished the TROLLing that Prag started.

Mike in Maryland said...

The one who drinks watered down water said...
[something, but it was unintelligible to an educated person]

TROLL?

Did you actually read the article you linked? The entire article?

It's obvious you didn't.

When did the firt Gulf War occur?

1991

In the article you linked, one paragraph reads:
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." [emphasis added]

So how does this tie into a supposed purchase of yellow cake from Niger?

The one who drinks watered down wine cannot admit an error, and cannot admit that maybe, just maybe, it is posting LIES.

Mike in Maryland

GROG said...

@Mindless TROLL in Maryland:

The point is that Sadam refused to comply with US inspectors and knew that by doing this a US attack was imminent and it was a known fact that he did have yellowcake, which in and of itself is a WMD. You and the fringe, loon left are very selective in it’s facts. You always seem to leave out certain facts and truths. Do a little research.

• A British intelligence review released July 14, 2005 called Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
• A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7, 2005 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
• Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the CIA took as confirmation that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Niger.
• Both the US and British investigations made it clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

If you want to say Bush made a mistake, that's one thing. But you have absolutely no evidence to prove that Bush knowlingly lied.


"But the fundamental fact remains that this man posed a threat to his neighbors. There is no doubt in
anyone's mind - because we had already seen him use it - that he would have employed weapons of mass destruction at some
future date. Although we may have gone a little too far, we believe we made the right decision.
" (Sen. Hillary Clinton,
Congressional Record, 10/17/03, p. S12828)
2 /

Mike in Maryland said...

The one who drinks watered down wine had a lot of LIES in his/her/it's diatribe posted at 11:12 am on 9-14-09, but I'll just address ONE of those lies.

Earlier, the one who drinks watered down wine directed me, via a link, to an MSNBC article. It is very obvious that the one who drinks watered down wine didn't actually read that article, as the one who drinks watered down wine stated in the 11:12 am posting:
it was a known fact that [Hussein] did have yellowcake, which in and of itself is a WMD.

From the MSNBC article that the one who drinks watered down wine directed me to states:
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast.

In other words, just because some people believe it is dangerous, that means EVERYONE should believe it it is dangerous? Even when FACTS prove it is not?

The one who drinks watered down wine? Are you one who still believes that water fluoridation was a Commie plot?

Mike in Maryland

GROG said...

@Mindless TROLL in Maryland:

Let's try to deal with facts and reality here.

Yellowcake is radioactive. It took 37 military flights to ship Sadam's yellowcake from Baghdad to Diego Garcia. The AP story explained the logistical nightmare of simply transporting it. It also cited the fear of it falling into the hands of insurgents. That is how dangerous it was when we were in control of it.


"In other words, just because some people believe it is dangerous, that means EVERYONE should believe it it is dangerous? ?"

You don't think 37 military flight loads of radioactive material is dangerous? You don't think this quantity of radioactive material could be used as a WMD?

"Even when FACTS prove it is not."

What FACTS prove that huge quantities of radioactive material is not dangerous?

Eli Blake said...

Who funded the wars because they knew Sadam had WMDs? The Democrat controlled Congress.

??

The GOP controlled Congress until 2007.

jdk said...

There is really almost nothing to be learned from the category "white".

It "explains" less than region, religion, and party affiliation.

It also presupposes a monolith which in and of itself can create a granfalloon that has a capacity to move Northern Urban/Suburban Catholic votes toward some Southern WASP typology.

This is an old debate: does RFK or Wallace get the working class "white" aka (backlash) vote in Indiana, thing all over again.

If you don't disaggregate the data you might think you are getting a picture that "whites" go to Wallace. But if you actually look at the precinct data and drill down you see that Catholic Polish Americans, Italian American and even Catholic Irish Americans with close ties to a parish were not racist Wallace votes. Their children and grandchildren are no different.

Let me also parenthetically that the notion that American catholic are politically no different that mainline American Protestants has it backwards. It's the main line protestants that have become more like American Catholics than the other way around. The viral change works from the immigrant and ethnic cultural ONTO the majority cultural as much or more than the other way around. The South and this Appalachia thing (see "American" on Ancestry Question) reflects the fact that these groups have had very little exposure to long history immigration from both Europe and Asia and therefore are stuck in an old weltanshaung.

The only number that matters is whether Catholics are 51% or more with Obama. If they are he's ok, if they aren't he's not.

Just like in the campaign, the question remains is Obama culturally a non-WASP or is an educated and travelled BASP a version of a non-Southern WASP.

Much of politics has less to do with policy than it has to do with granfalloons of whatever creation and iteration.

typed quickly without proofreading.

shiloh said...

jdk said...

The only number that matters is whether Catholics are 51% or more with Obama. If they are he's ok, if they aren't he's not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Obama won Catholics 54/45.

and again, this isn't your grandfather's Catholic church anymore as Obama will do much better in 2012.

As Ted Kennedy said when someone asked him why he was sooo passionate re: health care reform: Have you read the Bible?

GROG said...

@Eli Blake:

The Democrat led Congress approved $88 billion in 2007.

shiloh said...

GROG said...

@Eli Blake:

The Democrat led Congress approved $88 billion in 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


As I mentioned to you before, cheney/bush, having already put the troops in harm's way based on a lie, the troops still had to be supported or the Reps meme of the Dems are cutting and running once again, the Dems don't care about the troops ie the Dems are unAmerican would be put in action.

You're either w/us or against us. nonsense that has usually worked for the Reps in the past was in play re: the 2008 election.

The Dems finally know how to play hardball and no way were they gonna cut funding for the troops and yes, it was probably somewhat a political decision by the Dems instead of a moral decision, but shocking as it may seem, Reps/Dems play politics in Washington.

And as I said the Dems finally know how to play the game and win.

Coincidentally the Reps blamed the Dems for losing the Vietnam war because the Dems cut funding, but Vietnam was a lost cause from the get-go and the Vietnam war will always be a 100% Dem war anyways so the who was blaming who minutia was irrelevant, whereas the Iraq war will always be 100% Rep war whether the Dems voted to continue funding or not.

This is the political reality.

take care

p.s. and because the Dems have learned how to play the national security presidential game, Obama won by 9.5 million votes.

Always think big picture! when considering national security political decisions.

btw, yes mentioned cheney/bush, but, but, but rumor has it this is a political blog ...

jdk said...

@shiloh

I think it still is my grandfather's catholic church and that's a good thing because he would have voted for Obama, just like he voted for RFK.

The key point is that what passes as a analysis of the "white" vote is meaningless.

There is a swath of non-African American voters ("American"/WASPs) in the South and Appalachia/Ozarks/Oklahoma that have absolutely nothing to do with
the swath of non-African American voters ("urban ethnics" and their children and grandchildren in the suburbs) that follow a path from Minneapolis to Milwaukee to Chicago to South Bend to Detroit to Toledo to Cleveland to Pittnburgh to Buffalo and from DC to Baltimore to Philadelphia to Newark to NY to Boston.

You've got to see these as two separate populations to make sense of the political winds. Look at some generic "white" response doesn't tell you anything useful.

The easiest demographic way to make sense is to use the ancestry question response "American" and the geographic notion of the South, as one group.

And compare that against the demographics blue state "Catholics".

You'd get so much more useful polling information if instead of a race question you'd ask an ancestry/ethnicity question like:

How would you describe your Ancestry or Ethnicity, you may choose more than one?

African American or Black
German
English
French
American
Irish
Italian
Polish
Mexican
Cuban
Some Other Hispanic
Asian
Something Else
Decline to Respond


As Ornette Coleman once told an musician in a symphony playing one of his compositions:

"Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true."

shiloh said...

jdk

Not sure what point you are trying to make, my post was mainly re: the abortion issue and perhaps I should have stated as much. The Catholic church doctrine/tenet/belief whatever that abortion is a no-no. Of course there are other Catholic tenets that many Catholics disagree w/ie birth control, homosexuality, oh the irony etc.

Being adopted myself and raised by a 100% Irish Catholic, not very political mother and a German, Protestant, totally non political father, who btw although he did not attend any church in his later life was probably more of a Catholic than most Catholics, because as we all know, it's not whether you attend church on Sunday, but how you live your life which is the true measure of a man.

OK, getting way too philosophical, but suffice it to say, my background is probably why I am a liberal independent. Also being adopted is why, as a rule, I avoid abortion discussions.

Enjoy telling folk my mom is 100% Irish, my dad was German and I'm half Italian ;) My birth mother was Italian, Catholic, unmarried and 17 when I was born in 1954 which I learned when I was (18). Always knew I was adopted and not saying that in a bad way, have an older sister who was adopted and many Catholic cousins who could have cared less about our being adopted. I digress.

And the Catholic church frowned on mixed marriages back in 1944 which is why my mom and dad could not have an official Catholic wedding ceremony, but had to be married in a small chapel. Part of the reason I said this isn't your grandfather's catholic church anymore as they have at least tried to come into the 21st century.

... and now you know the rest of the story, g'day.

p.s. my dad's mother, my grandmother, a protestant had (2) sons and they both married Catholics and my Uncle Roy not only married a catholic, but converted and became a Deacon, oh the humanity lol for my grandmother who had to struggle w/her prejudices, but came around to accept the reality in her later years. She was/became enlightened!

ciao :)

jdk said...

@Shiloh

Way too much personal information. (But I'm glad you have a story.)

Polling and Demographics is not about an individual, it is about using group "tendencies" and "affinities" to make predictions. Polling and Demographics is one big exercise in stereo-typing. But stereo-typing is also a propaganda tool. Google "granfalloon propaganda".

One breaks down a poll into groups to better understand the dynamics of competing tendencies. Propaganda breaks down people into groups as a means for good or ill of persuasion and sometimes control.

"White" is not a very good predictor, primarily because it does not discern the sub-groups that make it up. Ancestry, religion and region are better ways to break down data, because the better reflection the social networks that have organically formed. "White" as a granfalloon propaganda tool is pretty dangerous in a country like the US.

This is my central point.

On religion, consider this recent blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/why-the-catholic-bishops_b_290145.html

shiloh said...

OK, reading HP, as I said the Catholic church has come into the 21st century and not surprising bishops would be supporting health care ie they read the Bible daily.

As to your other specific minutia, one can see why you like Nate's statistical site lol, but I would argue Big Picture is more important than "dynamics of competing tendencies". Politics just ain't that complicated. If the starting pitcher is a bust, you bring in a relief pitcher.

And the American public ain't that bright, so yea hate and fears worked well for Reps in the past until cheney/bush totally screwed the pooch!

Much of what you say does have an effect on politics, but "big picture" is more important imo. I'm more of a macro than micro political poster.

Bottom line, Obama won because cheney/bush destroyed the Rep party and Obama was change.

jdk said...
This post has been removed by the author.
jdk said...

@shiloh

"Politics just ain't that complicated." You've got to be kidding. Politics is more complicated than you can imagine.

I think you've been watching those Sprint commercials (what if firefighters ran Congress, or if FedEX or UPS was in change of getting high-schoolers to class on time).

Institutional Catholic support for universal health care and almost all of the progressive economic agenda (except abortion on demand) is part of a long long history of support and promotion. It has nothing do with the 21st century.

Minimum Wage and Child Labor laws, to name a few, would have never happened without the promotion of catholic church in America.

The US Bishops wrote Pastoral Letters back in 1981, 1983 and the Catholic Conference put out a statement in 1991 on comprehensive health reform. But even before that there was the encyclical Peace on Earth in 1963.

So I am a little stumped on what you even mean by the "big picture".

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,

tar said...

электронная почта без регистрации