There were two problems with the CNN Compassion Forum.
First of all, short of Campbell Brown frolicking on stage in her underclothing, there really is no reason to watch CNN. They have not had intelligent debate questions since the respected Bernard Shaw retired.
Second of all, even if Campbell Brown were to do her best Eva Longoria imitation, it would pale compared to the real thing. Desperate Housewives was back on television with new episodes. Even Sean Hannity and his Hannity’s America program had to be put on the back burner. Of course, had it been football season, none of the non-Eva stuff would have mattered anyway.
Nevertheless, thanks to tivo, I was able to watch the democrats fake compassion. I tivoed Desperate Housewives since nothing about the compassion forum was expected to be worth keeping.
Also, several commercials during the event were by an organization called “Divided we fail.” It spoke of unifying people to fix problems, and showed an animal that was half elephant, half donkey. It sounded nice, but make no mistake about it. Divided we fail is a project of the AARP, which is a liberal partisan organization that is responsible for screwing up the futures of their own members by being hostile towards a partial privatization of Social Security. Their method of compromise is to threaten republicans and non-liberal democrats, and these threat work. They divide people, and we fail as a result.
As for the event, In all fairness, some of the questions were well thought out, and the answers were sometimes appropriate. The format was also appropriate. Each candidate had about 45 minutes to answer questions, and Hillary and Obama were on the stage separately. There were no buzzers, and expansive answers made both discussions worthwhile. Yet the admission that some of the questions had nothing to do with policy did not make them any less useless.
Hillary was asked about the controversy over Obama’s remarks about those who turn to guns and religion because they are bitter.
Hillary stated that she would let Obama speak for himself, but implied that he was elitist and out of touch. Hillary very wisely pointed out that many Americans felt that about the democratic party as a whole. What she did not say was that this feeling was largely justified. Nevertheless, lip service may or may not be better than overt hostility . Others can decide.
When pressed further, Hillary simply stated that his remarks “raised concerns.” Hillary very wisely remarked that the democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004 were good men, but were perceived as hostile towards voters of faith.
Hillary was then asked a meaningless question about when she felt the trinity in her life. She answered the question in a sincere manner, and my criticism was not with the candidates, but the fact that any of these questions have to be asked. They don’t.
One comment Hillary made was that her faith allowed her to “make decisions when nobody else agreed with me.” That seems to be a quality that she would criticize President Bush for. When she spoke about the positive aspects of politics, and how faith connects to that, was quite eloquent.
Hillary ironically stated that “not every moment of grace is about me.” One perception of her is her narcissism. She repeatedly states that the election is not about her, and the more she says it, the more it rings hollow.
She was then asked about how faith affects ehr ability to make life and death decisions.
This time she was very solid in her answer. She spoke of relying on others. She sounds sincere except when she makes statements such as “I don’t even pretend to know the answers to a lot of questions.” Hillary is known as somebody that is certain of her point of view. On Iraq she said that “there is no easy decision.” This may seem simplistic, but it is truthful. SHe seemed less honest when she said she likes being challenged by people who disagree with her. It would be helpful if she did. Again, this is my perception, but that perception has been through observing her over time. She then stated that she would “hope that she would never become defensive or dismissive with those who disagree with her.” Again, she seemed to be addressing a direct criticism of her.
Her answer to the abortion question of whether life begins at conception was pure Clintonian at its worst. She stated that “the potential for life begins at conception.”
If ever there was a sentence that defined a major criticism of the Clintons, it was “the politics of parsing.” She then spoke that she did not want “an intrusion of government into our society” with regards to abortion. Apparently on health care and virtually every other domestic issue she does not hold such concerns.
She then cleverly shifted to her criticism of China forcing women into having abortions against their will, as if any American politician is in favor of it. Talk about abortion on demand!
The question about euthanasia started out promising when Hillary started talking about the complicated situation of Terry Schaivo. Yet Hillary simply would not take a stand. She meandered about how there were good people on both sides of the issue. She does not want government intruding, but wants us to “create a process” for families to make decisions. There is no need to create a process for families to make decisions. Simply leaving them alone is a better substitute for any government process. I wish Hillary grasped this.
Hillary was then lobbed a softball about how to ease the conern among some that religion has too powerful a role in America. The answer is for those that are bigoted towards religious people to simply stop being bigoted.
Hillary took a more tactful tone, calling for respect and tolerance on all sides.
Rabbi Steve Gutow of the Council for Public Affairs had a chance to aska question of relevance to Jews. Did he ask about Israel or Islamofacism? Of course not, that would make this an honest religious discussion. Instead he made me again be embarrassed by liberal Jews by babbling about Darfur and whether or not President Bush should boycott the opening Olympics ceremonies due to China’s treatment of Tibet.
This Rabbi does not represent me!
Hillary favors President Bush boycotting the opening ceremonies. She is wrong. Several Palestinian homicide bombers tried to kill Jews while this idiotic question was being answered.
Reverends, Priests and Imams stick up for their own interests. It boggles my mind why liberal Rabbis can’t grow a pair and ask questions that benefit us.
A question about how to get low cost drugs for the poor allowed Hillary to brag about voting against CAFTA. Of course, she is completely wrong on this issue. She then offered feint praise about how drug companies save lives, but quickly made sure to state that they must do more. This is based on her 35 years of experience of not working at a drug company.
She was then asked in relation to Darfur why a loving God allows people to suffer.
The stupidity of the question notwithstanding, Hillary handled it perfectly. She was genuinely funny whe she said, “I don’t know, I can’t wait to ask him.” At least she admits God is male!
If Hillary were to handle all questions the way she answered this one, she would be seen as likable, genuine…and human. She nailed this one spectacularly.
As fabulous as she was on that question, she was equally disingenuous on the next question. She was asked about her favorite bible story.
She mentioned the recent Jewish holiday of Purim, which she mispronounced “Pyurim.” She stated that she loved the story of Esther, and read it often as a child. I’m sorry, but growing up Methodist means she most likely went to churches, where they do not teach about Jewish stories such as Esther. Yes, Jesus was Jewish, but outside of Judaism, Esther is obscure. Her comment seemed like a sop to Jewish voters.
She was then asked if we could make changes on issues such as global climate change without hurting our lifestyles. The answer is no.
Nevertheless, she spoke about small changes such as using better light bulbs. It was a carefully calibrated answer. In fact, she mentioned that people should “not feel threatened” by changes. Of course they feel threatened, and justifiably so. She stated that the Vatican was carbon neutral. I have no idea if this is true, but praising the Vatican at a forum like this is smart.
A very intelligent question was asked on whether or not Hillary would commit troops to places like Darfur under a foreign command. The ansswer should have been “absolutely not.” I would include an expletive in my answer.
Hillary totally ducked the question, perhaps because the “global test” question hurt John Kerry in 2004. She did praise President Bush regarding the tsunami in Asia, especially since he tapped her husband. Hillary did correctly point out that America’s favorability went through the roof after the tsunami, but it was because of the generosity of ordinary Americans, not the government. She acknowledged that “the military can be helpful” in certain situations. How generous of her.
An absolutely idiotic question about whether God wanted her to be President was handled very brilliantly. She cited Abraham Lincoln, and spoke about what motivates her. On these types of questions, she appears very genuine.
Barack Obama then came out to a rousing ovation, and he shook Hillary’s hand as she exited the stage.
The first question to Obama dealt with his smugness, although it was phrased in a nicer way. He was asked why he referred to bitter people who turn to religion and guns.
He insisted that he did not mean to demean anybody. He also said people were misconstruing his words. By misconstruing I guess he means taking him literally.
When asked about Hillary referring to him as elitist, he said that this was an example of politics tearing people down.
On an unrelated note, liberal blowhard Bob Beckel had stated earlier in the evening that based on the way they were mistreated in society, black people could not be elitist.
When asked about God intervening in history, Obama properly made it clear that he did not understand God’s plan, but tried to live a good life.
An abortion softball was delivered to Obama, in the form of being asked if there was common ground. The loudspeakers then began to blare the Beatles singing, “Come Together, right now, over me.” Just kidding. Obama did handle the question well, but again, it was a softball. He did talk about adoption and other issues, but made it clear there was a chance the issue might not be resolved. In fact, when he said “adoption is an option,” Jesse Jackson must have been upset that he did not think of the adoption rhyme first.
He was then asked a tougher abortion question, that being whether or not life begins at conception.
He said that he had no idea. Given that this was a forum about beliefs, he could have stated his position.
When asked about euthanasia, he again ducked. However, his point that all Americans should have a living will was a valid and important point. I am amazed that I do not recall a candidate mentioning that before. He stated that terminally ill people should get medicine to “relieve their pain.” When Campell Brown tried to infer that relieving pain meant ending life, Obama would not acknowledge that.
A Southern Baptist Minister stated that an abstinence based and faith based program reduced AIDS in Africa, and wanted Obama’s views.
Obama did praise President Bush’s faith based initiatives with regards to trying to save lives. Obama offered various ideas in a comprehensive approach, but again would not address the abstinence program. At some point he would answer a question, but perhaps not on this night. One valid point he made that needs to be repeated by democrats is that there is a “human element to this problem.” He could have stopped at that point, but he specifically mentioned promiscuity. He could have spoken about drug users as well, and the fact that AIDS is rising again in the homosexual community, but based on the low standards democrats have set, his answer was courageous for criticizing anybody.
When asked about a comment he made about his daughter being “punished with a baby,” Obama deftly answered the question by pointing out his daughters were 9 and 6. He made it clear that if his daughter got pregnant at age 12 or 13, it would be a mistake, and that women at that age having babies is harmful for the mothers and children. It was an appropriate answer, and he plainly stated that “children screw up.”
A pointless question about God creating the world in 6 days was answered in a dignified manner.
Obama then did something bold, which is not his nature. He could have left the answer as it was, but instead decided to emphasize his belief in evolution, and that it was compatible with his Christian faith. The answer was fine, and again given surprising how cautious Obama normally is.
Obama was then asked how he reconciles both evolution and religious faith, as it relates to climate change and stem cell research.
He very smartly talked about how Genesis teaches us to be good stewards.
Obama was asked about Pastor Jeremiah Wright, but the question was a complete softball. Rather than be asked about the controversies, Obama was asked how Pastor Wright brought him closer to God.
His answer was thoughtful, and poignant. He listed the positive things that his church was doing. Obama then tried to state that while Reverend Wright was his pastor, that was not the same as a spiritual adviser. While this is baloney, Obama stated that the controversial comments do not detract from the good works that the church does. This is wrong. If the KKK were to help cure AIDS, it would not change the fact that they are racists. Obama still has not figured this issue out.
Obama was asked how his exposure to Islam as a child shaped him. He responded by stating that when he lived in Indonesia as a child, he attended Catholic school. Additionally, Indonesia at the time was a secular and tolerant nation. Islam can be compatible with the modern world, and work with Judaism and Christianity to improve the world.
Obama was asked if he would commit to cutting poverty in America in half in 10 years. Obama stated that he would absolutely make that commitment. While I cannot imagine how he could do it, the fact that he believes he can is either naive or admirable. I will go with admirable since cynicism does not help anybody. He tied the issue into fixing America economically. One can disagree with Obama’s prescriptions, and I do, but he did articulate his goals well with regard to domestic initiatives ranging from health care to education. He also stated that he wanted to keep the office of faith based initiatives open. In an ironic moment, he emphasized the importance of humility, especially given his recent perceived pompousness.
Obama was then asked about how quickly we can surrender in the war on terror. The actual words of the questioner dealt with torture.
Not only did Obama state that he was against torture, but he also stated that he would not “farm out or subcontract torture.” That means we cannot hand a guy over to another country knowing they might deal with him in a harsher manner than we would.
The last question was the same softball asked earlier, about religion had too much power in American life today. Obama was very deft on this one.
He stated that many democrats were bad on religious issues. He then stated the republicans were guilty in the other direction. It was a way of being above politics, and he straddled the line successfully. He warned against self righteousness, and was lucky there were no mirrors around.
This was a tough one to call in terms of the winner. As I have said before, the debate premise itself was worthless.
Obama was bland. He offended nobody, but was less inspirational than he has been in the past.
Hillary had moments of brazen insincerity. She reminded me why she has so many people that dislike her with such a ferocity. Yet she had other moments of incredible sincerity, and during those moments was better than I had ever seen her.
Given that this was a forum for democrats, Hillary’s negative moments will be glossed over, while her positives will pleasantly surprise people, especially if she can keep it up. I suspect she cannot, and look for her to go on the attack in the Pennsylvania debate on the 16th.
Nevertheless, Obama was simply boring tonight. He has had many good nights, and this was not one of them. He did not do himself any harm, and will most likely be livelier on the 16th.
If anybody won this evening, it would be Hillary, albeit slightly. It was just a tad better for her than a draw.
eric
I saw this ” Compassion forum” on the schedule and immediately asked myself; ‘ are they serious ?” What kinda pre conceived answers do you think anyone would deliver in a forum that has compassion as the title ?
I find it really disingenuous like reality TV .
How real can it possibly be when everyone knows the camera is right there ?
How can anyone be trusted to give an honest answer when the premise of emotional or logical display should be compassionate ?
Just about any issue in our world today can be approached with compassion.
And personally I don’t believe compassion has any place in making decisions about the war on terror or how we treat combatants, terrorists or those who mean America harm. So how does that question get played in a “compassion” forum?
” her faith allowed her to “make decisions when nobody else agreed with me.” That seems to be a quality that she would criticize President Bush for. ‘
She may not of used this critsizm against him but many others have already.
“She stated that “the potential for life begins at conception.”
An amazingly vague and non committing answer, the potential for life could start with two people meeting or with Adam and Eve if you really want to get into potentials.
Common sense dictates to me that when something is growing at any stage, “that is life ”
“She was then asked if we could make changes on issues such as global climate change without hurting our lifestyles.”
What ? She didn’t brag about all the “green jobs” she was going to create ?
Hillary is done. It was bad enough she hopped on the Rev Wright bashing train, but taking up the “liberal elite” argument is about as low as she could go. Democrats are going to turn on her for that. Obama was, after all, absolutely right – just unwise to say it. The “liberal elite” myth was created by Bill Safire and Pat Buchanon for Nixon. Hillary should have stayed out of this. It was her last mistake in a campaign run as poorly as GWB has run America.
JMJ
Liberal elitism is no myth.
Bill and Pat may have been one of the first to use the phrase, but thats only because it was a growing trend and atittude amongst liberals that was clearly coming into view with the 60s movements of bohemian aristocratic snobs who patronized common sense with outrageous philosophys and some kind of ” avante` garde above the rest ” mentallity. Today they are the rich elite liberals who sympathize but cannot empathize with everyday Americans because they have never been in ant ordinary day to day struggle as the rest of America has gone thru. They know nothing about the average Joe.
Best example today would be Hollywood, Al Gore and a buch of others who look down their noses at conservatives and just pass us off as not being complex enough to even begin to understand them . When in a reality they are about as simple minded as they come.
They are non complexive one dimensional thinkers who cant define their arguement well enough so instead they end up just having to say its so and that we should believe them simply because we must have faith that they are so much smarter than anyone else.
College professors are also a good exampleThe vast majority of professors, 72% identify themselves as liberals. At Ivy League Universities, an even larger majority of 87% of professors identified themselves as liberals. Additionally those with graduate degrees were more likely to vote Democratic in the 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2006 elections than any other educational demographic.
Professors are allowed to bash conservative aspects such as the religious right our administration but if he were to bash gays , blacks or women he would be accused of hosting a hostile learning environment.
I’ve seen it to a point where its almost required because they believe thay are above any sense of fairness and ethical standards when it comes to promoting liberalism.
It takes quite a narcissic ego maniac to believe its his duty
“Liberal elite” is just fodder for fools. The same people who bandy it about come from the same schools, live in the same communities, make the same money, hold the same professions, etc. It’s a canard, a bait and switch, and just plain stupid, really. It is designed to make conservatives feel victimized, looked down upon by snobby know-it-all “liberals” who are somehow apart from daily life in America. The fact that the label has stuck all these years is just more proof of the lack of political accumen among too many of the American people.
JMJ
just because you come from the same school doesnt mean there isnt a difference in lifestyles , character traits and attitudes among people. In my community there are staunch conservatives and snotty elitest liberals who think their crap dont stink.
These are the morons that hang out at foriegn film festivals giving credit to crap that is referd to as art because its so abstarct only the most elite of imaginations could possibly see the redeeming qualities and motto behind it. These are the morons who hang out at Starbucks and thumb their noises at those of us supposedly dont know a good cup of coffe just because we like it black and dont get off at hearing ourselves say catchy little titles like “latte” . These are the morons that go to wine and cheese festivals and walk around all pompous like storks and gazelles with their noses up in the air.
These are the morons who drive hybrids because it ” makes a statement” about themselves saying they are a cut above the rest because they are willing to drive a hunk of sh** in the name of something that Al Gore says there is no debate about..
I do not feel victimized by these goody two shoe nannys.
I feel entertained .
As much as the left hates to put a label on anything they still do it when it serves there own interest.
We are not all the same, its a fact. We are not all equal in attributes and personal and political choices. And they do not all make the same money.
There are middle income elitest who think they are all that becuase of there beliefs and then there are elitest who are simply unexposed and have lived shelterd lives to point of ignorance in thinking they can somehow relate to every day Joe Amerca.
Certain types of people get certain titles in life just as would a racist simply because he is one.
Well, there are plenty of elites in this world, conservative, liberal or completely above politics themselves. The third of those are the most dangerous, because they really don’t care about anything but their own considerable fortunes. These are the kind of people who will donate maxes to both Democratic and Republican candidates in the same campaign. These are the Special Interest Elites and they’ve been running things for a long. long time. “Elites” may mean “snobs” (of whatever class) to the average guy but the poltical context means much more. It suggests power and a pandering disdain for the common man. These “Liberal Elites,” in conservative jargon, control the culture, the poltical discourse, the media, the universities, and all sorts of levers of power. And it simply is NOT true – and it’s not true for the Conservative Elite either. It is that third class of Elites that control most all those levers. The conservative elite eminates from exactly the same sectors of society as the liberal elite: educated, cultured, middleclass-to-rich types who may come off arrogantly at times. Liberal elites may bother you as much as conservative elites bother me, but the real Elites scare the cr@p out of me for the sake of our people and national future. These are insatiable, gluttonous cannibals eating the national body.
And you guys want to give these evil slobs’ kids tax breaks by eliminating the “Death Tax”!!! Man you guys just don’t get it sometimes.
JMJ
There is no such thing as the “death tax”
You can be wealthy and still not think everyone around around you is an idiot. There is a difference between the rich and the elite as I pointed out above
I’m talking about an elitest frame of mind that comes with their political leanings and practices and preachings.
The left is constantly claiming that if you dont agree you’re just too stupid or “mainstream to” to get it. Thats pretty much what Obama said, I heard it, and said WTF?
If you cant see it in our liberal society you need glasses.
Just like you should be able to see the hawkishness in conservatives
To stand for your beliefs with conviction is one thing.
To claim that you are so special no one gets it and that we are too dumb to know what we need or want ( the government has to decide for us)is elitest.
Which is exactly the type of government liberals elitist would like to impose on us.
Liberals are no doubt some really snotty arrogant people at times when they claim to know what best for all of us. I’ve debated plenty of them and they are constantly questioning cons with condescending remasrks about everything from our intelligence, our grammar and our sexuality. Like this one guy I know who keeps bringing up the” man thing” and questioning the intelligence of most of our citizens and the educational accomplisments of our soldiers.
As if he is some sort of authority on smart.
Lets put it this way.
When South park does an episode about snobby elite liberals who all drive a Prius and sniff their own farts at yoga classes you know its true.
“SHe mentioned the recent Jewish holiday of Purim, which she mispronounced “Pyurim.” She stated that she loved the story of Esther, and read it often as a child. I’m sorry, but growing up Methodist means she most likely went to churches, where they do not teach about Jewish stories such as Esther. Yes, Jesus was Jewish, but outside of Judaism, Esther is obscure. Her comment seemed like a sop to Jewish voters.”
Eric, you’ve got to be kidding. Have you no idea what goes on in churches? We learned the story of Esther in Sunday School as children. I’ve attended Bible studies on Esther for Training Union and evening study. Millions of Christians attend weekday studies that include Esther. The same could be said of all books of the Tanakh.
You’ve got to be kidding.
“There is no such thing as the “death tax””
That is correct.
What Obama was saying is true – frustrated, disenfranchised, working class people who have seen no real improvement in their lives in well over a generation turn to issues with which they feel they have some control and security – God, gays, and guns. That’s not some snobby, “elitist” conclusion – it’s a plain reality so obvious that you’d have to be seriously brain damaged not to see it.
Look Country Club Republicans and Prius Driving Liberals all have their snobs among them. The tag “liberal elite,” as I said, is a canard, and I’m feeling like I’m actually losing IQ points just talking about it, so I’m going to stop now.
And Chris is right, Christians regularly study the Old Testament, and Born Again Fundies selectively use the text regularly. You can’t get through almost any serious seminary without a thorough knowledge of Judaism.
JMJ
We have control over God, gays and guns?
It may be a reality to you because of the way you see the American middle class. Unfortunatly its not really true, thats the reason so many were offended by that line.
First of all he revealed his lack of vision by saying these people are bitter, these people aren’t “bitter”. They love their country, their faith, their family and their traditions. They are the heart and soul of this country, the fabric of our countrys strength and the ones behind its essential goodness. Obama obviously hasnt spent much time with them.
What he said was implying that we are bigoted, primitive, superstitious, and that is supposedly the reason we feel such injustice
This is a narrow minded elitest conclusion that only an elite know it all snob wouuld think is true to the point he would blab it to the whole country.
Obama’s premise is that Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their way of life and embrace liberal BS.
What he said mat be true in some small circles of redneck evangelical corners.
But it was a disgusting verbal display of generalizations that showed contempt for average conservatrive Americans that only some snotty ” better than you ” attitude could be responsible for.
Jersey, its no surprise that you would agree with Obama in thinking this is true. The only reason you and him feel the same way is because you are both guilty of thinking that your concept of things is a reality. Your contempt for middle America republicans could be quite similar to an elitest black mans contempt for white conservative middle America, at least it seems that way.
John Kerry blew it by saying something similar with his ” pickup truck” remark.
Unfortunatly Jersey the real truth of the matter here is that with or without bitterness middle American cons and repd have always been clinging to their guns a right, not for solice. We have always clung to our faith in good and bad, and if we do pray for inspiration , whats wrong with that > And we have always wanted to secure our borders and countrys security from illegal immigration.
That does not make us so ignorant that we need some naany stae dictatorship of a government telling us what to do because we are supposedly so stupid we cant make our own choices.
If I went and said something similar about black middle America the sh** would hit the fan and all you moonbats would start accusing me of every ingnorant trait under the sun.
JMJ
“I’m actually loosing I.Q. points just talking about it ”
There you go, perfect example of presumed higher intelligence.
When the conversation doesnt suit an elitest he no longer trys to make ihis point with clear examples , he just dismisses the whole thing with ” I’m too smart for this”
When actually hes having a hard time proving something that isnt true.
(PS)
It was you who said a while back there is no such thing as the death tax. And then you go and use it to make point.
And , really ” country clubs ?
Typical lib. Thinks that because someone is wealthy or can afford private establishments hes an elite.
There are plenty of rich people who are not snotty condescending or elitist
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 04/15/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Mickey2’s answer to Jersey is right on! Good for you, Mickey.
What Obama said is an insult to every middle-class Christian and to everyone who believes in the second amendment! Why he thought he could spout his bigotted rhetoric without getting caught is a sign that he has no common sense whatsoever. In this age you can be put on You Tube for farting in public! What an egotistical idiot he has proven himself to be.
I didn’t watch this CNN thing you posted about, Eric. I always feel soiled when I turn on CNN but sometimes I watch it just to see what they’re up too.
“We have control over God, gays and guns?”
What I meant was that as issues these matters give people something they feel like they can wrap around, so to speak – they figure they can’t ever win against the Corporatists, so instead they focus on other issues – like God, gays and guns – and lately “illegal aliens.” It’s not really really a Middle Class matter, so I don’t know what you and Gayle are talking about. The Middle Class is more politically asute. It’s the Working Class that tend to get their blood up about such issues.
“It was you who said a while back there is no such thing as the death tax. And then you go and use it to make point.”
I put it in quotes, Micky.
This gets to a serious problem we have in America today – the working class feels comlpetely out of touch with Washington, and you can’t blame them. They have been squeezed and squeezed and have to work harder and harder and yet they just can’t seem to climb that hill the way they used to. So, failing to accomplish anything of substance, they focus their bitterness on minorities, homosexuals, religious issues, and guns – none of which are a real threat to them, but they have to pick on someone to feel better about themselves. Sleazy pols pick up on this sentiment us use them as bait for the switch. Here’s an example I always use:
The poltician says, I love God, God hates gays, I hate gays, I love tax breaks for the filthy rich, God loves tax breaks for the filthy rich, therefore you love tax breaks for the filthy rich. And It goes on like that. I call it the Eyes Off the Prize strategy. Focus bitter voters on their lesser angels instead of issues that really concern them. So let’s say the economy is wrecked and it’s thanks to laizzez faire corporatism. So, don’t run on laizzez faire corporatism, just rally people around their irratioanl fears of being disarmed or that their kids are being seduced by the “homosexual agenda” or that their church is being abused. None of it is true, but it keeps them bitter and focuses on everything EXCEPT what they should be concerned with – the failure of laizzez faire corporatism. Sleazy pols know one thing – there’s one born every minute. They can’t on them.
JMJ
JMJ;
“The Middle Class is more politically asute. It’s the Working Class that tend to get their blood up about such issues. ”
The two are almost one in the same jersey, you’re loosing and you’re splitting hairs.
The rest of your rant is just opinion.
The fact is he pissed off a lot of people who are not so stupid they dont know when they are being insuloted.
Stop trying to justify and minimize it, you look like him.
No Micky, the Working Class includes service workers, blue collar workers, non-college grads, laborers, etc. They are mostly renters, tend to but used cars, and have little or no investment worth. The Middle Class represent white collar workers, management, professionals, and college grads. They are mostly homeowners, buy new cars regularly, have investments beyond just assets, etc. This is not splitting hairs. These are serious class distinctions.
These distinctions are reflected in the way the two classes vote. The Middle Class is less religious, and if they are religious they tend toward large organized major churches. They tend to separate their church’s positions from their political ones. They do not care that much about gays and abortion and Ten Commanment monuments. The Working Class – aside from the Catholics – tend to be more religious, but tend toward nondenominational churches if any at all. They tend to mix their religious beliefs with their political persuasion, concerning themselves with such issues as gays, abortion and Ten Commandment monuments.
It goes on and on, from issues of nationalism, war, internationalism, trade – you name it. The more educated and comfortable you are, the less likely you are to concern yourself with the “god, gays, guns” crowd.
JMJ
There are poor and rich jersey.
Everything else is in the middle. I know you libs like to put a stinking label on and segregate everything into their own little distinctions to the point of oblivion. But that is all irrelevant to the point here. And the fact of the matter here is that Obama pissed off a lot of “AVERAGE” Americans middle, blue collar whatever fantastic label you would like to stick on them who go to church , want secure borders and own guns.
Get it right and stop bouncing all over the place with your ridiculous attempts to justify an snotty elitest statement.
This guy thinks him and his partys crap dont stink. And it has become clearly evident with him and his wifes statements.
And you my friend are the classic example of elitism.
You have constantly insisted with the people that you debate on this blog and yours. You have insisted that without references or any sustainable sources that we all take your word for it that you are right and.or speaking the truth.
This is the classic example of condescending snobbery ” there is no debate” elitest attitude.
9 times out of 10 you tell people its true just because you say it is. So its no wonder you are doing your best to rationalize and justify Obamas words
Obama did what political liberals have been doing for over 40 years now…he unfairly and condescendingly ( yes, it lacked respect…) labelled and prejudged a group of people. He truly believes he understands these people just like many of my politically liberal ( there’s a tremendous distinction to be made between real liberals and political liberals much the same as real conservatives and political conservatives…) friends falsely believe they understand folks based on “class” etc…this analysis of his and theirs just doesn’t hold except for in liberal academic circles where “they” have figured it all out…
His elitism and prejudice shone through…
I would never have voted twice for Bill Clinton in the ’90’s if I believed he subscribed to Mr. Obama’s flawed ( though perhaps academically correct) take on “working class” America…agree or disagree…as a Candidate and President Mr. Clinton often held fast to pragmatism ( Just ask Alan Greenspan)…Mr. Obama is turning out to be a wolf in sheeps clothing defined by nonsense slogans such as “Change We Can Believe In.” How insulting…
Eric
Did you read this? This is the MMFA who targeted Imus last year he is back at it.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/04/15/soros-s-political-hit-man-brock-takes-aim-mccain