TPMDC
Poll: 55% Of Likely Voters Think Obama's A Socialist
Signs at a Tea Party rally.
Share
Send to a friend!
Have months of Fox News hyperventilating and right-wing fear mongering over our supposed socialist-in-chief finally paid off? A majority of voters now think President Barack Obama is a socialist, at least according to one new poll.
The poll (PDF) from Democracy Corps finds that 55 percent of likely voters believe that the word "socialist" describes the president either "well" or "very well."
Peyton Craighill, a senior associate at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a firm that does polling for Democracy Corps, attributed the surprising number to voters' impatience with the lagging economy.
"It probably has to do with the fact that people are very unhappy with the dire economy and the fact that the budget deficit is quite large," Craighill said. "People who don't like the man are going to use any label they can to ding him, even if they don't think he's a socialist in the vein of the Soviet Union or China."
June's poll was the first Democracy Corps survey to ask respondents if they consider the President to be a socialist, but Craighill said the monthly poll will continue to ask the question in the future. "It's something we want to track on future reporting for how this might relate to the Tea Party movement," he said. Craighill expects Democracy Corps to publish a report specific to the Tea Party movement in a few weeks.
The poll was conducted June 19-22. It surveyed 1,001 adults who voted in 2008, including 867 adults likely to vote in 2010 and 134 "drop-off" voters, defined as 2008 voters less likely to vote in 2010. Its margin of error is ±3.0.
Thomas Rhiel is TPM's polling fellow.
Comments (600) | Join the Conversation!
Follow us!
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Matt Jones
July 9, 2010 8:41 AM
For consistency's sake, the followup question should be "What does 'being a socialist' mean?". I suspect 45% of likely voters haven't got the foggiest idea, but Faux Noos said it so they repeat it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
July 9, 2010 8:51 AM in reply to Matt Jones
Bingo! That is the key question right there. They have no clue what a "socialist" is...except what the hate-spewers lie and tell them it is.
It would also be nice to know the polls break-down of Teabaggers vs. actual sane people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 9, 2010 9:15 AM in reply to dswx
Firebaggers think he's a "corporatist" and they have no idea what that word means either.
When you point out that it doesn't mean "corporate shill", they respond "people know what we're talking about when we call the president a corporatist. Words can mean whatever you want them to mean."
And this is different from the wackjobs on the right calling him a socialist, how?
Teabaggers/Firebaggers=two sides of the same stupid coin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 9:47 AM in reply to FreeRider
Corporatism is actually a pretty good word for our system. Interest groups (including corporations but also trade associations, labor, social and religious groups) wielding vast influence over the mechanisms of government. Given that Obama is basically a status quo president that makes him a corporatist too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
July 9, 2010 9:51 AM in reply to destor23
A "status quo" President that 55% believe is fundamentally altering our system. Quite a conundrum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 9:55 AM in reply to Dorn76
55% of the people can't be wrong!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fla_kracker
July 9, 2010 10:24 AM in reply to destor23
Just like a million flies can't be wrong $hit tastes good
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rhytonen
July 9, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to destor23
This proves that they CAN be wrong - and in this case are.
The bad numbers are half comprised of those who are disappointed he's NOT (as only you who refuse to accept the actual definition would shrill,) "a socialist."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to destor23
but WHICH 55% is my question...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 11, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to JEP07
Scott Rasmussen's demographic of people most likely to vote Republican when given the choice of just the monikers and not candidates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
afisher
July 9, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to destor23
If you bother to look at the ACTUAL POLL, one would see that the number of respondents is not listed, but instead reference the BONEG. Now I am not a pollster or pundit, but IMO, that means that 55% of those who have a negative view of President Obama think he is a socialist.
Shame on the "fellow" who merely reposted this poll without taking the time to actually think about the results. Or maybe TPM just wanted to increase traffic. So I will add the author's brilliant answer: Hmmmmm or was it Ummmm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to afisher
Well that's... um... wow. Thanks for the careful read. Kind of wish that'd been in the story. Or even the headline.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thomas Rhiel
July 9, 2010 5:52 PM in reply to afisher
Actually, "BONEG" is a handle used by the pollster to refer to this specific question. (Each question in the survey has a unique handle.) It does not mean that the question was asked only to those who have a negative opinion of the president. The pollster confirmed what I reported in the post—that the question was asked to the full sample.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 10, 2010 11:42 AM in reply to Thomas Rhiel
Thanks for clarifying and verifying!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 11, 2010 10:06 AM in reply to afisher
http://www.unclejosh.com/littlestinker/modules/cart/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to destor23
Yes they can when they are asked questions that are based on lies which is what the gop does. I received one of their polls and I mentioned this further down on this forum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 9, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to destor23
Still haven't bothered to look up the definition of "corporatist" have you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
magurakurin
July 9, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to FreeRider
here. I did it for him
"Corporatism also known as corporativism is a system of economic, political, or social organisation that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles amongst individuals.[1][2] The term corporatism is based on the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body".[2] Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body.[3] One of the most prominent forms of corporatism is economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to set economic policy. In contemporary usage, "corporatism" is often used as a pejorative term against the domination of politics by the interests of business corporations based on the inaccurate interpretation of "corporat" in corporatism as referring to business corporations."
fucking firebaggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 10:26 AM in reply to magurakurin
Neither of you have any idea what you're talking about.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism
As usual.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
July 9, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to destor23
The point would be that Obama tilts towards the interests of business corporations, with his policies in that regard being in direct succession to Bush's, just as his policies on Gitmo, rendition, and war have been. On all of these he has pulled back ... slightly. That slight pulling back from pure Bushism has evoked howls of protest from FOX and CEOs.
This sort of corporatism, by the way, was a cornerstone of Italian fascism and German national socialism. Now, in the current climate in America I think Obama's the best of all possible presidents. He's lead us back to a Nixonian center on many issues such as the environment, when otherwise we'd be still leaning crazy to the right, for instance. But he's a corporatist, in the same sense the national socialists were. And that's why the "socialist" label fits for many.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to wyt
Ah, I see you've been sucked in by the "national socialist" canard. Just because ol' Adolf stuck that word in his party's name doesn't mean the party was anything like socialist. The history books are full of hints that Hitler wasn't exactly honest all the time. Some of us even question that whole Aryan supremacy idea... (cough)
When your primary support is from industrialists and the wealthy, and when your policies primarily support industrialists and the wealthy, (as was the case with the Nazis) you are, by definition, something other than a socialist. In fact, Hitler hated the Left, banned labor unions and rounded up socialists and communists for prison and death.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
July 9, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to AmericanDad
I think you need to read what wyt said again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to Cal Gal
He/she said "But he's a corporatist, in the same sense the national socialists were."
Except they, the Nazis, were not socialists. Not in any sense. Saying they were is a favorite part of the radical Right's message, and it needs to be corrected whenever it pops up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Everett Miller
July 9, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Yes, but he said Obama was a corporatist, not a socialist, so the fact that National Socialists were also corporatists is kind of immaterial.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to Jason Everett Miller
Socialists, by definition, are not corporatists. They are mutally exclusive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Everett Miller
July 9, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to AmericanDad
No one was comparing socialism to corporatism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 4:07 PM in reply to Jason Everett Miller
He/she had this underlying line of reasoning: the Nazis were socialists, the Nazis were corporatists, Obama is a corporatist, therefore people can be excused for thinking he's a socialist.
The equation/explanation depends on thinking socialists can be corporatists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Everett Miller
July 10, 2010 11:18 AM in reply to AmericanDad
That isn't what (s)he said at all. They said Obama is a "socialist" like the Nazi's were socialists. Meaning, despite the name, they were corporate friendly.
They were explaining that is why the name fits for many people, despite very few actual "socialist" programs or policies coming out of the Obama administration.
Understanding brand confusion is the first step toward solving it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to AmericanDad
When you try to tell the American People that Obama is not a Socialist American Dad, its like telling them to eat shit because you poured Mable syrup on it and told them it's pancakes...they just won't eat it because it still smells like shit...Get it?
Face it your losing the debate in the free market of ideas because you are following the false doctrine of the living constitution and progressivism..
Americans are refusing to Join Your Party!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
I understand where you are coming from: I was once, myself, a sophomore in college.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Really, somewhere near Berkeley or Columbia University I would guess..ha...ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
So are we to assume you are from Regent?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to JEP07
Nope, the college of 'Haze Gray and Underway'...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Oh shattered illusions! Another of your fantasy stereotypes destroyed.
I grew up as a Republican, in a Republican household under nothing but Republican governors in a stridently conservative state -- where I entered post-secondary education. I went on to earn an MBA and serve for more than 15 years (and counting) as a CEO. I'm also a weight-lifting martial artist who once won an award for being "the most blood-thirsty" player of a football team, and who can still hit the center of the 100-yard target with a freehand rifle shot. Did I mention my father was an evangelical preacher who made the Motal Majority look like secular humanists?
You feel salty, I know.
That prefabircated world in which you live must be a painfully cramped and impoverished environment. You have my pity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to AmericanDad
So was it UC Berkley or Columbia?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Neither New York nor California would fit that discription.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to AmericanDad
That obvious act would require at least a basic knowledge of geography. Obviously, these experts spent their time studying political science.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to JEP07
"obvious fact"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to JEP07
"these experts spent their time studying political science." Now THAT'S snark!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Dad., When were you on MSNBC? Who' show???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 10, 2010 7:10 AM in reply to chameleon
Dylan Ratigan's show back in April.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 10, 2010 8:57 AM in reply to AmericanDad
Oh the worst show on MSNBC. Tell me, did he let you talk. I know he loves the sound of his own voice and rarely lets his guests talk. I wish I had known in advance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to AmericanDad
I know you have a very sound conservative background and you looked like a genuine guy when I saw you on MSNBC, but because Conservatives don't always live up to their ideals you were very disappointed in them and had some kind of life changing moment that made you go to the 'dark side'. Maybe you find another life changing moment where 'Peripeteia' will set in and like David Horowitz turn you back on Liberalism and Progressivism. Let's hope!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Darth Vader did change back right before he died...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Nice point, so there is hope for 'American Dad' to be welcomed into the fold again!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
...would that be between the layers of fat?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to JEP07
funny...ha..ha...so your not a grumpy old man after all!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 10, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
not grumpy at all...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 10, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to JEP07
Great,
Does that mean you had your morning walk with your dog to Dun-kin Doughnuts?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 11, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
my dogs hunt...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Then you came out of the closet as the liberal buffoon that you really are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to dwjoae
Thank you! Unprovoked ad hominem attacks are always most enlightening.
We now know so much more about you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Well, you went left, right? Read the crap you write. You're nuts. Obama actually surpassed Bush as the worst president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to dwjoae
The worst president! Not even close, and neither was Bush for that matter. How about you take some time to research, which I know you won't, and look at Herbert Hoover or James Buchannan. Those were bad presidents. And AD is right, you shouldn't use personal attacks if you don't have a substantive argument to add with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 5:01 PM in reply to dwjoae
you wish toots. No one could be as bad as chimpy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to lyris
They were all bad! Progressively, they got worse and worse. Now we have a complete maggot for president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 10, 2010 7:16 AM in reply to dwjoae
Name calling ceases to be an acceptable substitute for argument somewhere between first and third grades. Time to pick up your game.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 10, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to AmericanDad
I think we are talking "pre-school" with this one...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 8:16 PM in reply to dwjoae
George W. Bush will go down in history as 'the president that lost the republic' if socialism is not defeated in 2012 and that would make GWB the worst president in this Constitutional Republic's history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 10, 2010 10:45 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Hey! I have George HW and George W right up there with Prescott Bush who funded the Nazis, but I must respectfully disagree when it comes Barry. He hates the United States and he's giving it away like no other. Number 2 worst is Woodrow Wilson. Barry is number one because he is doing it with enthusiasm.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 10, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to dwjoae
See my reply at the bottom!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 10, 2010 7:14 AM in reply to dwjoae
Uh, no. I'm still where the GOP was under Eisenhower/Nixon/Romney. The GOP went far to the Right. So far, now, that now even Reagan wouldn't be accepted. The wingnuts are trashing things Reagan held dear and for which he worked hard.
Am I nuts? Probably, but what's your point? Sanity is highly over-rated.
And I need not "look at what I write," because -- believe it or not -- it actually passes before my eyes as I write it! Don't know how you do it, but an old fart like me has to write the old fashioned way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 10, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to AmericanDad
Then pay attention to what's happening, and not the left/right propaganda. Our country is getting sold to the owners of the Federal Reserve in order to kill our dollar. We're hopelessly in debt, and we're getting strapped with more debt. This is very frustrating. We need to shit out the Federal reserve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 10, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to dwjoae
hard to do when you're impacted...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
July 11, 2010 9:18 PM in reply to dwjoae
Only to idiots of the first degree, palinistas, and wingnuts of the farthest fringe.
The national socialists were socialists like W was a "compassionate" conservative.The few socialists who remained attached to the party after Adolf's ascent were mostly dealt with on the night of the long knives.
I'd hope and expect that we'll never have another president as bad as the shrub.For all my personal disagreements with President Obama on policy and political issues he'll never be as bad as that moron.I'm guessing too that the 55% cited in this poll have never heard of bible communists and would automatically reject the notion of the existence of any such thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
July 9, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to wyt
There's a point where superficiality of analysis undermines not merely the analogy, but one's own credibility. You're way past that line, even without regard to the Godwin's Law violation.
In Italy under Mussolini, corporations were what amounted to a branch of the government. In Germany, under the Nazis, the government was extremely anti-fair trade, extremely interventionist and, particularly following the economic crisis of 1936, increasingly exclusionary with regard to the opinions of business, industry and industrialists. Plenty of people figured out how to make a profit in an environment where the whim of murderous uneducated racist goons who knew dick about economics were law, but it wasn't because they had any meaningful say in economic policy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to wyt
Try to see beyond your nose wyt. We need jobs, businesses often hire people to work for them, our president is trying to lure these businesses to hire more Americans.
The president is also trying to help small businesses as well, but the gop are doing their best to stop that from happening.
Research wyt, only go to reliable sources and stay away from conjectures which the teabagging/gop and firebaggers have in common.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 10, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to lyris
Then support the eradication of GATT, NAFTA, and the outsourcing of our manufacturing base. We cannot make it by handling finance if we have only debt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
July 9, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to destor23
Have patience Destor.
They're too busy creating their own terms, such as "fucking firebaggers" to dismiss thoughts they can't quite understand.
BTW, I believe the term remains undefined in most authoritative sources I examined. Perhaps the mysterious source used by magurikin(?) to "define" corporatism has a listing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to KeithL
"dismiss thoughts they can't quite understand."
Oh ye of superior thought and knowledge, please bless us with your version of reality, we would all love to know the absolute truth!
Finally, we can hear it from the source itself...
Still waiting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to destor23
My dictionary states corporatism is:
corporatism |ˈkôrp(ə)rəˌtizəm|
noun
the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
DERIVATIVES
corporatist adjective & noun
While the president is trying to keep and even keel between most of us and the corporations, I believe he does favor us, but still has to deal with the gop and the corporatist Democrats.
Perhaps the group that's been referred to as "firebaggers" should stop and think before they sound identical to the teabagging/gop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to lyris
This goes along with corporatism:
fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.
DERIVATIVES
fascist noun & adjective
fascistic |faˈ sh istik| adjective
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to lyris
socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.
DERIVATIVES
socialist noun & adjective
socialistic |ˌsō sh əˈlistik| adjective
socialistically |ˌsō sh əˈlistik(ə)lē| adverb
ORIGIN early 19th cent.: from French socialisme, from social (see social ).
Thesaurus
socialist
adjective
the socialist movement left-wing, progressive, leftist, labor, anti-corporate, antiglobalization; radical, revolutionary, militant; communist; informal lefty, red. antonym conservative.
noun
a well-known socialist left-winger, leftist, progressive, progressivist; radical, revolutionary; communist, Marxist; informal lefty, red. antonym conservative.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Now that communism is basically dead and many of us have made fun of the teabagging/gop using that word they moved to socialism, which further proves are ignorant the teabagging/gop are. Ignorant being the polite way of saying stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 10:28 AM in reply to magurakurin
"One of the most prominent forms of corporatism is economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to set economic policy."
How is this not happening in our system today, with an obvious tilt towards business?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to destor23
Tilt? Don't you mean cascade?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 10:39 AM in reply to AmericanDad
Forgive my understatement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
July 9, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to destor23
That's actually far more descriptive of how things work in Denmark than in the U.S. And there's an underlying implicit understanding that the three are not bargaining in a zero sum game, but rather, in one of mutual dependence. There are places where things work that way. Would that the United States was one of them.
Unfortunately, it's relationship that only seems to occur when there's a happy coincidence in which a crisis occurs at a time when all three are led by people who aren't fools who confuse cynicism with wisdom. But once it starts, it tends to be resilient.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HollywoodRuss
July 9, 2010 12:25 PM in reply to magurakurin
Ron Paul is constantly attacking everybody for being corpratists. I think he's a copratistista! Anyway, thank god we're getting Kagan in there before the Congress rolls back over to the GOP. Now conventional wisdom is that the Dems are going to lose BOTH houses of Congress. If so, it just goes to show devolved the political body has become. I believe that a parliamentary democracy is the only way to go. Make the Senate a largely symbolic institution (like the House of Lords) Do away with the Supreme Court and put most of its duties in the Senate, breaking it into committees that hear arguments based on different points of the Constitution. Then the President becomes a symbolic public figure who greets foreign heads of state, offers them tea, waves at crowds, etc. The PM and MP in the lower house will do all the work. Can you imagine Bush going in front of the House of Reps and answering questions about his policies with Cheney sitting behind him, twitching like a virgin at a prison rodeo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 11:06 AM in reply to FreeRider
Well I have to agree the Pres is not a "corporatist" or a socialist. How about bankster pimp?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 11:14 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
"Bankster pimp" may be too broad. It appears to ecompass every elected federal official with the exceptions of Kucinich, Feingold and, perhaps, a handful of lesser-knowns.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to AmericanDad
Yes, too broad a description. Kinda got stuck. My first thought was Obama as 'capitalist' but since the powers to be recently (and not so recently if you consider all the subsidies we dish out) decided to change the definition of capitalism to privatize profits, socialize loses, and my favorite of course (cover your daughters ears) "hurray for me, fuck you", I had to come up with something. 'Bankster pimp' made me feel good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
Obama's a pragmatist, and in this age of certitude, no matter how deluded or misguided, that is perceived as weakness by every single-issue or chaos-based ideologue who maintains those certitudes.
Most pragmatists are traditionally pulled in two distinct and opposite directions, but Obama's got a sphere of complainers around him, whining from every quadrant, so there's a much more 3 dimensional aspect to the sum of all his critics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
July 9, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to JEP07
No, you're wrong. It is perceived as weakness both by the mainstream media and by the political opposition.
Because when the enemy strategically decides that it's time to pull out all the stops... re-marketing "Socialism" to an audience that hasn't been exposed to the term in 60 years; going right to their fear of a Black man in the WH and unapologetically reviving classic racism as socially acceptable, etc... and you're there, looking for "consensus" and acting all "adult"... the sons of bitches roll right over you, and turn to the country and say, "See? What a weakling! Har har har!" And the country, who likes "winners", tends to agree.
There are times when you have to be nothing less than a real dictator to effect radical change. Just ask George W. Bush who, in one of his fascinating unguarded moments, said so in so many words.
Sadly, despite his reputation which was marketed by the right to these "55%", radical change was never on Obama's "to do list". Which is really too bad, as we're heading into a depression, our seas are permanently poisoned while they fully intend to do more drilling, and we're using a 700 billion dollar military budget to remain at perpetual war. A little radical change, right about now, might be good for the low-information voter, whether he appreciates it or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
"radical change" rarely comes in political patterns, and even then it usually begins with a violent revolution initiated by a newly forming status quo over an older one that is bitten by the hubris bug...
Problem is, it takes a natural disaster of global proportions to force any political status quo, no matter how divided itself, to do something radical, and unfortunately all of the global disasters currently available for us to be indignant about are corporate in origin, not natural.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
July 9, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to JEP07
There was no "violent revolution" during the Bush debacle, yet never in my lifetime was there any more radical retooling of the basic structure of American society, and all it entails, and all that it strives for. The wet dream of Movement Conservatives come alive.
So I maintain to you that the people on the Left calling for Obama to seize the moment and right the ship of state, by whatever means necassary, are hardly the "whiners" of whom you speak. Given the results record of those who actually went that route when events called for it, like FDR... I'd say they were the only real "pragmatists".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
I think you overstate both the dimensions and the durability of victories for the Bushies, but in any case they did not happen overnight. What happened during the Bush years was decades in the making, finding its roots in a GOP minority of (as least as far back) as the 1960s. The Rightwing fringe has been far superior to the Right the Center and the Left, for at least the past 40 years) in framing the issues, setting the terms and defining the issues in our national narrative. And it wasn't an accident. The Rightwing fringe was patient, deliberate and smart in its efforts to build over decades and not just shooting at the next election cycle.
They -- the Radical Reckless Right -- managed to shift the definition of the Center to match what was once the Right, thereby gainaing a measure of legitimacy they'd not enjoyed before. They've also, by shifting the Center, marginalized the Left and silenced and smeared the genuine Right. That's a problem that would take at least a decade of steady effort to crrect.
They have, however, reached a barrier. They've reached a point of Rightwing radicalism that demands Americans accept a higher level of activity and engagement, and Americans are mostly too apathetic and/or lazy to go that far.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
chimpy and shooter kept hiding during most of their terms. They also were spying on us and there were the threats they even American citizens could be arrested and not be allowed to get a lawyer or let their love ones know that they were arrested.
Kind of like what hitler did in the 30's and 40's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to lyris
My blunder, I was going to write something else and decided to change that sentence but forgot to change they into that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 5:55 PM in reply to lyris
Change they into the once I got my thoughts together. Blame it on the heat we're getting in the Northeast, we're not used to 100 plus degrees around here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to JEP07
"radical change" is not what the American People want, the want 'rational change' and not the false doctrine of the living constitution and progressvism.
Restore the Republic and the Constitution to its rightful place in Government!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 1:47 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Bumper stickers are no substitute for education and reason. But I understand you have to work with what you've got.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to AmericanDad
I think you have mistaken 'education and reason' for indoctrination and dogma!
If not tell me why socialism is not compatible with our 'republican form of government'?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
To prove you are educated and reasonable, tell me I'm right! To prove you are educated and reasonable, confirm my prejudices and validate my fantasies!
That's how it works inside your head? No wonder you're so often lost in thought -- it's unfamiliar terriroty for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Ok, just for you..I will refraze the question..
Is that better for you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 9, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
here ya go dungus:
by throwing around the word 'republic' as you do i can only surmise that you've bought in to the glenn beck word game about usa being a republic not a democracy (a cute and shallow way of imagining that this proves 'republicans' are right and 'democrats' are wrong). but of course what is meant by 'republic' in this context is referred to most everywhere else in the world as 'representative democracy'. and of course in that sense, the distinction between 'republic' and 'democracy' is nil. but more relevant to your pretend point, 'republic' then merely describes the manner in which the citizens choose their leaders (legislators, executives, and so on) via elections as opposed to say... hereditary monarchies. how that is supposed to be compatible or incompatible with any variety of ways in which those leaders then decide to organize the economy is nothing more than a deranged fantasy glenn beck's word games have tricked you into imagining. 'republic' merely describes the process by which decisions are made. 'socialist' - like 'capitalist' and like 'mixed economy' (hint-hint) - describes the actual decisions that could be made.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
It is not about Republican Party or Democratic Party, it's about a Judge, Congressman or Senator living up to their oath of office to defend the Constitution (not president) against all enemies foreign or domestic and to read the Constitution as written with the understanding of original intent and 'We The People' electing representatives with good character and moral fiber that would do likewise.
It so happens that the Republican Party is closer to the Constitution than the Democratic-Socialist .... err...Democratic Party. Otherwise Ron and Rand Paul would be democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 10, 2010 7:22 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Uh no, hasten thee to the history books (or at least to one of my recent blog posts on the subject): There was no "original intent" and Founders like Jefferson expressed disdain for and fear of people like you who imagined a) that there was original intent and b) it was meant to stand enshrined forever. Were the Founding Fathers here today, they subject you to a crushing bit of ridicule.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 10, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to AmericanDad
American Dad see my reply below...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 10, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
i can't help noticing that you chose not to address anything in my post that directly answered the 'question' you posed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 10, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
It was. But like all third paties, Socialists were marginalized by the two party system on which the Dems and the GOP have a stranglehold. Token bones are thrown at the dogs who make up third parties and these dry up and blow away. Tyhere hasn't been a successful third party since Republicans absorbed Whigs, Know-Nothings, and Free Soil Democrats in the 1840s. The most famous mayor of my city of birth was a Socialist. Liberutopians are as fringe and marginal as Harold Stassen and Lyndon LaRouche. Nice try though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Does good ever come in the form of radical -- meaning both quick and large -- change? The end of slavery, the end of child labor, Civil Rights for non-whites and women, the election of a non-white president, safeguards for the poor and elderly (inadequate as they are), protection of the environment (incomplete as it is) -- all of these advances, and more, came through decades of effort. Sometimes even longer.
When efforts come to fruition their effects can be radical -- meaning they make a huge difference in the lives of many people -- but getting to that victorious moment is never, so far as I can see, a radical (quick) process. Evil can happen suddenly; good takes time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 9, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to AmericanDad
You talk as if the ideals America had before Bush are all radical new ideas that we just thought of; as if environmetnal movements, anti-war movements, and the many movements toward greater human dignity did not exist for the last 50 years.
We're not looking for radical new change; we're looking for the fruits of decades of labor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to condew
I'm with you on that. But there are far too many who play Veruca Salt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to AmericanDad
"Evil can happen suddenly" - or over a 30 year period - Reagan Revolution. "good takes time." - not always the case.
I think Barry had it right although pragmatists appear to be "whiners" only because they see the solution right in front of them too often - without the violence. All that has to be done is to "seize the moment and right the ship" - as in Medicare buy-in option for people 55 and over! Obama could have signed it into law in 24 hours. Radical or practical, the opportunity was missed. And the turtles with their incrementalism offer up 'half a loaf is better than nothing' weak tea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
My saying that evil can happen suddenly does not imply that evil does not happen gradually as well. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, the Bush evils were the result of a long and deliberate process.
And had we gotten a Medicare buy-in or a public option that, too, would have been the result of decades of sustained effort, and not a sudden or radical change. As it is, as sick as I am about the weakness of the current health care "reform," it is true that it will cause millions more to have access to care and will lengthen and improve the lives of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands.
What may look like low-hanging fruit to you and me, may look very different from other people's perspectives. Judging is a dangerous thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
It does have a nice ring.
You bring to mind Buffalo Springfield's "For what it's worth":
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to AmericanDad
I think the Heat is capitalized... as in "the Cops?"
Or did I misinterpret?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 11:56 AM in reply to JEP07
You are correct. Very poor typist am I.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Commie Dearest
July 9, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to FreeRider
Main Entry: cor·po·rat·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈkȯr-p(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1890
: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction
— cor·po·rat·ist \-p(ə-)rə-tist\ adjective
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
July 9, 2010 5:10 PM in reply to FreeRider
You really are just a bloviating bag of putrid gas.
Have you or magurakurin even bothered to look up the definition of "firebagger"?
Because I don't think it means what you two seem to think it means.
The accepted definition of "Firebagger" links Jane Hamsher, her web site FireDogLake, and Grover Norquist, along with general Tea Baggery philosophy (a cruel twist of the word to be sure) under the unifying moniker Firebagger.
Grover Norquist (along with a small handful (a couple hundred) of other motherfuckers) and his ilk need to die in a fire.
Further, any progressive with a modicum of grey matter rattling around in their cranium abhors all things Grover Norquist and all that he espouses.
Your continued use of the term Firebagger demonstrates your fierce allegiance to being intellectually lazy for the benefit of hyperbole and to the detriment of honest discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
David L Wetzell
July 9, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to destor23
Obama is a pragmatist who intentionally and methodically relates his ideals to the status quo and who has made mistakes and is getting flak for a good deal of stuff outside of his control...
dlw
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 9, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to destor23
And you're a bloviater in love with the sound of your reckless voice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jesus H. Christ
July 10, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
when I see the word "Bloviator" Iknow I am in the presence of a Limbaugh lemming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 11, 2010 11:37 AM in reply to Jesus H. Christ
If you know, you know, dude. Nothing like knowing; what could be more certain?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 9, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to destor23
I keep spreading this around because i think it is important and it fits nicely in this thread.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
In his definition of fascism for the encyclopedia Mussolini stated that a proper word for fascism is coporatism because of the fact that government is run by, for and of the corporations. So we hire mercenaries to fight our wars and corporations to run our schools and build our highways. The citizen is expected to simply consume and move money around. Interestingly enough not only is fascist America following Mussolini's definition of corporatism it is undoubtedly advancing towards the same fate as his country. Sadly, most corporate governments fail, most fascist nations become increasingly antagonistic towards the people who pay the taxes, primarily because they tire of constant war and massive tax loads, but constant war was Mussolini's means to winnow out the weak and advance the strong. You really can't have constant mass murder to move the economy along even if you think it will produce a super race.
Most people who take up the fascist way of governing have serious mental problems IMHO. They are asocial at least and tend to be attracted to violence. Cheney shot his friend in the face with a shotgun because the guy made a snarky remark about Cheney having a lesbian daughter. Maybe, possibly, but he sure as heck likes torture, war crimes, torture, bodies floating and taking the life of an innocent defenseless beast... or human. One more thing re our pal Cheney: no person so needy for power, blood, and riches gives that lifestyle up voluntarily. He might, however, provide the masses with a nice distraction - such as a black President who follows orders and knows how to "get along". That crazy theory would explain a great deal about our current administration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jesus H. Christ
July 10, 2010 10:44 AM in reply to destor23
Speaking as a socialist myself I say verily that Obama is no Socialist. Nor is he a running-dog-lackey of the Boo-jwah-zee.
55% is still no excuse for stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
magurakurin
July 9, 2010 10:15 AM in reply to FreeRider
absolutely. And really, let's just get down to brass tacks. Calling him a socialist/corporatist is really just their way of calling him a n.....
So much of all of the crap on the left and the right stems from this. And if anyone thinks that there are no racists on the left, well, take another toke off of the bong, bro and see: campaign, primary, presidential, democratic party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 10:31 AM in reply to magurakurin
What? That's the lamest thing I've ever heard. People used to call Bill and Hillary corporatists all the time!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 9, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to destor23
sure destor but remember toni morrison said clinton was the first black president. ergo, all of the progressives who called clinton a 'corporatist' were still just a bunch of racists calling him n*****.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
July 9, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to FreeRider
Agreed.
Teabaggers scream more, but firebaggers whine more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to jsdc007
Nonsense.
Teabaggers whine constantly about their imaginary victimhood (rising taxes that are actullay falling, shrinking gun rights that are actually expanding, etc. etc. etc.). Their shouting is a once-in-a-while thing while their whining is ceaseless.
Firebaggers complain about being duped by Obama, when they were actually duped by their wishful thinking and projection-based expectations (pretty standard human behavior). The Dem/Obama agenda bears remarkable similarity with the GOP/Nixon agenda, especially when you factor in George Romney. The Firebaggers should have taken note when Obama won the endorsements of people named Eisenhower, Nixon and Goldwater, as well as millions of votes from Obamacans.
By today's "conventional wisdom"* Obama may be slightly left of center, but by historical standards he's right of center -- either way, firmly in the center. All of which makes the poll results all the more damning of American voters. 55% think Obama is a socialist? I'd wager that 85% could not tell us what the GOP agenda was under Eisenhower and Nixon.
*Conventional wisdom is never and almost never able to rise even to the level of accurate. It's a cousin, I think, to "common sense," which Einstein correctly noted was mainly the collection of prejudices we've amassed during the first 18 years of our lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to jsdc007
Excellent observation jsdc007.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Alpers
July 9, 2010 10:51 AM in reply to FreeRider
Firebaggers think he's a "corporatist" and they have no idea what that word means either.
This is something of a nonsequitur.
When people call Obama a "corporatist" they generally mean "corporate shill." This is a misuse of the word "corporatist," which in fact means something different. Despite the valiant (though inevitably unsuccessful) attempt by destor23 to prove in this thread that Obama is really a corporatist in the proper meaning of that term, most "Firebaggers" (itself a ridiculous pejorative) don't mean this. They mean he's a corporate shill. They should use the language more carefully. Whether or not one ought to call Obama a corporate shill is another matter.
When people call Obama a "socialist," they don't have something else in mind other than socialism. Though some of the accusers have clearer notions of what socialism means than others, there's not another concept that they're mislabeling "socialism" (which is the case with most who call Obama a "corporatist"). And I think everyone on this thread agrees that it's ridiculous to call Obama a socialist because he's nothing of the sort.
Though I'd urge those who call Obama a "corporatist" when they mean "corporate shill" to use the language more carefully, they're not the equivalent of those who call Obama a "socialist" unless you can make the argument that Obama is no more a corporate shill than he is a socialist. And the proper definition of "corporatist" is pretty irrelevant to that argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to Ben Alpers
Though I actually don't mean corporate shill. I guess what I mean is that he's an interest group politician and that business comprises the major interest. One could easily argue that labor holds some serious sway with him -- i.e. the auto bailouts -- but that even then it's big organized labor that has the influence. He's definitely no populist. Technocrat is probably the best word and that, to my mind has both good and bad qualities.
But then I'm apparently a racist firebagger so what do I know?
At least I got to define the term these chuckleheads use to describe me:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Firebagger
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to destor23
Yeah. It's going to cause some tension when I have to explain to the 15 African Americans in my family (including my eldest son and eldest daughter) that I'm now a racist because I think the president is too cozy with corporations. Dinner time is going to get rough when I won't let "them" sit at the table with "us" anymore. Anybody know where I can get one of those pointy white hats? If I burn a cross in my own front yard, do I have to clean up the mess myself? Damn. This new phase of my life is going to get confusing....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to AmericanDad
You'll get the hang of it, AD! Racism is easy once you get going!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 9, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to AmericanDad
This 15 blacks in your family deal is not a get-out-of-irresponsibilty-free card.
If you are a firebagger, like Destor, then you are. And you can own it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
American Dad is not a firebagger. Have you not read his blogs on the cafe?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to chameleon
Thanks chameleo. People have a lot of trouble figuring out what I am.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to AmericanDad
an honest critic does not a firebagger make...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Because they are a bunch of fucking idiots that's why.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 10, 2010 1:04 AM in reply to chameleon
I said "if", what I said about his reliance on black connections is valid, and if he isn't one then he isn't one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 10, 2010 1:16 AM in reply to chameleon
Well, if he is, he is, like I said. And if he's not, then not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Nah. You don't get to set the terms of engagement nor define the terms of discussion.
Nor do you get to proclaim what is in the hearts of people you have never met. Now, had the people who complain about Obama being too cozy with corporations shown some evidence of having racist feelings, you might have a case. As it is, lacking any evidence, your equation of that criicism with racism is strictly a non sequitur. It's also a transparent shield, much like the cries of anti-Semitism whenever someone dares question any policy or action of the Isreali government.
When you use the "criticism-of-economic-policy = racism" (especially when it can be argued that those policies tend to hurt more than help racial minorities) the burden of proof is on you, because it does not follow intuitively, empirically, historically or logically. The burden is even heavier when you try to pin that false equation on someone who has spent nearly 4/5ths of his life related to and/or loving, in love with, married to, making love with, rearing, feeding, clothing, sheltering, teaching, parenting, protecting, holding, kissing, healing, plyaing with, crying with, laughing with, working with, working for, sharing dreams and fears with, celebrating, mourning, cherishing, adoring, enriching, enouraging, praying with and praying for and otherwise living for people "outside" his race, you'd better have more than ust your say-so to back it up. Well, unless you don' mind looking like both a complete ass and a compete fool.
It is possible to disagree with policies of President Obama and still be a strong supporter of the president. It is possible to disagree with policies of President Obama and still admire him. It is possible to disagree with policies of President Obama without once ever considering his race. It is possible to disagree with policies of President Obama without being a racist. In fact, more than 300 million Americans do every single day. That's not to say racism isn't a real problem in this country, and that's not to say that lots of his critics are not motivated by racism, but it is to say that I doubt you'll find any thoughtful person who agrees with every single Obama policy. I'd wager he's not thrilled with some of his own policies, knowing they may not be what we ultimately need or want but believing they are what we can get right now. Disagreeing with the president is not a racist act. Disagreeing wih the president does not imply racism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
You're getting pretty desperate and shrill, OT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 9, 2010 9:30 PM in reply to destor23
Getting? Only getting worse. This whole thing is getting retarded. We just got through 8 years of criticizing the president and having people screaming that you were a traitorous enemy of the state to now and us getting people screaming that if you criticize the president you are a racist. Nice to see the D's learn well from the R's. Pathetic...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 10, 2010 12:53 AM in reply to Libertine
At least I didn't pull the drama queen stunt of publicly "leaving" the site for a few days, though, you know?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 10, 2010 12:59 AM in reply to destor23
I would think you would *value* the honest feedback I offer to what I regard as your stupid, destructive, campaign of endless whining.
Sorry you can't find more enthusiasm for this!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 10, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Defending social security, promoting a populist economic policy and opposing war is whining now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 10, 2010 5:04 AM in reply to AmericanDad
I apologize for being overly aggressive with you in a bewildering context here. I should have been more circumspect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 10, 2010 7:36 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Thank you
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 10, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to AmericanDad
now there's a reconciliation I can vote for...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to Ben Alpers
I've been wondering whether the use of "socialism" is an attempt to say "liberal" with more sting, more punch, more smear. It used to be that liberal was a dirty word, but it's lost it's visceral effect.
Addiction to hyperbole and dishonesty is like an addiction to drugs -- the more you use them, the less effective they become and you have to keep reaching for something stronger just to get the same feeling. You need a bolder lie to tell, a more outrageous label to pin on opponents. In short order, you make yourself a pathetic joke. Like Fox. Like Tealanders. Like the 55% of voters who think Obama is a socialist.
Maybe we should treat it as a disease... The Teabag Syndrome? Rove's Disease? Fox Fever? Cheniasis?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 11:21 AM in reply to AmericanDad
If they polled Americans asking if John Maynard Keynes was a socialist, what do you think they would say?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to destor23
"...didn't he write the Star Spangled banner"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to JEP07
Francis Scott Keys.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 9, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to lyris
please note the quotation marks in jep's reply.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Oh he was making a feeble attempt at humor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 10, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to lyris
lyris, your attempt to denigrate me personally was certainly feeble, as for my humor, it is really in the mind of the beholder.
While it may seem feeble to you, some others who understood it without having to have it explained might have found it humorous...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 9, 2010 7:07 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
though perhaps your misspelling of 'Key' indicates a joke that i ought to have noted...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to destor23
They'd say "Doesn't he play for the Yankees?" or "Is he on MSNBC?" If it's not in "People" or on ESPN we just don't care -- or know -- about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Alpers
July 9, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to AmericanDad
I've been wondering whether the use of "socialism" is an attempt to say "liberal" with more sting, more punch, more smear. It used to be that liberal was a dirty word, but it's lost it's visceral effect.
This is a very old argument among American conservatives: that liberalism (in the New Deal sense) is just the start of a slippery slope to Stalinism. Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom is in many ways the classical statement of this point of view. As a description of reality it's a total fail. But as a political framing device it can be very effective.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
July 9, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to AmericanDad
That is spot-on.
However, the "pathetic jokes" are winning, and about to wrest power from the non-pathetic non-jokes. The pathetic jokes are soon going to be making decisions which will have a powerfully destructive impact on our lives (Sarah Palin's worldview is the new normal, and I think we can all agree she makes George Bush look wise). Our children are going to inherit a hopeless shitstorm. If America's not dying then it's clearly quite ill.
Bottom line: Obama is no match for the right-wing. He's probably a very nice person, but is, empirically and quantifiably, no match for the take-no-prisoners right. Kind of makes you want to redefine "pathetic joke."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to Chisholm
I think just the opposite of the "pathetic jokes" -- what I like to call the Radical Reckless Right. I think they are fading. According to the polls I've seen, people are turned off and tuning out. The Tealanders, for instance, have run out their 15 minutes of fame. Last poll I saw said that the number of people who identify with that group is small and shrinking, and the the percentage of us who want to hear more about/from them is at about 2% (if recollection serves).
The nice thing about so many voters being the embodiement of an Animal House character ("Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Mr. Hoover") is that they are inert. They don't like change. They especially don't like big changes. And they really hate big changes that come quickly. Flash-in-the pan radicals pop up frequently during the course of history, but they rarely stick. So far as I can see, in America they never stick.
Victory is never won in crisis. Victory only comes after a long haul.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 9, 2010 9:50 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Well my teabagger boss went from wearing a 3" "Don't tread on me" button, to a 1" one, to a rhinestone usa flag, to nothing.
Empirical evidence, I know, but what the heck?
=D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 11, 2010 10:30 AM in reply to Bwakfat
digression = progress in some cases...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Of course it is. The fascists (see I can do it too) want to vilify Liberals into something like the boogy man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rhytonen
July 9, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to Ben Alpers
"When people call Obama a "corporatist" they generally mean "corporate shill." This is a misuse of the word "corporatist," which in fact means something different. "
Nonetheless it has been usurped out of desparate NEED.
Our "Progressive Change" candidate has become a corporatist president.
What else could explain the deals with PharMa and Insurance that killed Single Payer, and the also meaningless "Finance Reform" Bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to rhytonen
"What else could explain the deals with PharMa and Insurance that killed Single Payer.."
Maybe the pragmatist Obama knew that that Pharma and Big Insurance had so many of our lawmakers in their pocket that any attempt to offer an historic and sweeping publicly-popular option would doom health-care completely?
And all those compromises were essential to get something on the books that represents a first step towards change?
Surely those Bigs didn't spend the entire Bush to Bush era consolidating their power in anticipation of these days? And that "power" literally totals in the billions of dollars dedicated to protecting and increasing the wealth of the wealthy by influencing our government at the campaign contribution level?
Surely that could not be the case, it really must be that he's sold out to Big Pharma.
Where's this SuperBarry we all thought we voted for when we need him, huh?
Surely with a single sweep of his socialist cape he should be able to overcome an entire generation of corporations diggin' in like Texas ticks (everything's bigger in Texas, doncha know) to suck the commonwealth blood with their tax-free personhood.
I mean, it should have been SO EASY, cuz, by golly, WE want it that way. Don't those rich corporate fellas get it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
July 9, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to JEP07
I finally get it, freeper.
You're Rahm Fucking Emanuel.
(Who,as everyone knows, always swept local races with his handpicked "centrist" candidates, except for all the times when he didn't.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
July 9, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Oops, sorry, you're not freeper.
But the anti-progressive snark seemed so "freeper"... hmm...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Rahm wouldn't do that to Emmanuel...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to JEP07
So now you suspect everyone who doesn't buy into the Obamabashers must be from his inner circle? Kinda limited perception there.
Lntz, is that you? You should let me know when you are posing as a sockpuppet...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
"anti-progressive snark"
...might you elucidate, and cite one example?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to JEP07
Remind me not to get on your bad side.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to rhytonen
Again we need jobs, who can give us these jobs we need often corporations.
I'd rather see more effort into helping small businesses as well as returning to the time when corporations had a time limit. That's when America was smarter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 9, 2010 10:02 PM in reply to lyris
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rhytonen
July 9, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Ben Alpers
"And the proper definition of "corporatist" is pretty irrelevant to that argument."
I disagree.
Definition #3 shows it has been co-opted, and out of real need.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
July 9, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to Ben Alpers
"This is a misuse of the word "corporatist," which in fact means something different."
I agree, sort of.
But if the general public thinks "corporatist" means "corporate shill," and use it that way, then darn it, by the rules of language, that's what it "means." Words mean just exactly what most people who use them THINK they mean, and that's how language works.
Given your dictionary orientation, you need to coin a word somewhere between "corporatist," which isn't entirely inaccurate, and "fascist," which is too emotionally laden to use and is a bit much, to boot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trippin
July 10, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Ben Alpers
I think I'll go with the dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to FreeRider
Corporatist, fascist, Obama!
He's a stooge for the TriLateral Commission. He commandeered a car company. He funded private bankers. He put an international banking conglomerate head in charge of the Treasury.
Fix your compass, you look like an uniformed bedwetter when you write.
Capitalism for the big corporations, and socialism for the little guy! And you criticize those who learned he's just another Bush! Halliburton loves Obama. He is securing their jobs in the middle east for many more years, while he's crashing the dollar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jesus H. Christ
July 10, 2010 5:13 PM in reply to dwjoae
Uniformed bedwetter?
What could this metaphor possibly mean?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
Corporatist, fascist, Obama!
He's a stooge for the TriLateral Commission. He commandeered a car company. He funded private bankers. He put an international banking conglomerate head in charge of the Treasury.
Fix your compass, you look like an uniformed bedwetter when you write.
Capitalism for the big corporations, and socialism for the little guy! And you criticize those who learned he's just another Bush! Halliburton loves Obama. He is securing their jobs in the middle east for many more years, while he's crashing the dollar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
Corporatist, fascist, Obama!
He's a stooge for the TriLateral Commission. He commandeered a car company. He funded private bankers. He put an international banking conglomerate head in charge of the Treasury.
Fix your compass, you look like an uniformed bedwetter when you write.
Capitalism for the big corporations, and socialism for the little guy! And you criticize those who learned he's just another Bush! Halliburton loves Obama. He is securing their jobs in the middle east for many more years, while he's crashing the dollar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to FreeRider
Corporatist, fascist, Obama!
He's a stooge for the TriLateral Commission. He commandeered a car company. He funded private bankers. He put an international banking conglomerate head in charge of the Treasury.
Fix your compass, you look like an uniformed bedwetter when you write.
Capitalism for the big corporations, and socialism for the little guy! And you criticize those who learned he's just another Bush! Halliburton loves Obama. He is securing their jobs in the middle east for many more years, while he's crashing the dollar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 3:57 PM in reply to FreeRider
Corporatist, fascist, Obama!
He's a stooge for the TriLateral Commission. He commandeered a car company. He funded private bankers. He put an international banking conglomerate head in charge of the Treasury.
Fix your compass, you look like an uniformed bedwetter when you write.
Capitalism for the big corporations, and socialism for the little guy! And you criticize those who learned he's just another Bush! Halliburton loves Obama. He is securing their jobs in the middle east for many more years, while he's crashing the dollar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to dwjoae
Some people are just not too swift and you are one of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to lyris
Smoke some more crack!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to dwjoae
Don't thank me you definitely have a problem with reality and reasoning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to lyris
More of your left wing propaganda! I could tell you it's daylight outside and you'd lie about that, too.
You're a mentally ill Democrat. Now peel that stupid Obama sticker off your Subaru.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to dwjoae
And then there's your fascist tripe. Fascist meaning right wing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to dwjoae
No it's the fascists ie teabagging/gop like you who lie. My sources are very realiable, you depend on fnc and other right wing liars to do your thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trippin
July 10, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yes, and gasbaggers think they know what "firebaggers" means. The edge of that same stupid coin, I suppose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Turnaround
July 9, 2010 7:20 PM in reply to dswx
"Of course he's a socialist. He's always having concerts and dinners at the White House. I think it's nice."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skipper20
July 9, 2010 8:54 AM in reply to Matt Jones
I agree, I don't think most of them know what a socialist.
Break out those dictionaries people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to skipper20
Already ahead of you, I posted the definition way above your post. I got it from my dictionary, along with the definition of fascism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SOS ICEBERG
July 9, 2010 9:14 AM in reply to Matt Jones
The VERY first thing that occurred to me. 55% of those polled are fucking idiots with Play-Doh for brains? Very depressing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
July 9, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to SOS ICEBERG
Well..........
There's always the 10% who think that "socialist" might be a good thing, as well as those 10% that think socialist is kinda neutral. That gets you down to the 30 - 35% that just hate this guy anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 9, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to davcbr
Those who think Socialism is a good thing almost certainly don't think Obama is a socialist. Lets be real.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
July 9, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to Matt Jones
For a lot of them Socialist=ni**er
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ahumbleopinion
July 9, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to Matt Jones
Maybe it seems like socialism to have a president who cares more about protecting Americans from corporations than it does shoveling money to corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
July 9, 2010 10:35 AM in reply to Matt Jones
Exactly. This a perfect example of the failure of the MSM. They throw this crap out, but never get behind the headline and talk about what being a socialist means. They give as much, or more, weight to the lie if it's more provacative than the truth just for conversations sake. Few do ANYTHING in depth unless it is a sex scandal. The profession that is supposed to hold the feet of the powerful to the fire, instead seems to care only about the 30 second soundbite (present site excluded).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
July 9, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to xargaw
Let's poll the reporters and news anchors and ask them what socialism means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JBL1955
July 9, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to bluesplashy
Ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Judea
July 9, 2010 11:18 AM in reply to Matt Jones
Any poll regardless of questions and provided is not a push poll by design. Must have no less than 2500 respondents in order to be statistically significant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chronicone
July 9, 2010 11:20 AM in reply to Matt Jones
I think you are giving the American public too much credit. I would bet 1 out of 10 would have trouble defining socialism. It always makes me laugh when politicians and pundits describe the electorate as smart. We live in a country where ignorance rules the day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
July 12, 2010 12:57 AM in reply to Chronicone
Those lines they give Tommy Lee Jones character in Men in Black do a good job for me: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. I'd call that a fair description of the average murkan, probably generous for the below average the palinistas, tealibanistas and wingnuts of all stripes.The raw data and cross tabs from this poll would be interesting as well as knowing who commissioned it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davidfarrar
July 9, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to Matt Jones
It's just like many of my liberals friends to automatically assume voters are just too stupid to know what they are doing when a poll doesn't go their way.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to davidfarrar
Like my conservative friends do when elections don't go their way?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davidfarrar
July 9, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Not exactly. When Republicans lose elections, the electorate has been lead astray and will sooner or later learn the error of their ways, as Obama is presently doing. Obama is perhaps one of the greatest Republican party-builders that has come down the pike for a long time.
Now I'll tell you what is really stupid. Obama believing all he has to do is say he is for pro-big business and we all will believe him. How stupid is that?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 7:24 PM in reply to davidfarrar
The gop can't win if they don't cheat and 2000 and 2004 showed us that was true.
The electorate were never led astray when the Democrats win, but when the gop wins it's because the gop tampers with the votes, and then they get rid of the evidence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 7:13 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Bravo American Dad!
The difference is that most of us go on facts. The teabagging/gop go by fnc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
July 9, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Exactly. The answer would be that President Obama is a "socialist" because Glenn Beck and his ilk say he's a "socialist" and no other reason. This is yet another example to me of the inferiority of the United States, its citizens, and its education system. Even since the 1950's it has been exceptionally clear that my Canadian education gave me a far better grasp of the world and any academic and knowledge based subject than the education that my American cousins had.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 5:13 PM in reply to John M
Not all of us are like that John. Most Americans are struggling to keep their roofs over their heads, food on the table, and cloths on their backs.
Most also rely on multinational corporations for their information because there are very few independent media anywhere around here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to lyris
Keep in mind John M that fnc is an Australian a British subject just like Canadians,and bp has a ceo that's a British subject as well.
No one is perfect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 7:02 PM in reply to lyris
Correction:
fnc's owner Murdoch (sorry if I misspelled his name) is Australian a British subject.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mona
July 9, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to Matt Jones
You are absolutely right. They display an unbelievable ignorance of the most basic political terms. All they do is demonize using GOP and Fox News talking points. No doubt they are all family values types who set the example for their children that telling lies is okay as long as it is you who are telling the lie because you are after all the person who knows what is best for the country. Anything goes and if you can't get it at the ballot box, as Sharron Angle says, then "you have to look to second amendment remedies".
What the GOP is doing in moving so far to the extreme, aiding the manipulation of people with fear and anger through lies and misinformation is shameful. They will pay in the long term because it will be difficult to return to the center however, unless Democrats in the field go out with a new determination to sell their story we need to be very concerned about the outcome in the fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
July 9, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Given that the guy Craighill quoted in the article doesn't seem to know either, I can't say I'd be surprised.
Obama a socialist? If only.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 9, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to Matt Jones
You repeat the theme that Fox News has brainwashed 55% of likely voters into wrongly thinking that Obama is a socialist. How can that be? I thought only far right "tea baggers" watch Fox News. How could such a "fringe" news channel have such influence?
The short answer is that many, if not a majority, of DEMOCRATS are socialists. Obama was rated the most liberal Senator in 2007---ahead of the self proclaimed socialist, Bernie Sanders.
Obama is not about to be "out-progressived" by Maxine Waters, who committed a "gaffe" (you know, when a politician inadvertantly says what is really on his or her mind) during a hearing with oil company executives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEKTrs&feature=related
Wikipedia includes the following in its article on socialism:
“Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."
Hello, GM and Chrysler, public education and now 100% government controlled student loans, the financial industry under the thumbs of the federal government, and don't forget health care. That's a pretty good start on government ownership and control over the means of production and allocation of resources.
Wikipedia goes on: "In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a public association of producers through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the use of the means of production.
Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potential, and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public."
You don't think that Obama and most Democrats believe all of that?
There is an old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
I say if a politician talks and acts like a socialist, then he "might" be a socialist. 55% of likely voters might be on to something. What about the other 45%? Many of them are disappointed that Obama does not come out and nationalize everything as they know he would like to do. Damn it!! But the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances won't allow Obama to be the kind of socialist dictator Castro and Chavez are. There is hope though....if only one of the conservative SC justice could have a fatal "accident", Obama could appoint another Sotomayor or Kagan to come up with liberal majority that could abolish the constitution and impose a socialist utopia by executive fiat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Because they are some of the most uninformed viewers around, check this study out by Pew:
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
Yeah, by the same National Review that gives inordinately more attention to right wing blogs then it does to left wing blogs.
The bank bailouts, and the bailouts of GM and Chrysler were mainly under the Bush Administration. You don't even discuss how much predatory loaning was occurring with student loans, and the fact that the government would give banks money to loan to students, and if the loan defaulted, the government would take all of the costs associated with that default. You also forgot to mention all the money that was saved by having the government loan directly to student. Also, you never mentioned the impact that allowing "moral hazard" in dealing with the car companies would have led to even higher unemployment. Please reject that Reagan idea that government is bad, because it CAN do somethings that are good, and do things that are bad.
Why? They have the majority, so why don't they just go full-bore socialist? The reason why is because Democrats aren't as socialist as you would like to make them seem, and this term is just a pejorative used to attack someone politically different from someone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 7:37 PM in reply to Hobbes83
In some parts of this country all the information some people have are that of the right wing. All they can get on talk radio are idiots like limbaugh, hannity, beck and the like.
the other stations aren't much better since corporations have taken them over. No more independent stations.
MSNBC is an exception. They are owned by a corporation, but who knows how long that will last because corporations don't want us to think on our own.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 7:57 PM in reply to lyris
Agreed. MSNBC is the last hold-out seeing as how CNN could have been respectable and played fact-checker, but instead they also choose to feed into the teabagger bullshit and hire Erick Erickson. While many charge the media as being "liberally biased," the opposite is actually true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 10, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to Hobbes83
Greetings Hobbes!
I appreciate your thoughts, but I must take issue with a few things (surprise!).
First, you totally missed my first point on how can it be that Fox News, which according to liberals, is only watched by a few far right nuts, can brainwash 55% of likely voters. Your reply, though, interesting (although not applicable to me, a law school graduate who pays VERY close attention to the news and who is fudging on the news) does not address my question.
"Yeah, by the same National Review that gives inordinately more attention to right wing blogs then it does to left wing blogs."
I think you meant to say "National Journal", not "National Review". I don't know if National Journal leans one way or other politically. I concede that National Review is a conservative publication. Be that as it may, one might quibble over whether Obama was THE most liberal Senator, but he was certainly in the top 5 (including Bernie Sanders).
"The bank bailouts, and the bailouts of GM and Chrysler were mainly under the Bush Administration."
The bank bailouts and GM STARTED under Bush, with the approval and partially at the specific REQUEST of Obama. (See Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/four-reasons-to-oppose-th_b_157255.html ) However, the final bailouts of Chrysler and GM (actually, bailouts of the UNION pension plans) which screwed the bondholders and effectively nationalized and gave control of the car makers to the U.S. government and its union buddies, were finalized by Obama.
"You don't even discuss how much predatory loaning was occurring with student loans, and the fact that the government would give banks money to loan to students, and if the loan defaulted, the government would take all of the costs associated with that default. You also forgot to mention all the money that was saved by having the government loan directly to student."
Well, I can't put everything into my comments, which some consider too long as they are. However, you can't deny---I don't think---that student loans is NOW another part of the U.S. economy that is now almost entirely under the control of the U.S. government----with the best of intentions and no doubt a few benefits as well. But...with the added "bonus" of now being able to add a political component to the student loan program by which the government can "steer" students into preferred professions and give special breaks (such as loan forgiveness) to those who engage in "public service" like teachers and even doctors. That will be one of the ways to control medical costs under ObamaCare. Doctors will get free education in exchange for 5 or 10 years of service as a relatively low salaried government employed (in a union no doubt) doctor.
"Also, you never mentioned the impact that allowing "moral hazard" in dealing with the car companies would have led to even higher unemployment."
I am not sure what that is about. According to wikipedia "moral hazard" arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its doings, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it alternately would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions." BAILING OUT car companies or bankrupt states such as California is an example of CREATING a moral hazard, because it encourages irresponsibility by insulating car companies and reckless states from the consequences of bad decisions.
"Please reject that Reagan idea that government is bad, because it CAN do somethings that are good, and do things that are bad." That is a straw man. I do not subscribe to the idea that government is bad. I DO subscribe to the idea of the founders though, that in order to protect individual liberty, government must be limited. One cannot read the constitution and not be impressed with their desire to avoid an all powerful federal government that could do anything it wanted. If they intended to establish a welfare state, why did they not immediately and directly do so? The federal government is not "bad", but like fire it is a useful servant, but a terrible master. Conservatives agree that the federal government does do some things that are good, but the fact that some things may be good, or that Congress "meant well" does not serve as authorization to do whatever Congress wishes.
I concluded with "But the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances won't allow Obama to be the kind of socialist dictator Castro and Chavez are."
And you responded: "Why? They have the majority, so why don't they just go full-bore socialist? The reason why is because Democrats aren't as socialist as you would like to make them seem, and this term is just a pejorative used to attack someone politically different from someone else."
No, the reason why is that we are still a nation of laws and rules (at least for now) that prevent them from going "full-bore socialist". The enactment of health care is a good example. Obama and most Democrats wanted nationalized single payer health care NOW. However, they could not get enough votes to do so. Even to get what they did, they had to take advantage of every political and procedural trick in the book to pass ObamaCare. The constitution and the law are seen as obstacles to be overcome by Democrats. If they could abolish or amend parts of the constitution that impede their agenda, they would. That is what Roosevelt tried to do with his "court packing" scheme in the 1930's and that is what liberals persistently try to accomplish, little by little, with their appointment of liberal judges to district courts, courts of appeal, and the SC. If Obama or another Democrat can come up with a liberal majority on the SC, we will likely see further erosion of checks on the federal government. Hopefully we will not see the day of the likes of someone like Hugo Chavez in the U.S., but you know there are a lot of liberals who secretly (even openly) admire Chavez and wonder why Obama can't just nationalize everything and eliminate criticism from the likes of Fox News, Beck, and others, like Chavez does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Matt, the question should be, what was the wording in those questions?
I agree fnc and other right wing liars have poisoned so many lives with lies that those people who are so incredibly ignorant they would believe the president is a socialist fascist which is oxy-moron of all oxy-morons.
The education of most of those people are probably around the fifth grade level as many of the teabagging/gop have the mentality of ten year old children.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 6:18 PM in reply to lyris
You really are just left wing-nut. Your party is going down in November!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to dwjoae
This from a fascist hitler's party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
July 9, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to Matt Jones
You repeat the theme that Fox News has brainwashed 55% of likely voters into wrongly thinking that Obama is a socialist. How can that be? I thought only far right "tea baggers" watch Fox News. How could such a "fringe" news channel have such influence?
The short answer is that many, if not a majority, of DEMOCRATS are socialists. Obama was rated the most liberal Senator in 2007---ahead of the self proclaimed socialist, Bernie Sanders.
Obama is not about to be "out-progressived" by Maxine Waters, who committed a "gaffe" (you know, when a politician inadvertantly says what is really on his or her mind) during a hearing with oil company executives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0BdKkEKTrs&feature=related
Wikipedia includes the following in its article on socialism:
“Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."
Hello, GM and Chrysler, public education and now 100% government controlled student loans, the financial industry under the thumbs of the federal government, and don't forget health care. That's a pretty good start on government ownership and control over the means of production and allocation of resources.
Rahm Emanuel says never let a good crisis go to waste. Obama has taken advantage of crises (many of them CREATED by liberal policies) to advance the "progressive"/socialist agenda.
Wikipedia goes on: "In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a public association of producers through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the use of the means of production.
Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potential, and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public."
You don't think that Obama and most Democrats believe all of that and are trying as hard as they can (within the constraints of the constitution and laws as the exist---for now---to enact an agenda that reflects those beliefs?
There is an old saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
I say if a politician talks and acts like a socialist, then he "might" be a socialist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluemeanie
July 9, 2010 9:44 PM in reply to Matt Jones
I'd say an equivalent percentage don't have a clue what the deficit means, either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 10, 2010 7:20 PM in reply to Matt Jones
GOOD GOD, Americans are so effing stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traderwear
July 11, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to Matt Jones
…… , . – . – , _ , ……… http://www.traderwear.com
……… ) ` – . .> ‘ `( …….free shipping
…….. / . . . .`\ . . \ ……..paypal accept
…….. |. . . . . |. . .| ……..
……… \ . . . ./ . ./ ……….jordan(1-24)shoes $33
……….. `=)\ /.=` …Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
…………. `-;`.-’ Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
…………… `)| ….Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
……………. || _.-’| .Jeans(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
…………. ,_|| \_,Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
……. , ….. \|| .’Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
……. |\ |\ ,. ||/ …Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
…. ,..\` | /|.,|Y\, ..Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
….. ‘-…’-._..\||/ …New era cap $15
……… >_.-`Y| …………… http://www.traderwear.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Reefdancer
July 9, 2010 8:44 AM
Americans are a bunch of fat stupid idiots. I
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
July 9, 2010 8:57 AM in reply to Reefdancer
That's not fair-- not all of us are fat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 11:21 AM in reply to Riesz Fischer
Not all -- but most! The leanest state in 2010 is fatter than our fatest state was in 1991. Here's Colbert making fun of us: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/340908/july-07-2010/thought-for-food---kentucky-tuna---grilled-cheese-burger-melt
About a third of us are now morbidly obese and more than 60% of us are overweight. Where'd I put that bag of chips.....?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to AmericanDad
Have you met most of Americans? I'm certainly not fat and I'm a grandmother and a great=grandmother.
Before you meet every single American you shouldn't make blanket statements like that.
Yes we certainly do have a problem with obesity in the US fast foods are cheaper, so for the unemployed or underemployed it helps keep the costs down.
For the still lucky employed with possibly both spouses working it's quicker with less cleaning up. Keep in mind some of these people have more than one job and are really exhausted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hu5h
July 9, 2010 9:00 AM in reply to Reefdancer
That's a bit general. It'd be more accurate to say, people who think Barack Obama is a socialist are likely ignorant of the definition of socialism---in addition, if they're from the south, they're more likely to be fat than if they were from elsewhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
July 9, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to Hu5h
Percentage of obese citizens: United States: 34.4% Canada 14.8%
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 8:48 AM
This really blows my mind - and solidifies my belief that Americans have got to be the stupidest people on the planet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pol
July 9, 2010 8:58 AM in reply to chameleon
No, it means Republicans have figured out how to beat the system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aq
July 9, 2010 9:16 AM in reply to pol
I'm guessing a slick combination of both.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 9, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to pol
Because Americans are the stupidest people on the planet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to dtOZONE
America has lots of stupid people. Look at how many voted for Bush. Look at how many still support Obama!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 9, 2010 9:19 AM in reply to chameleon
Hi, Chameleon. I think the folks who call the president a corporatist are even more stupid.
First, they're using the word that means the polar opposite of what they think and, second, he's as much a corporate whore as he is a socialist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 9:21 AM in reply to FreeRider
Hey FreeRider; Been busy at work - not much posting but following you and others. This is insanity. I couldn't agree more. They fucking people haven't a clue and ashamedly my family are amongst them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ugg the Repug
July 9, 2010 9:27 AM in reply to chameleon
Chamee family do one thing right. They have you. Har har har.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 9, 2010 9:39 AM in reply to Ugg the Repug
Nice!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jwb2005
July 9, 2010 10:22 AM in reply to FreeRider
How many think he's both a socialist and a corporatist? How many just want to call him names as a way of defiantly shaking a fist at the sky? (That seems to be the interpretation of the pollster.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to jwb2005
You mean racists?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
July 9, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to FreeRider
I suggest you look up thread where destor23 kicked your ass. I think you need to try a new brand of dog food.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 9, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to Riesz Fischer
That thread must exist in the same world where "corporatist" means "corporate shill".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to FreeRider
Limited aren't you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 9, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to FreeRider
What does "gay" mean?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 9, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to FreeRider
What do artificial, awful, and counterfeit mean?
Have they always meant the same thing?
Do you actually possess a working brain?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVSnead
July 9, 2010 9:46 AM in reply to chameleon
No stupider, really, than the Spanish before the Spanish Civil War, the Germans prior to Hitler, the Russians prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, and so on and so on...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ahumbleopinion
July 9, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to CVSnead
Yep, swallow the lie, hook, line, and sinker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to chameleon
Oh no, the mother hen is back!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
July 9, 2010 9:04 AM
The question really is do people know what a socialist is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wial
July 9, 2010 9:17 AM in reply to Maritza
A socialist is someone who lives in a society on a planet. People who don't and who don't need to breathe air or eat food or drink water are "individualists".
America, the country that feels it can afford full tilt absurdity in its politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 9, 2010 10:00 AM in reply to wial
Agree. Absurdity it it's politics and Cretinism in it's schools. Imagine an American "scientist" a decade or so from now, trying to grapple with elemental biology when s/he believes that all living organisms on the planet were created in 6 literal days!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biff diggerence
July 9, 2010 9:04 AM
The same 55% could not locate their own anus with a compass and a chronometer of exacting precision.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pol
July 9, 2010 9:15 AM in reply to biff diggerence
That's funny. You have made my day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biff diggerence
July 9, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to pol
An homage to the late David Foster Wallace.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
woundedduck
July 9, 2010 9:14 AM
It's really too bad that none of the current crop of Repubs, the ones who game the system by using Fox to spread the word, who are burning this country down, won't be around to see the shit hole they're creating. Armey, Cheney, all Bushes, Murdoch, and Rove will all be long dead when this country finally hatches, like a maggot, to become the Third World country they're working so hard to make.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
July 9, 2010 9:17 AM
99% of Americans also believe our Sun feels warm to us, because it is really, really hot, and we are so close to it.
The same way a campfire works. LOL!!!
Please. Americans wouldn't give a damn what anyone calls President Obama. As long as the economy is growing and they are getting paid.
They said the exact same thing about Clinton in the early 90s and he got re-elected in 1996 by a wide margin over lame a$$ Bob Dole and Ross Perot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to willia451
The ONLY reason Clinton got elected either time is because all the swing voters went for Perot. If Perot didn't run, all those idiots would have voted for Bush!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 9:20 AM
Even if it were true, I'm not seeing the problem with it.
IMO, we've had enough corporatism for the last century or so. We The People could use a good stiff dose of socialism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ugg the Repug
July 9, 2010 9:26 AM in reply to Signalman
Take it from Ugg. If my peoples more social, we might still be around. Har har har.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 11, 2010 10:28 AM in reply to Ugg the Repug
Some species evolve, others become Republicans, at least Liberutopians made it to Austraslopithecenes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
July 9, 2010 9:22 AM
The Democrats are, as usual, losing the PR war. The GOP brings a shotgun to the fight and the Democrats bring a plastic spoon.
Reaching voters with your message matters. Messages like liberal policies actually work, conservative policies don't, the GOP ran the country into a ditch and raising taxes on the bloated millionaire class is a perfectly legitimate and proven way to deal with budgetary issues need to be repeated to the public.
Mock the poll respondents all you want but they, actual voters, are the people who decide who governs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 9, 2010 9:26 AM in reply to tommyo
Shut up, you wanker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
July 9, 2010 9:37 AM in reply to FreeRider
You don't handle the truth very well, do you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
July 9, 2010 9:46 AM in reply to FreeRider
A brilliant reply. Did they let you post it during recess?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DeathSquad
July 9, 2010 10:45 AM in reply to FreeRider
FYI: Using British slang does not make you look any cooler on the internet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 9, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to FreeRider
Democrat Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 10:01 AM in reply to tommyo
I don't know how seriously Obama takes things like this but this is usually the kind of thing he's good at dealing with. "My opponents want to scare you with words like Socialism. I'd like to help you find a job..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 9, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to destor23
I agree obama is great with this but i've been wondering for the past two years; WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS and why are they not lined up on Sunday talk or the daily "liberulll" media shows? I see Carville gets a lot of attention for ranting and kicking the president but what is else he doing? Cenk Unger has the opportunity to spread some Democratic message as he fills in for Ratigan but he uses his time to talk about Reagan and then post on DKos a stupid comparison between Reagan and Obama. Where are the Democrats and why does it seem their only interest is to hinder and not help?
The Republicans are united in their opposition and have even spawned a tbag group to spread their word. What are Democrats doing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 10:58 AM in reply to It's Pat
Good question. We make fun of their internecine warfare, we should probably be more concerned with our own.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie911
July 9, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to destor23
Internecine... nice, don't usually see that word used very much, but eminently descriptive here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 9, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to It's Pat
Because the Sunday talk shows don't want them on
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 9, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to tommyo
So while the reich wing is taking over our country, "reasonable" people engage in mental mas***bation, arguing over the meaning of "socialist" and "corporatist".
I weep for our future.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
July 9, 2010 9:26 AM
The problem I see is socialism has gotten an bad rap in this country for many many years because of stupid fearmongering. Most americans would like the real ideals of socialism but they are too stupid to know what it really is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I know, it's from wiki but decent information here. Most don't understand that socialism in many ways would help them, but instead they are too blinded by irrational fear that they aren't really willing to learn about it. I'm more for a hybrid version of socialism/capitalism and think society as a whole could benefit from both ideas if properly implemented. But the key word there is IF.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
magurakurin
July 9, 2010 10:24 AM in reply to vasu
They are blinded by 40 years of brutal anti-soviet propaganda. The American populace has been trained to associate socialism with communism and communism with the Soviet Union and the USSR with the ultimate evil. The USSR is gone, but the psychic damage of that propaganda remains.
That and a lot of them are as dumb as dog shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
July 9, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to magurakurin
Moreover, they have never learned or been taught how to critically think for oneself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 9, 2010 9:29 AM
People do not understand what this really says. It would be foolish to dismiss what it is telling you. It is a survey of likely voters. Likely voter is the key. What this survey says is that angry conservatives are more likely to vote in November. Look closely at the numbers. This survey only highlights the "enthusiasm gap" When it comes to the NRA, anti-abortion and every other conservative position, the likely voter percentage was always more favorably than the drop off voter.
All that this survey says is that November is not a battle for ideas. It is a battle for turnout. The angry conservatives (most common FOX viewer) are motivated to vote and they are the ones who believe Obama is a socialist. FOX News is an anger incubator. They are driving the enthusiasm gap. This is bad sign for Democrats if they don't focus on creating a "motivation gap" by emphasizing this credo:
Vote Republican and you can take our country back.
Vote Democratic and you can take our country forward.
The choice is yours. Get out and vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 7:08 PM in reply to tinsk
Forward to what? Socialized medicine? Government owned corporations? Corporate owned government? More invasive UN treaties? More Federal Reserve control over our country? A greater presence in the Middle-East?
Socialism has never actually ever existed on Earth, at any time. The closest you'll ever find to it is insects.
Obama has blown it. The Democrats have control of the House, Senate, and the Whit House, and they're going in the same direction as the left leaning Republicans.
If either party had an ounce of common sense, they'd get together and throw out the Federal Reserve. We've been at war since they took over in 1913.
The Democrats need to stop pissing about the TeaParty, because they gave them all the ammunition they ever needed!
Many of the people on this blog are pathetic propaganda pukers. We're being run by the European Bankers via the Federal Reserve. They're not even part of our government.
People here think they're so damned smart while they don't know anything.
Every dollar in existence is borrowed at interest. Every dollar Uncle Sam spends is borrowed at interest. Kennedy was the last president to print interest free, debt free money backed by silver and he refused to go to war.
N.M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England
______________________________________
| |
| J. Henry Schroder
| Banking | Corp.
| |
Brown, Shipley - Morgan Grenfell - Lazard - |
& Company & Company Brothers |
| | | |
--------------------| -------| | |
| | | | | |
Alex Brown - Brown Bros. - Lord Mantagu - Morgan et Cie -- Lazard ---|
& Son | Harriman Norman | Paris Bros |
| | / | N.Y. |
| | | | | |
| Governor, Bank | J.P. Morgan Co -- Lazard ---|
| of England / N.Y. Morgan Freres |
| 1924-1938 / Guaranty Co. Paris |
| / Morgan Stanley Co. | /
| / | \Schroder Bank
| / | Hamburg/Berlin
| / Drexel & Company /
| / Philadelphia /
| / /
| / Lord Airlie
| / /
| / M. M. Warburg Chmn J. Henry Schroder
| | Hamburg --------- marr. Virginia F. Ryan
| | | grand-daughter of Otto
| | | Kahn of Kuhn Loeb Co.
| | |
| | |
Lehman Brothers N.Y -------------- Kuhn Loeb Co. N. Y.
| | --------------------------
µ
| | | |
8
| | | |
Lehman Brothers - Mont. Alabama Solomon Loeb Abraham Kuhn
| | __|______________________|_________
Lehman-Stern, New Orleans Jacob Schiff/Theresa Loeb Nina Loeb/Paul Warburg
------------------------- | | |
| | Mortimer Schiff James Paul Warburg
_____________|_______________/ |
| | | | |
Mayer Lehman | Emmanuel Lehman \
| | | \
Herbert Lehman Irving Lehman \
| | | \
Arthur Lehman \ Phillip Lehman John Schiff/Edith Brevoort Baker
/ | Present Chairman Lehman Bros
/ Robert Owen Lehman Kuhn Loeb - Granddaughter of
/ | George F. Baker
| / |
| / |
| / Lehman Bros Kuhn Loeb (1980)
| / |
| / Thomas Fortune Ryan
| | |
| | |
Federal Reserve Bank Of New York |
|||||||| |
______National City Bank N. Y. |
| | |
| National Bank of Commerce N.Y ---|
| | \
| Hanover National Bank N.Y. \
| | \
| Chase National Bank N.Y. \
| |
| |
Shareholders - National City Bank - N.Y. |
----------------------------------------- |
| /
James Stillman /
Elsie m. William Rockefeller /
Isabel m. Percy Rockefeller /
William Rockefeller Shareholders - National Bank of Commerce N. Y.
J. P. Morgan -----------------------------------------------
M.T. Pyne Equitable Life - J.P. Morgan
Percy Pyne Mutual Life - J.P. Morgan
J.W. Sterling H.P. Davison - J. P. Morgan
NY Trust/NY Edison Mary W. Harriman
Shearman & Sterling A.D. Jiullard - North British Merc. Insurance
| Jacob Schiff
| Thomas F. Ryan
| Paul Warburg
| Levi P. Morton - Guaranty Trust - J. P. Morgan
|
|
Shareholders - First National Bank of N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
J.P. Morgan
George F. Baker
George F. Baker Jr.
Edith Brevoort Baker
US Congress - 1946-64
|
|
|
|
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 7:10 PM in reply to dwjoae
That's the corporate structure of the Federal Reserve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 3:23 AM in reply to dwjoae
Wow, ascii pictures. It must be true. [Sarcasm]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 7:39 PM in reply to tinsk
Did you know that paranoia is a mental disease?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 7:58 PM in reply to lyris
Sorry Tinak, I was aiming at dwjoae who suffers from paranoia apparently from his comment about "socialized medicine."
Apparently he knows very little about our country.
Ever hear of indentured servitude? We had a lot of them in the seventeenth and eighteenth century.
You know so little about the US.
Look it up. You just may learn something if you take the time do some real research.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
andrewceo
July 9, 2010 9:35 AM
I live in a socialist 'lite' country (Canada) and I can tell you that Obama is not even close to a socialist. In fact, he would be to the right of our right leaning PM. Low information voters indeed!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scarce
July 9, 2010 9:37 AM
I wonder what percentage of likely Democratic voters think Obama is a socialist is? Now that would be a depressing statistic if ever there was one, even if it were "only" 20% or so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 9, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to Scarce
Nobody needs to worry about a 20% response. You have to assume that 13% of any population is crazy. Think about this:
27% thought Bush was doing an excellent job as late as January 19, 2009.
13% of people surveyed int he US believe they have seen aliens or crafts from other worlds.
22% of Americans believe they have actually seen a ghost.
26% of American believe Big Foot really exists but has just not yet captured.
The list goes on. So if 20% of Dems think Obama is socialist, that is to be expected for any question on any subject.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 8:02 PM in reply to Scarce
Where is your source on 20%, or is it just supposition?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NOTSABRIGHT
July 9, 2010 9:38 AM
vasu you post was informative. Would one rather be pegged a socialist or a republican? I think tinsk's comments are right on. If we who support the man don't organize and encourage others who think like we do to vote in November then the Repubs will be more successful. I have faith that our fellow citizens are not as stupid as Fuks News would like us to believe
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
UrgentUnguent
July 9, 2010 9:39 AM
Please look at the poll data, the pool is over 100 questions, and only about 500 answered the socialist question. The statistical significance is paltry based on the sample size, and lets admit it, who the heck is gonna sit on the phone and answer 100+ questions? This is NOT a sample of normal people!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
July 9, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to UrgentUnguent
Maybe not, but it sure got the polling company some free publicity, and a lot of page views for TPM....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CTHankster
July 9, 2010 9:41 AM
Ha! I wish he was a socialist!
Of course, when you make little effort to actually argue your philosophy to the public, when you sacrifice clarity in the vain of hopes of "bipartisanship," when you have a knee-jerk need to genuflect to the other side's "good ideas"--without benefiting in the slightest from any reciprocity--then you leave yourself open to having unwanted labels hung on you.
As a socialist myself, I just have to (darkly) laugh at the thought that an administration that includes the corporatists--or corporate shills, if you will--Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, industry stooge Ken Salazar and no countervailing progressives is "socialist."
"Corporate liberals"...and the "liberal" part of that equation is pretty tenuous.
But what can you expect? One side is out there every day pushing the rhetorical envelope, aggressively championing their (crazy) ideas. Our side is out there every day looking meekly at their feet, wringing their hands, apologizing, kicking their base, praising their frothing opponents and indulging a rump caucus of political Fifth Columnists--the Blue Dogs--while marginalizing their populist/progressive wing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CTHankster
July 9, 2010 9:42 AM in reply to CTHankster
That should, of course, be "vain hopes" not "vain of hopes."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tk
July 9, 2010 9:42 AM
And what percentage feels that this is a bad thing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
July 9, 2010 9:46 AM
This poll affirms that the American people aren’t that bright and probably couldn’t tell you the definition of the word socialism
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 9:47 AM
I don't know...
Marxism = Humankind's history is fundamentally that of the struggle between social classes... in capitalist society, an economic minority dominate and exploit an economic majority...In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership.
Sounds like the "O-Team" to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CTHankster
July 9, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to SFCWallace
Really? On what planet??!! Because it sure ain't this one.
Social revolution? We had an election and Obama was elected by a majority of the voters who also enlarged his party's majorities in both houses of Congress. It was as decisive an electoral referendum on the previously governing party's (GOP) stewardship as we've had in a long time.
And there has been no expropriation and the productive capacities of society haven't been nor are they in the process of being placed into collective ownership.
Insanity!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to CTHankster
I should've said "looks like the GOALS of the O-Team..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CTHankster
July 9, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Give it up, Sarge. Just repeating the same Big Lie over and over again doesn't magically make it truth.
Where's the "social revolution" you mentioned? Nowhere. There is no such thing. It's a figment of your imagination. There was an election. Obama won and has arguably governed even more to the right than he campaigned.
It is one thing to have philosophical disagreements, Sarge. It's another thing to make up lies out of whole cloth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 8:31 PM in reply to CTHankster
But that is the gop motto, "if you say it loud enough and often enough that makes it true.
And they do it in the brown shirt manner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
July 9, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to SFCWallace
What an unbelievably stupid analysis.
Seriously. You fail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to LiberalRedneck
Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Patrick Gaspard, Cass Sunstein, Cecelia Muñoz, Samantha Power, Charles Freeman,Chai Feldblum...the list goes on...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 10, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to SFCWallace
They all eat food, drink water, and breath. Please don't start that Glenn Beck marxist bullshit here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
July 9, 2010 10:47 AM in reply to SFCWallace
"I don't know."
If you'd stopped right there you would have written a truthful and cogent internet post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to Hank
In his own words:
“…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”
“…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
Marx talks about "distributive laws," Obama talks about "redistributive laws."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CTHankster
July 9, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Much government policy, whether under conservative or liberal administrations, affects distribution of wealth. Since Reagan, conservative economics has effected a massive redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle income groups to the wealthy. And this redistribution of wealth is arguably one of the causes of our present economic problems.
Why do you right wingers hate poor and middle income folks so much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 12, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to CTHankster
The "redistribution" you assign to Reagan is simply the open market place. I you produce a good that I find valuable, I transfer a portion of my wealth to you...because I choose too. Obama's (and apparently your) idea of redistribution is to confiscate wealth from productive menbers of society and transfer it to the less productive. Two completely different ideas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
July 9, 2010 9:48 AM
This is what happens the democrats and the White House sit silent has Fox news and republicans hammer away with their lies and delusions
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ahmedsaid
July 9, 2010 9:49 AM
Hey. He looks, walks, & quacks like a socialist. What else could he be? A duck?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to Ahmedsaid
And you slither on your belly, hiss and eat dust. What else could you be but a snake?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 8:36 PM in reply to Signalman
Bravo Signalman!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
July 9, 2010 9:50 AM
I fucking quit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 10:05 AM in reply to Dorn76
Nah, then the terrorists of stupid win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 8:37 PM in reply to destor23
Nah, you're going to lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
July 9, 2010 9:51 AM
These same nitwits believe Obama wasnt born in this country, Obama is a muslim and Palin is brillant with alot of depth
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 9, 2010 9:56 AM in reply to pmb50
The problem is... I doubt 55% of the country are birthers. This has slipped beyond the fringe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
July 9, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to pmb50
Don't forget about Glen Beck U making people ever stupider!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
July 9, 2010 9:58 AM
as i have stated before, i do not trust polls. especially ones that is taken by faux news. more thn likely th people asked don't even kno what socialism actually is-especially if they get their news from faux news. polls are misleading. i'm suspicious of who did the polling, who was asked and how the questions are presented. also, where was the polling done? are their political views, gender, religious views, and race. all play a part in how a person answers a question. and education. i always suspect these polls are taken in suburban areas that have lean right, are white, watch faux news, are predominately protestant, not too bright if they watch faux new, and do not follow politics much. that leaves out a large chunk of the population
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
July 9, 2010 10:05 AM
Here's the problem with these polls. What's the age group of people answering these questions? Young people/as of now minorities, the driving force behind the Democrats, aren't the most likely people to sit on the phone and answer a questionnaire like this. It'd be very interesting if with these polls, they'd have to release the background info of the person being polled. I think they'd find its mostly older white people answering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biff diggerence
July 9, 2010 10:06 AM
" . . . and to promote the General Welfare"
is in the f**king Preamble.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 7:05 PM in reply to biff diggerence
Not in the Conservative Constitution. All that's in there is the second and the tenth amendment and a whole bunch of references to god.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
July 9, 2010 10:07 AM
Yet further evidence that the average American is as dumb as a bag of hammers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jah627
July 9, 2010 10:10 AM
In some democracies, there are real socialists with valid, active political parties espousing populist "socialist" agendas. The reason this silly meme persists in America, is that real socialists are marginalized here. Compared to Jim Demint, Obama is a socialist. Compared to Evo Morales, Obama is an arch-conservative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IC4U
July 9, 2010 10:11 AM
I would take a bet that 97% of those polled don't know the difference between communism and socialism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 8:44 PM in reply to IC4U
I know the teabagging/gop don't. In fact until recently they kept calling us commies. But after we laughed at them and pointed out that they must have been asleep since the late 80's because the Soviet Union is dead.
Frankly I don't think it's really sunk into their heads even now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 9, 2010 10:11 AM
To be a socialist, Obama would have to be gaining control of the means of production and distribution - that is, he would have to be gaining control of the factories in China and Walmart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gericault
July 9, 2010 10:12 AM
Well, 26% do not know who we Declared Independnce from...........so already we are halfway there.
When did we start hating socialists? Are we vilifying Canadians and the British? The French ...yes, but the Brits.c'mon......
What is this 1950 ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to Gericault
Forgot bp already?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
July 9, 2010 10:12 AM
This just proves that with enough money, power, ignorance, and evil intent, one can control the 'thinking' 'or 'belief' of a majority of people being polled or pollsters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
July 9, 2010 10:18 AM
Goldurn Kenyan tryin' to socialize my communism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lede3957
July 9, 2010 10:22 AM
The follow-up question to people who answered the pollster(s) should have been...what do you think of Social Security and Medicare? As the President said yesterday, "I have my own pollsters and I know what the polls say". The administration is aware of the slanted information being released to the public by most probably Fox ?News. Most of the idiots answering these polls do not know the definition of the terms they hurl about. Another thought, where do they find the people to poll? I live in a city of considerable size and have never been asked once for an opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bloggin
July 9, 2010 10:23 AM
I guess the FACT that the 1001 people who are stuck at home answering land line phones in the evening that are available to do polls, are the over 60 crowd that watch fear based sensationalized tv news 24/7, has no impact on how that demographic thinks. The more negative the 'news', no matter what it is, the more it justifies their fear of their world.
However, when live face to face polls are done with the under 60, more educated mobile demographic, the perspective of their world is vastly different. More progressive, not fear based.
What's funny is that in similar 'polls' of the home bound seniors, most had no idea what a 'socialist' actually was. They just new it was a negative term for someone they didn't really know.
So maybe TMP should rethink the decision to spread bogus poll information for financial gain. I thought this website was more forward thinking early on, but now it seems they are just grabbing onto any story concept that can get an emotional jerk reaction from the reader. So who does that benefit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
carlmuck
July 9, 2010 10:25 AM
I love the quote:
He's did the poll, shouldn't he have asked the questions to actually KNOW what people were thinking? Do "people" really care about the budget deficit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Afan
July 9, 2010 10:25 AM
And I guess 55% of those people believe that intergration is socialisms too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rawresolve
July 9, 2010 10:28 AM
When we have a corporate media including an entire right wing propaganda machine, 90% of talk radio and FOX "news" mixed with a frightened, ignorant public this is the result.
Perhaps if legitimate media was more focused more on facts and context instead of profit we would be better off as a nation. They should be calling out FOX for the propaganda channel it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to rawresolve
And ALL of the rest of the TV media is left-wing! Otherwise, we wouldn't have an Obama for president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
notsnot
July 9, 2010 10:31 AM
I fucking *wish* he resembled a reflection of a shadow of an outline of a socialist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
July 9, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to notsnot
Seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
July 9, 2010 10:33 AM
if that's the case, i sure wish he were more of a socialist!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ21
July 9, 2010 10:36 AM
Today's socialists sure do resemble yesterday's Keynesian Capitalists.
Its almost as if a major media conglomerate just changed the definition of socialist to "anyone who doesn't subscribe to supply-side economics."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kspin
July 9, 2010 10:37 AM
"Peyton Craighill, a senior associate at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a firm that does polling for Democracy Corps, attributed the surprising number to voters' impatience with the lagging economy. "
So 55% of people think Obama is socialist because his government isn't doing enough to influence the free-market economy?
*hitting my head on the desk*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Spiffarino
July 9, 2010 10:44 AM
If the majority of Americans think this is true, then the majority of Americans will get the government they deserve and the United States of America will continue to spiral downward into irrelevance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HusseinTenaX
July 9, 2010 10:44 AM
This makes as much sense as those on the left who are convinced he's a corporate puppet.
And the whole thing puts those of us who are not ideologues and are desperate for common sense solutions in a very precarious place - we're surrounded by crazy.
And nobody listens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
amazona
July 9, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to HusseinTenaX
Amen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 9, 2010 7:55 PM in reply to HusseinTenaX
always with the false equivalences...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TeddyKGB
July 9, 2010 10:49 AM
Somewhere, Joe McCarthy is smiling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ADad
July 9, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to TeddyKGB
...and Rupert Murdoch is laughing his wrinkly ass off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
1audiofile
July 9, 2010 10:51 AM
I am listening. Simply put, you can never go wrong under-estimating how stupid the average American is. Please reference the tonight show when they would randomly pick people off the street to answer questions. Shakes ones faith in the educational system and Democracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HusseinTenaX
July 9, 2010 11:00 AM in reply to 1audiofile
I don't buy that and never have.
I'm not even go into the man on the street stuff - that's a TV show and they choose the answers that will be the most shocking. IT's a TV show.
I believe in Democracy and you cannot believe if you don't believe we are capable of governing ourselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to HusseinTenaX
Democracy is evil, 51 votes you progressives can force US citizens to do almost anything thing your twisted dogma proclaims.
You need to have faith in 'republicanism' and our Constitution, that's all 'We The People' need to govern ourselves...you are a product of progressive indoctrination...snap out of it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 9, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Constitution is a democratic document...does that make the Constitution evil since it outlines a democracy?
Never mind, you're a troll clearly, nobody is this stupid
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to dtOZONE
'Constitution is a democratic document', wrong the Constitution is a legal binding enduring document based on our unique form of 'republicanism'. You have been indoctrinated to believe the Constitution is based in 'democracy', you are wrong. You can't even find the word 'democracy' in the Constitution, explain that one...Comrade!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 7:34 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Correct! I've been reading your critics. The maestros of the misinformed! Enough more of these idiots and we'll have no more Republic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 7:54 PM in reply to dwjoae
Thanks, did you hear me on Lou Dobbs today?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 9, 2010 8:03 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
our 'unique form of republicanism' is called 'representative democracy' everywhere else in the world, dungus. you're just playing the word games that glen beck showed you but you might've noticed that he didn't give you your dollars back when you couldn't follow the lady.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 8:09 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
You can't even find the word 'democracy' in the Constitution, explain that one...Comrade!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 4:04 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Because, Sherlock, when the constitution was written "Democracy" meant the near mob rule in classical era Athens, and the writings of Aristotle.
You are complaining that the constitution was not using a word that had not gained prominence in the modern sense. The system in England btw was not a "Democracy" but a Constitutional Monarchy and still is.
Like it or not, the "Republic" in the constitution pretty much means "Representative Democracy" in today's language. That's certainly what the founders would have had in their brains.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 4:15 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
AAND as I was reading I found confirmation of what I just said
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States
"They thought change should occur slowly, as many were afraid that a "democracy"- by which they meant A DIRECT DEMOCRACY - would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and liberties in the "heat of a moment"."
Capitals mine.
So yeah, modern definition and understanding > half understood parroting of slogans by an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 2:10 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Because a "republic" is simply a state without a monarch you silly silly little man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sean
July 9, 2010 10:54 AM
Our media's so socially conscious they even yell 'fire' while in a fire-proof theater...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Judea
July 9, 2010 11:06 AM
Any poll regardless of questions and provided is not a push poll by design. Must have no less than 2500 respondents in order to be statistically significant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gotalife
July 9, 2010 11:20 AM
Actually, he is.
For Wall Street.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sniffit
July 9, 2010 11:23 AM
Where's the poll to determine what percentage of Americans actually know what socialism is? I'm willing to bet it's below 20%...at best.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
July 9, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Sniffit
You bet.
America The Ignorant!
Another example, in the Washington Post over the holiday weekend, is a poll that shows 26 percent of Americans don't know that the U.S. gained its independence from the Great Britain. Of the 26 percent, six percent named wrong countries and the remainder just didn't know.
So if 26 percent of the people are bona fide stupid, you only need to disinform another 25 percent to get a majority. Scary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anita
July 9, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to Backcountry
This my friend is the fault of the federal government for not allowing the school systems throug out America to teach Am. History as it really is. The Feds not allowing states to teach civics, state histories and I could go on and on. This is the result of another government failure to her citizens. They can not run education except into the ground as they have done. People who send their children to government controlled schools should read the text books and what is now being taught. It should wake you up as to what they are doing to America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 9, 2010 11:24 AM
People know what socialism is, libs are certain the average citizen is a cretin. (Hint: Thats elitism.) Hey freeloaders, keep your meathooks off of my personal property, and I'll keep mine off of yours. I'll earn mine, you earn yours, cappice?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rhytonen
July 9, 2010 11:42 AM in reply to Jeffery
"Hey freeloaders, keep your meathooks off of my personal property, and I'll keep mine off of yours. I'll earn mine, you earn yours, cappice?"
Your abuse of the term "earn" is an outrageous and unacceptable misnomer for the operation: "steal."
Practically all "wealth" - especially that not earned but "accrued" through investment or other SCAMS- has merely been outright stolen, usually indirectly, from those less financially sophisticated, certainly less able to part with it without DIRE consequences (as in the Health Insurance and Energy/Utilities 'industries,') or who actually work for a living.
Any "industry" enjoying the national economy of scale (i.e., essentially everyone MUST buy it;) should NEVER have been for private profit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to rhytonen
"Practically all "wealth" - especially that not earned but "accrued" through investment or other SCAMS- has merely been outright stolen, usually indirectly, from those less financially sophisticated..." and y'all claim to not be Socialists?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 9, 2010 8:09 PM in reply to SFCWallace
who is "y'all"???
i believe these are the comments of one person.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Reefdancer
July 9, 2010 11:25 AM
Just wondering if these are the same 26% of the populations who did not know from which country the US fought for independence. Not only are Americans fat, they're stupid too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
July 9, 2010 11:25 AM
What a fcuked up country
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RuperttheBear
July 9, 2010 11:26 AM
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shle896
July 9, 2010 11:31 AM
I think the bigger question is.. do most Americans even know the definition of socialism.
I'm so sick of people like Glenn Beck and everyone at Fox "News" calling our president a socialist, marxist, nazi, communist, etc. They all mean completely different things and no one person could be all of those things at once.
The only thing this poll shows me is that 50+% of likely voters are simple-minded and ignorant (which also describes the viewers of Fox "News").
It's truly pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to shle896
Obama is not a nazi, socialist, or any of the above! He's a stooge for the Tri-Lateral Commission. He's working his butt of to dissolve the sovereignty of the U.S. and set up the North American Union, just like the European Union overseas. He's suing a state that wants to stop getting overrun by border-bandit illegal aliens. He took the head of the New York Federal Reserve (European Banking Conglomerate) Tim Geithner and put him in charge of our Treasury. He takes his directions from Kissinger and Brezhinski. He has Volker and Greenspan telling him how to cooperate with Bernanke. He does as he's told by the wolves of Wall Street.
The lefties on this blog are friggin' clowns!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 9:14 PM in reply to dwjoae
And what planet are you from? Or maybe you escaped from some insane asylum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 9, 2010 11:32 AM
Republicans think that anything to the Left of Calvin Coolidge is "socialism", although they certainly are eager to deflect all blame for this depression away from their own policies--which were all about tax cuts for the rich, destroying organized labor and letting big business do whatever it wants.
Frankly, I only wish Obama were more of a socialist, although he was right to bail out the US auto industry instead of just letting all those jobs disappear or go to China. He should say things like that a lot more forcefully instead of letting Rupert Murdoch define him.
After all, the main job of Fox "News" is to destroy any Democratic president and block all real change in this country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johnny2Bad
July 9, 2010 11:35 AM
Corporatist is the new Socialist.
People.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to Johnny2Bad
Actually they're the new fascists, except they're the old fascists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
July 9, 2010 11:37 AM
It's funny, because as rational, intelligent human beings, we look at things like 'He's a SOCIALIST' as literal insanity.
But I guess, in reality, this stuff DOES work, if you swing the hammer enough times, and wield it with enough force.
I mean, look at the healthcare debate. So many people literally believed that reform was going to lead to senior citizens being euthanized by a rabid pack of Obama-controlled SEIU thugs, that it swung the debate, and the final package was directly effected by it.
There really is no bottom when it comes to shit the general american populace will not only believe, but adamantly advocate for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 9:23 PM in reply to lyleleander
I think the teabagging/gop are all paranoids. They really need psychiatric help, seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Meteor
July 9, 2010 11:37 AM
There is actually more evidence that he is a Bilderberg elitist. The method is to tell people what they want to hear and then do what the high cabal tells him to do.
Poll that and count the wrinkled noses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dood_2
July 9, 2010 11:40 AM
This is really depressing. I fear for America. I wish the Dems were capable of fighting back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ahmedsaid
July 9, 2010 11:46 AM
Sarah Palin. Michele Bachmann. Pamela Gorman. Carly Fiorina. Sharron Angle. These determined, dauntless, daring, dominant ladies will roll back the Bolshevik menace, and make our country safe again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 9:29 PM in reply to Ahmedsaid
You mean the moronic bimbos? Oh how funny! The IQ of all three totaled would barely make dull normal.
That was so funny Ahmedsaid. You should take that one on the road. Pity you missed "Last Comic Standing" auditions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
July 9, 2010 11:46 AM
The MSM takeaway will, of course, be that Obama Must Change. My takeaway is that Americans are morons.
If the President had a progressive bone in his body, and Rahm Emanuel were hit by a truck (six times, to make sure the job got done), he would embrace the label of "Socialism", rather than spending what political capital he has left, trying to fight this Fox windmill. Why?
Before 2008, the demographics were such that nobody knew the first thing anymore about "Socialism", "Communism", or any other McCarthy-era bogeyman that hadn't been around for 60 years. Think about it: this shit was all RE-MARKETED to today's audience in the last two years, my friends! Successfully and perfectly. Say what you want about these spawns of Satan, but they're the pros from Dover, when it comes to Orwell.
Therefore, if Obama were to jiu-jitsu this whole thing, and embrace the label, and if he then succeeded at saving the economy, the added value would be that it would rehabilitate the very honorable concept of "Socialism" (without which, we'd have no insurance industry or Social Security, but I digress..!)
As for the Fox News comment by the author, this is all the proof you need that it is now kosher to lie. The mark of a successful political party is simply that you've convinced a majority of something. Period. Whether it is actually true or good for society are concerns only for losers, and the terminally naive. Welcome to America 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
06STS
July 9, 2010 11:47 AM
Welcome to Bi-Polar America!
The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing. People are getting dumber by the day and this proves what happens when history books are never read, cell phone bills are over a $1000 a month because of texting all day and lunatics like Glenn Beck are on television. As a result, Mama Grizzly Sarah! Palin will be our next president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
July 9, 2010 11:52 AM
To people trying to pooh-pooh the results or say that others don't know what the word means ... it doesn't matter. Socialist is not a good thing and that attitude is clearly tied to antipathy toward Obama.
And if people who support the Democrats don't want the likes of Glenn Beck to win, you'd better come up with a solid response.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 9:35 PM in reply to benintn
Okay benintn, tell us what is a socialist? Why are they bad? What is it they actually do?
Believe it or not they aren't communists.
You should be more terrified of the fascists that took over the gop.
You do know the definition of fascist don't you? It's right wing. So is Nazism. Better pay more attention to that and be really afraid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 9, 2010 12:04 PM
It’s ironic that 55% believe President Obama is a socialist but nobody has noticed the christo-fascist take over of the Republican party. I guess they’ll figure it out when there is somebody at their doors wearing an icthys armband and representing the Dept. of Christian Value Enforcement asking where and how often they attend church services and if they suspect any unchristian or unpatriotic lifestyles in their neighborhood.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
July 9, 2010 12:04 PM
we can also chalk this up to just not fox news but the msm letting fox news set the agenda. the inside-the-beltway common wisdom is to see policy only through the prism of politics. so what we have now is a small, vocal, sometimes ignorant, sometimes racist, mostly white group of people who are the minority with all the media attention drive down and suppress the majority's interest in change being possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
July 9, 2010 12:07 PM
If he'd only acted like a real socialist and fought the corporations at least he'd be able to have gotten some good out of the situation.
Instead? Right-wing lite is now socialism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kaneblues
July 9, 2010 12:08 PM
What action or actions would these people point to that would lead you to believe that President Obama is a socialist?
Certainly it couldn't be the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Nor his giving the okay to drill for oil offshore. One might point to the expansion of health care, but that's an accomplishment his predecessors have sought for generations. Could it be the tax cuts for 98% of the population rather than the richest 2 percent, or the largest investments in science and technology and infrastructure in decades? Or maybe it his attempts to hold the insurance companies, banks and oil compainies accountable? Or maybe it's saving the country from another Great Depression and doing all that he can to drive this country out of the ditch that his predecessor drove us in to?
If that's the definition of socialism, than I'm all in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
July 9, 2010 12:11 PM
Not surprising. The American people are the Beverly Hillbillies of the Western world. You probably have a majority of white people in this country who would gladly see this country fail before anyone other than an old white guy leads it. They don't what socialism is and they love their social security and medicare....it doesn't get dumber than that, in conjunction with a Democratic Party that is essentially useless and presto, full on collapse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kaneblues
July 9, 2010 12:12 PM
Socialism is the new black.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 9:36 PM in reply to Kaneblues
Better clean up your white sheet and dunce hat I hear the kkk is meeting tonight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bloggin
July 9, 2010 12:13 PM
These are the same 39% of 'Americans' polled who think that the government should stay out of Medicare.
The fact is that the same micro demographic is being polled over and over again, because they are the same demographic that is at home, in the evening and answering a land line phone, without caller id, or with caller id knowing it's someone doing a poll and they are so lonely they will talk to anyone.
So in this poll, 55% of the home bound elderly who are bombarded by cable news all day long is not saying much for the hate/distortion engine that FAUX has going. Because 45% of their own demographic are not buying what they are selling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artappraiser
July 9, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to Bloggin
except um, that landline demographic you describe, they are the ones who vote en masse like clockwork in mid-term elections, and them cell-phone-only peeps? Maybe one-half of the latter before and after work are too busy reading about the latest Glen Beck hijinks or what was said on the Daily Show, and offering up quips on the net as to same, the other half too absorbed with LeBron James news, to vote for Congresspersons (meh; boh-ring) or god forbid local government spots (even more boh-ring.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
framis
July 9, 2010 12:15 PM
Matt Jones, You misspelled two words, However a "socialist" I.E. a "Liberal" both being the same believe that they are above all laws of man, believe that all others should be wards of the government, they should have no voice in the operation of their own life, that the government is the total answer to all ills and they owe their total obedience to the same government and its leaders. Their intelligence should be only at a low level so they will obey with no argument.
That is the goal of the Obama regime and the radical people that Obama is bringing into it at ridiculous salaries. Obviously you and dswx are liberal socialists. You are the college graduated mush heads that normal people should be feared!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkeeterVT
July 9, 2010 12:16 PM
Two demographic questions in the Democracy Corps poll are very revealing as to why 55 percent of respondents consider President Obama to be a socialist:
Question 105: Thinking in political terms, would you say that you are Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal?
Likely Voters/Drop-Off Voters/Total Voters
Liberal..............18 18 15
Moderate.............35 34 43
Conservative.........44 45 37
(Don't know/refused)..4 3 5
Question 115: What racial or ethnic group best describes you?
Likely Voters/Drop-Off Voters/Total Voters
White.................76 76 73
Black.................11 11 11
Latino.................9 9 11
Native American....... 1 1 --
Asian................. 1 1 2
Other................. 1 1 --
Don't know/Refused)... 2 2 2
The bottom line is that:
1) Liberals/Progressives are a less-than-20-percent minority of the poll's respondents, and
2) White people make up an overwhelming three-quarters majority of the poll's respondents.
The first finding is consistent with other polls showing moderates and conservatives both outnumbering liberals/progressives by a wide margin. America really is a center-right country and the inconvenient truth for liberals/progressives is that Barack Obama would not be president today were it not for the support of moderate voters in 2008. That's why he's governing from the center, much to the increasing frustration and anger of liberals/progressives.
The second finding, however, is clearly out of touch with reality. The Census Bureau reports that white people make up only a two-thirds majority of the U.S. population, or 66 percent. Exit polls from the 2008 election clearly found that whites comprised 64 percent of voters who cast their ballots.
And whites are moving inexorably toward minority status by the middle of this century, as the birth rate among Latinos -- the fastest-growing segment of the nation's population -- already has outpaced that of whites, the Census Bureau said.
There is no evidence -- I repeat, NO EVIDENCE -- that the majority of blacks, Latinos, Asians, or Native Americans who participated in this poll believe that President obama is a socialist.
The 55 percent majority of respondents who feel that way is heavily skewed by the fact that whites were a much higher percentage of this poll's respondents than their actual numbers in either the U.S. population as a whole or the voters who turned out on election Day 2008.
Next time you read about any poll regarding the President Obama's approval ratings, make sure to check out its demographic numbers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to SkeeterVT
You need to take another look at your census numbers:
Whites (+Hispanics who selfidentify as white)=73%
Black=12%
Asian=4%
These numbers are closer than you believe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 9:44 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Perhaps a very few Hispanics do but many don't. So that blows that theory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 7:12 PM in reply to SkeeterVT
Great post. Thanks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CareyInLA
July 9, 2010 12:26 PM
Move along folks, there is nothing to see here.
It is impossible to conclude anything from an attitude and opinion poll conducted months away from any election, that employs a "likely voter screen".
"Likely voter screens" are a way of changing the actual raw poll numbers - about anticipated voting - to take in account the likelihood the person will actually vote in the election being polled so that the prediction of the vote outcome is as accurate as possible.
The screen is thus making a very limited and specific prediction about voting behavior at a specific time that is quickly tested by the actual election. Without the discipline of a specific testable premise, such "screening" is meaningless.
"Likely voter screens" like this simply distort the actual polling results in an undisclosed manner, potentially subject to the arbitrary whim (or hidden agenda) of the pollster.
Question: When do we get to vote on whether Obama is a socialist to determine what the electorate actually thinks? Answer: never. The pollster is never called to account for his distortions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justinsmoke
July 9, 2010 12:26 PM
LOL. You have a wonderful collection of "useful idiots" here, TPM.
"Everything within the state, nothing outside it." -Mussolini.
Which direction has this administration lurched, glided, shifted to?
On the day Obama's health care passed... leftist punditry claimed it was an historic win for a shift to the european style "welfare state". Senator Baucus said the new law(s) was at its core about redistribution of wealth.
If Obama is not moving us in the socialist direction... then you should probably take that up with peeps on your team to get on the same page. These "idiot teabaggers" are just parroting what those on your team are telling em'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kaneblues
July 9, 2010 12:32 PM
One small problem with attributing these numbers to voters' impatience with the lagging economy; it doesn't explain why Obama was being accused of being a socialist during the 2008 presidential election.
And a simple google search will show that back in 2004, John Kerry was accused of being a socialist. And surprise, surprise; back in the 1990's, Bill Clinton was also accused of being a socialist.
See a pattern?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to Kaneblues
It takes awhile for those 18% of Independents to cacth on!
Thank you Fox News for telling the truth about Obama being a Socialist, maybe now the lame stream media will turn against Obama and report him for the Socialist that he is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 9:55 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
fnc wouldn't know the truth if it tapped danced in the nude in front of them. Neither would the teabagging/gop for that matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 10:04 PM in reply to Kaneblues
And here I thought it was a broken record.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Plotius
July 9, 2010 12:32 PM
Goebbels we be so proud of the right reichers in this country.
"Tell a lie long enough.....
And that poll is a goddamn lie because the criteria is messed up beyond fixing. So its horseshit.
The majority of people in America are incredibly ignorant and under educated. And a large part of them are just plain stupid.
We are doomed- so we just might as well start killing each other.
And reduce the surplus population.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Plotius
July 9, 2010 12:34 PM
Goebbels we be so proud of the right reichers in this country.
"Tell a lie long enough.....
And that poll is a goddamn lie because the criteria is messed up beyond fixing. So its horseshit.
The majority of people in America are incredibly ignorant and under educated. And a large part of them are just plain stupid.
We are doomed- so we just might as well start killing each other.
And reduce the surplus population.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gs-425
July 9, 2010 12:35 PM
Actions speak louder than wor...er uh polls
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 9, 2010 12:35 PM
I wish Obama was a Socialist, then we would have gotten real health care reform, single payer, or at least a Public Option.
He also would not have created a so-called "deficit comission" stacked with 14 of 18 members commited to cutting Social Security.
And he would have actually taken over the banks that gambled our collective future away, fired the failed executives of those banks, and certainly would not have let them take bonuses out of taxpayer money.
I don't know what Obama is besides being a wimp, he sure isn't a Progressive and I don't think he is even a mainstream Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 9:50 PM in reply to condew
No he couldn't. The senate took care of that. You people seem to forget that the president can not make a bill, only the legislative branch can and there were the gop corporatist Democrats and of course lieberman who will be thrown out on 2012 who made sure even the public option would be killed.
The far left need to go back and learn Civics. The right will never learn to forget about them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 9, 2010 12:37 PM
My gawd, if this poll is correct, and I view polls with a jaundiced eye, we Americans are a pathetic, trivial, stupid people who deserve to be fleeced every which way from Sunday by our corporate overlords.
And the one's who will get the brunt of the anal-rape planned by Wall Street and the Investor Class will be the white, suburban lower-level coordinator classes and coordinator class-wannabes--you know, Postal Service supervisors, high school football coaches, hydraulic parts sales representatives, veterinarians, barbers and the like--who believe in their heart of hearts they are the over-taxed engines of the economy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
flounder
July 9, 2010 12:40 PM
There is a lot more important stuff in that poll than the socialist question, like why are 59% of the not likely to vote class women? And why so many single?
Reading through, once again getting single women out to the polls is going to be crucial.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
July 9, 2010 12:42 PM
Would that he were a socialist!
Just another example of the effectiveness of propaganda. And we're surprised because ... ?
Swiftboaters strike again.
Time for some of our own before that witch from EBay becomes California's governor through the same EXACT tactics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justadood
July 9, 2010 12:42 PM
I think a pre-Civil-War congressman put it succinctly, and it still applies to this day: "Pardon me, is the Majority *always* drunk?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 12:44 PM
Of course Obama is Socialist.
I’m surprise the percentage is not actually higher! That may be due to the public school indoctrination process, but at least the American People are catching on to the fact that Obama is a Socialist, there is indeed hope that this Republic will survive Obama and his Marxist minions . We can only pray for that day to come...sigh!
The Total Not Well 39% represents ‘Progressives’ within the Democratic Party that will not admit the truth to polling agencies or the general public in other words they’re lying seditious progressive bastards, just like many of the progressives here!
I Hate Democracy
Restore the Republic and the Constitution to its rightful place in Government
p.s. Due to the volume of lying, emotional and hateful remarks by progressives directed at me, I will no longer reply to any post filled with personal attack, vulgar language or obscenities!
If you expect a reply from me act nicely!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
July 9, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Taking a page from the Palin playbook, are you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to jeffgee
No, I beat my own drum...thank you very much!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wisco
July 9, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
If you keep that up, you'll go blind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to Wisco
Nope, beating my own drum will not make go blind. That's a fallacy, but watching Chris, Keith and Rachel will definitely make one go insane!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wisco
July 9, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You don't really get jokes, do you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to Wisco
...maybe he's already blind?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Well we feel the same about Rush, Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 10:06 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Yeah sure you do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
July 9, 2010 12:59 PM
Now Fox and the radio ranters will flog this ad nauseam
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:03 PM in reply to jeffgee
That's because its a small victory for the forces of this Republic in this war of sedition against our Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 10:02 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Yeah like you know the Constitution. All I hear from the teabagging/gop are the second and tenth amendment, but ask them to explain it and it's deer eyes in the headlights.
One thing the teabagging/gop fail to mention is the preamble to the Constitution where it says: Promote the general welfare.
The teabagging/gop certainly didn't come to our Constitution's rescue when chimpy/shooter slashed it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 10:51 PM in reply to lyris
The preamble and general welfare clause are not enumerated powers listed in ART I Section 8 - Powers of Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 11, 2010 11:49 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
There's the whole "regulating commerce" thing, but feel free to ignore that
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
July 9, 2010 1:04 PM
Poll: 55% of voters don't know what "socialism" means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Sorry, they know exactly what it means...Obama!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
July 9, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
No. Sorry. "Socialism" means means the uncompensated expropriation of the means of production from private industry and direct government ownership, management and control of industry and finance. It means doctors, nurses, factory workers, and bankers are employees of the state. Not employees of private taxpayers
What we have is government intervention into a private economy. We have always had government intervention with the economy, starting when Alexander Fucking Hamilton talked Washington into buying the Revolutionary War debt of the states. We had it in the 1860s when Lincoln subsidized the building of the transcontinental railroad and issued the first national paper currency unbacked by specie. We had it when Teddy Roosevelt told J.P. Morgan to do what it took to deal with a financial panic. And we had it under Bush and Cheney, even before TARP, when they gave tax breaks to Big Energy and eliminated tax breaks for clean energy. Bush's Social Security "privatization" plan would have represented government intervention into the economy on a massive scale. The "private accounts" in his plan were actually plans for in government ownership of the stock of private companies.
The level of government control over the economy exercised or sought by Obama is nothing compared to the control Eisenhower and Nixon had.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You may be correct, but you seem to forgot that Obama is in process of 'Fundamentally Transforming' this nation, he's just not there yet!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Dug, every now and then, you just keep sticking your foot in your mouth when a simple silence would save you from eating all that toejam... you were better off letting Formerly's comment stand as is, tossing this desperate act looks like a desperate person trying to justify themselves when there is no justification.
Great little series, very revealing... the policy wonk v. the prejudiced ideologue...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to JEP07
You take this stuff to seriously, most of the time I'm just having 'FUN' and there is no 'justification' for fun, it's just play time to relax the mind!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
red cabbage
July 9, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Oh, Dung Beetle. Yews so smarts. I sees how you argyas wit them libruhs all day on the compudoor.
I just weesh you'd git out of my basement and go becums the next Karls Roover.
love,
Momma
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wisco
July 9, 2010 1:11 PM
This just shows that if you say the same thing over and over and over, people will believe it.
By the way, did you hear that John Boehner's a goat molester? I hear John Boehner's a goat molester. Can anyone confirm that John Boehner's a goat molester? Because I keep hearing that John Boehner's a goat molester.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to Wisco
Did you hear the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wisco
July 9, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Yeah. I also heard that John Boehner is a goat molester. You hear anything about John Boehner being a goat molester? Because the word on the street is that John Boehner's a goat molester.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to Wisco
A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wisco
July 9, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Yes, it is wise to question whether John Boehner is a goat molester.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 9, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Are you saying John Bohner is a goat molester, sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to condew
Now that's funny and I don't care who you are...ha...ha...ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jbentley4
July 9, 2010 1:14 PM
Proof - once again - that Axelrod & Co., are getting badly beaten in the messaging war. This is swiftboating all over again, and while it's easy to laugh at the stupidity and ignorance of our political foes, if Obama and his people don't fight back on a massive scale, this is going to damage him permanently.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikevillers
July 9, 2010 1:15 PM
well, some of that 55% thinks it's ok that he's (hypothetically) a socialist. so no big deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to mikevillers
Is that because you know non-citizens are voting in our elections and they will surly vote for Obama?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikevillers
July 9, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
the (mostly non-existent) voting for obama by non-citizens is dwarfed by the funding of the GOP by non-person corporations. ironically, obama wimped out on fighting for a "socialist" single-payer, government run health care system, even though substantial numbers if not yet a majority support it. why shouldn't we as citizens form our own healthcare "corporation" through government, and have that corporation's mission be to provide the most amount of care for the fairest price, instead of operating by the mandate of screwing people out of care to benefit shareholders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to mikevillers
Sounds great...maybe Senator Bernie Sanders could write up the legislation for you, give him a call at (202) 224-5141 and let me know how it turns out!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jon Lester
July 9, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to mikevillers
I was about to rhetorically ask how many of the 55% think it's necessarily a bad thing. It must have occurred to at least a few Americans by now that life in present-day China doesn't look so bad from the outside, comparatively speaking, at least economically.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikevillers
July 9, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Jon Lester
there are plenty of americans who think european style socialism is a fine and humanistic system of government. it's a mainstream position to favor government health care, subsidized education, work safety and wage protections, environmental protection, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to mikevillers
Sounds Great...maybe you can petition your Congressmen and Senators for a Article V Amendment to change our government from a republican to a socialistic form of government, anything less is sedition!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
There's your problem! You don't know "form of government" from "form of economy."
Poor dear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 5:28 PM in reply to AmericanDad
socialistic government must be in place before socialism as an economy is implemented, you can't have the chicken before the egg!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 9, 2010 7:33 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
please describe what 'socialist form of government' is supposed to mean.
i haven't been to glennbeckistan lately and google translate doesn't have your native language as an option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MrSmith1
July 9, 2010 1:16 PM
Gosh, maybe they're right... Extreme right, that is. The statistic only shows that lies repeated often stick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
1audiofile
July 9, 2010 1:17 PM
Since it is now OK to speak our mind regardless of the context or name calling, Please help me out. Is it Chaney who is Satan on Earth and Bush his helper? Or is it the other way around?
I get the two confused.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unionman
July 9, 2010 1:31 PM
Obama and to a far greater degree Rahm Emmanuel have influenced this outcome by Emmanuel's constant shilling for corporate america. I believe he knows Obama relies on his judgement and uses his influence to persuade Obama to modify and/or eventually renege on legislation arising out of campaign promises which impact corporate america by any manner except increasing profits. This influence paints Obama as weak, ineffectual, indecisive and deceptive on his promised change. For instance, Emmanuel's influence, no doubt created the confusion about health care reform. When Obama advocated reform inclusive of a public option Emmanuel was the first to publicly state that it would not occur. Financial reform has shown Emmanuel's influence once again. Why did Obama agree to modify regulations corrections to address corrupt profiteering, his promise to legislate a cap on those outrageous bonuses and to require Wall St publicly account for the $1.2 trillion of tax $$ and the 0% interest loans by the FED? Emmanuel's role at the WH is to protect and to keep informed his corporate allies. Don't believe he has this much influence with Obama? Why then has his role and questionable bonuses, while chair of fannie & freddie has never been subject to the required review? In fact I believe this review will not occur, if at all, until the expiration of time limits, under which Emmanuel could be prosecuted if determined appropriate.
These types of occurrences leaves the public presentation of Obama controlled by corporate media, AM radio and Fox news constant clarion call about Obama's legislation attempts as socialist, marxist, facist, leninist singularly or combined into to one criticism. Because of Obama's broken promises (even through compromise) his public modification of his previous convictions and the media's duty to comport their work according to their corporate owners the public is confused, angry and tired of the corruption in DC, all which adds to the labeling of Obama as a socialist.
He does nothing to honor himself and his office by offering excuses, maintaining that he is looking forward and will continue to seek bipartisanship in congress. This manner of his allows conservatives an open field to constantly label him anyway they choose, knowing Obama will do nothing but apologize for them, regardless of the insult.
Obama's campaign was one of hope, change and return to the rule of law, his post election actions dramatically conflict with his promises, causing even his advocates to question his politics. This confused and dismal presentation creates a boon for his opposition to control his publicly perceived politics. Conservatives were quick to produce an atmosphere where the messenger was one who screamed the loudest and screamed most often and it appears they succeeded.
Think Obama will refute his contradictions, replace his advisors with representatives of us citizens and govern as he promised? Obama needs to resolutely address his conflicted message, public perception and attempted legislative actions. If he continues as he is, not only will he fail to be reelected, he will of course destroy, for the foreseeable future, any hope of having another minority elected to the presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to Unionman
Wow...what a great post...BRAVO ZULU!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 3:03 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
He was saying he wasn't a socialist, dungbeetle. Seriously, have you any reading comprehension at all?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie911
July 9, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to Unionman
"This manner of his allows conservatives an open field to constantly label him anyway they choose, knowing Obama will do nothing but apologize for them, regardless of the insult."
Hmmm... makes me wonder - WWJD.
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Christian values, yeah, we see a lot of that coming from the Republican party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to howie911
Yes, the Republican party is getting a bit too much like the Democrats. They have no business attacking the liberals while they're so, liberal themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lucieann
July 9, 2010 1:44 PM
I bet that the same 55% don't even know what Socialism is!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rayboat
July 9, 2010 1:47 PM
I don't know why Obama doesn't just say f%&k it and proceed with a very progressive agenda.
There is no way in hell the Republican stock market is going to participate in any kind of recovery.
I have personally been told by some of my wealthier clients that will do anything possible to bring Obama down.Money talks and bullshi%t walks! Unless he can turn a few corners very soon my feeling is that he will be a one term President. He has alienated the left. Those are the people that worked hard to elect him. Those that feel smitten will in no way participate in any up coming election! And Corporate America will further drive the nail into the coffin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to rayboat
"I don't know why Obama doesn't just say f%&k it and proceed with a very progressive agenda."
Uh...that's what he's been saying and doing all along. That's also why his approval rating is falling and the Dem's November prospects are in the toilet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to rayboat
Nah. As bad as it is for Obama in the arena of public opinion right now, it is not out of line with historic precedent. He's been hovering within 2 points, up or down, of 48% for the past three quarters and is well above 50% among Dems. His 5th quarter approval rating of 48.8% is higher than Saint Reagan's 5th qarter approval of 46.3% And Reagan did not have two inherited wars, an industrial accident and environmental tragedy of historic proportions or a global economic meltdown on his plate.
A year into his first term as president, Obama's approval ratings were hovering around 50%. According to Gallup: "The 50% approval figure has been a strong predictor of an incumbent president's re-election: presidents who averaged 50% or better from January of an election year through Election Day have all been re-elected. This includes George W. Bush, who averaged 51% in 2004, though his approval rating was 48% in Gallup's final pre-election poll."
Furthermore, there is not a single nationally known Republican leader who can outpoll Obama. Even among Republicans, the current leaders have less than 50% approval. When Gallup gave them 11 Republican likely presidential candidates to choose from, 42% of Republicans picked "none/no opinion." Net disapproval of Republicans in Congress is 22%; Democrats only 1%.
Americans still continue to trust Obama over Republicans on the issues by over 20%.
Overall, Palin has only 17% "strongly approve" and a mere 37% approval at all. For the past 16 months, Hucakbee's approval rating has been in steady decline and now stands at 30%. Newt stands as 34% and Romney at 35%. Pawlenty and Jindal are so far off the map nobody seems even to be polling their names.
The Republican leaders' overall approval rating is below 30% and the lowest in the history of the Pew research. Obama's current approval rating is 20 points higher than the Republican leadership's rating.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 9, 2010 1:48 PM
This presumes that all 55% think being a socialist is bad.
I might agree that Obama is a socialist, but I could also find that to be a very good thing.
Socialism is just the new scapgoat.
We can't be anti-Communist anymore b/c of our "relationship" with the Chinese.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to Dorianne
Do you understand why 'Socialism' is SEDITION?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 9, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
No, "Promise Keepers" is sedition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to condew
Where were they when Bush actually DID take our rights away?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to JEP07
Did Obama give them back?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
I crossed this bridge again today, and thought I heard a troll; but when I looked I saw that it was just a bunch of frogs... and when anyone passes by, the frogs all started croaking "Obama-did-it, Obama-did-it."
I was quite disappointed, at least a troll might have had a riddle for me, these frogs just croak and croak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to condew
Explain that comment...please!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 9, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
don't ask stupid questions... you know the answer, why don;t you just make your argument instead of dragging this out?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 7:51 PM in reply to JEP07
He is making his argument! Rather nicely. The crowd here is dumbfounded. Well, so am I! I didn't know that Glen Beck could sway so many people?!?
It looks to me as if all the lefties watch Beck more than anyone I know. Every Republican I know thinks he's a bit daffy!
The real problem for the Democrats is that THEY'RE the ones who have everyone waking up to the fact that Obama is just another pseudo-socialist. He wants socialism for everyone on the bottom, while his crowd gets a steady diet of capitalism.
The Democrats actually proved that they could out do Bush in the bullshit category. The Bushes sold the pablum to the right, and the Clintons and Obamas sold it to the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 10, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Please go on. I have a pretty good idea where you are trying to go with this. Schenk and Abrams were very narrow in their applications and someone is pushing an Obiter someplace, if that is your logic, please tell me you're not getting your info from Lew Rockwell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 9, 2010 1:50 PM
Always absent from these blogs is an actual copy of the poll being discussed. It is not possible to render informed opinions about the poll without seeing it.
I suspect nothing in the poll was provided to educate anyone about the difference between being a "socialist" and "socializing" a public function.
Ignorance not only abounds but is encouraged by the right wing who benefit from an uneducated base that does not know the difference. These are the same people who shouted "keep you hands off my medicare" not having a clue that medicare is a socialized function of our government.
What would these same people say about closing all the pubic schools or public libraries and disbanding police and fire...or closing our roads and highways...all of which are tax payer owned and operated ( socialized ).
It is what governments do !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wisco
July 9, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to Paul
There's a link right there in the second paragraph. http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/dcor062210fq6.web_.pdf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shadowbox
July 9, 2010 1:57 PM
This is a great example of a completely misleading poll by the way the question is posed. First, by asking how well do you think the word "Socialist" describes Obama, you aren't directly saying, "Is Obama a socialist?" There is a very subtle difference. But a meaningful one. Further, by then asking someone to attribute "How well" the term applies to Obama it allows for a lot of fudging in the middle. Pollsters like to ask these questions and then add up the 2 "positive" responses as one whole. The outcome would have been different if it was posed as a yes or no question. "Do you think Obama is a socialist?" It makes people commit to a more direct response, and when faced with this choice they make a more honest and true response.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to shadowbox
Give it up already...the American People are not as stupid as progressives make them out to be...GET OVER IT and just admit Obama is indeed a Socialist and we can move on to removing me from the Presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
red cabbage
July 9, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
You're right the American people aren't stupid, for a reference, see the 2006 mid-term elections and the 2008 presidential election.
That's point and match, boy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to red cabbage
Sorry, the game is not over until 2012. The Republic may still win!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
The game is over in 2012? You mean there won't be a presidential election in 2014? Are you able to dress and feed yourself?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to AmericanDad
2016. A good typist I am not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to AmericanDad
If Obama fails to force Amnesty on the American People before he or Clinton is defeated in 2012 the Republic may be saved! If Amnesty is passed before 2012 there could be 12 million undocumented democrats voting and the future belongs to the Democratic-Socialists. The 2014 election will not relevant, the Republic will be lost until there is really another civil war to end the Socialist Tyranny!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 11, 2010 10:13 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
"12 million undocumented democrats voting"
never has happened, never will. Ask any American hispanic who has relatives legally here working, and they will tell you that voting illegally is one of the "verbotten" acts that they avoid like the plague.
With so many Dugfarts like you out there, they certainly would not chance voting in a public place, and the penalties for voting by mail fraudulently are potentially even worse, so anyone who thinks immigrants, illegal or legal, want to take that kind of chance with their privilege is inventing reality to match their prejudice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 12, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to JEP07
Just like felons, illegal aliens are voting by absentee ballots...soon more evidence will emerge just like the evidence that proved felons are voting by absentee ballots that may have put Al Franken over the top!
Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds
If felons can vote by absentee ballot, what makes you think non-citizens aren't doing the same thing?
You know non-citizens that commit ID thief are not as honest as you and I...ha...ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 3:14 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
More real sedition from the dung beetle. If America really was a tyranny like you desperately try and claim, you would be at the bottom of a very dark pit right now helping teams of large men with their inquiries.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 3:20 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Oh and just so you know, your rather pathetic "I'm important" preening has given people more than enough info to identify you " Hey, did you hear me on Lou Dobbs"
And I'm not threatening you. I'm just saying that you are (a) a complete idiot and (b) you dont really believe it because if you did you would not be so free with info. But your arrogance leaks through. You DESPERATELY want to be known, to be seen as important. Only you're afraid that people like me would be out there, would check your facts and leave you looking stupid. Here, you can hide. And pretend.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Seeing as how 26% of Americans don't even know the country that we won our independence from, I think that this assumption is closer to reality then what you might think.
I'll get over it as soon as you stop spouting talking points that you got from Limbaugh and Fox News and start making more coherent arguments, which is never going to happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to shadowbox
The question also leads responders.
Asking people, reapeatedly as the pollster says it intends to do, how well "socialist" describes Obama, suggests to the responders and readers that he is, in some way, a socialist. Otherwise, why ask? You wouldn't ask "how well does 'apple' describe Obama?" or "how well does 'fishing lure' describe Obama?" or "how well does 'endoplasmic reticulum' describe Obama?" because he is wholly unrelated to any of those things. He's as much a socialist as any of those, or a billion other, completely unrelated things.
The poll question sounds to my ear very much akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's only one step away to ask "How well does 'wife beater' describe you?" Merely asking the question implies that you are, in some way, a wife beater.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ImpureScience
July 9, 2010 2:00 PM
I like him fine, but it would be nice if he actually were a Socialist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to ImpureScience
Then its very nice...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Man, you trolled this thread up with a whole bunch of talking points and no substance. Does seeing your avatar make you feel good when you reply to other posters with the themes of the day that you got from some email that was forwarded to 100 people who don't understand words with more than three syllables? My hat goes off to you because it must take a lot of effort to be such a grand troll on this site.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to Hobbes83
Care to be specific?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 6:10 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
All of your posts. That is all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to Hobbes83
Me thinks you are not objective!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Seeing as how thinking isn't your strong suit, I'm not too worried about your statement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 7:23 PM in reply to Hobbes83
Got to admit, would not let this troll hang with me and my troll buds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
I've read some of your comments, and I have to apologize for calling you a troll. While I don't agree with you on some things, I was wrong and I think that we started off on a bad foot. Have a great weekend and take it easy, I'll take a shot for you later on tonight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 8:20 PM in reply to Hobbes83
Getting between me an Chammy can be dangerous. We have a history. You'll never see me support a 'pub, ever, and my frustrations with Obama sometimes are NOT fair, and yes I go off the rails from time to time, but I want this President to succeed as badly as anyone. But the direction he seems to be going in disturbs me more than anything. Thank God the 'pubs are devoid of a leader/communicator.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 10, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
One thing that's wrong with that statement; Limbaugh is the leader of the party, and that's why they're bat-shit crazy. They're so afraid of him that it's been over a month and a half since a Republican came on Hardball and spoke badly of him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ImpureScience
July 9, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Yes, it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 6:04 PM in reply to ImpureScience
So, you affirming Obama is a Socialist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 9, 2010 2:03 PM
I have never seen a man accused of being so many different things by so many people.
The Left - corporate shill
The Right - socialist
Wall Street - anti-business
Religious Right - not a serious christian
Israel - hates Jews
Muslims - only pretending
White angry rich men - racist
And on and on and on. Of course the whole arrogant lot thinks that they are right so they will build a 300 comment thread to prove their point. Never once thinking that they may need to rethink their positions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AmericanDad
July 9, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to Viva!America!
We do make him out to be whatever it is we need him to be to explain why the world is the way we perceive it to be (or want others to perceive it as), whether we're fer him or agin him. Has he become our national Rorschach test ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarcusJ
July 9, 2010 2:05 PM
English is a homonymic language. The word corporatist is defined by Oxford dictionaries as "the control of a state or organization by large interest groups".
Obama certainly is in favor of large powerful vested interests, such as the Wall Street bankers/financiers, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Health Industry, Big Oil, Big Military Complex, Big national security, etc. He is definitely not a progressive and in my opinion is quite right wing but it is PC to say he is "centrist". Though he's a student of constitutional law he is not for civil liberties as witness his stance on habeas corpus, national security issues, whistleblowers, his position on 1st amendment rights (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, etc.
He sounds nice and smiles well but as far as being an effective force for progressive or liberal action he doesn't make the grade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
July 9, 2010 2:17 PM
Faux News sucks, but a lot of this is on the WH and their surrogates. They may have the worst communications operation I have ever seen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Perhaps its because the thugs and their echo chamber have nothing else to do whereas the dems are trying to get things done - can you imagine having to refute everything that is said on a daily basis. Nothing would get done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
July 9, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to chameleon
Isn't that like saying that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
But let's grant your point for the sake of argument. What difference does it make? If you can't sell your ideas, then you can't implement, at least for very long, no matter how much you try to get things done.
They don't have to refute every false charge. They just have to make the case for why their ideas are better on a regular basis.
Obama is a superb communicator, yet he went 10 months without a news conference. That's inexcusable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CTHankster
July 9, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
To add to what you are saying, why is the White House letting the GOP set the agenda anyway? Why do the Democrats find themselves being reactive rather than proactive after the awful GOP record of 2001-2009?
This all started when Obama was in office a week or two and he and his spokespeople started allowing as how a benchmark of their success would be whether it attracted support across the aisle. Dumb move. Very dumb move. They have been paying for that tactical mistake ever since although they still don't seem to have realized it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
July 9, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Maybe the teleprompter was broken...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
July 9, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Right, because he can't think on his feet. Jeez...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
10 months without a news conference. Are you sure about that. Seems like I was hearing that he was on TV too much. I'm not saying you're wrong, it just doesn't seem possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
July 9, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to chameleon
Dan Froomkin:
First Posted: 05-27-10 08:23 PM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Something doesn't square.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6119525-503544.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
July 9, 2010 4:45 PM in reply to chameleon
From your link under the heading News Conferences:
The ten months refers to formal news conferences, which are usually on network television, and as a result, offer the best opportunity to impact the greatest number of people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 5:37 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
I gotcha. However, that doesn;t bother me. He is the hardest working president I can remember in a long long time, so I'm cutting him some slack.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
July 9, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to chameleon
The problem is that his failure to sell his programs (and successes) puts everything we stand for in jeopardy. So it's not really about him, it's about the future of the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Well he has tried. It's pretty difficult when the media is against you and won't tell the fucking truth about what is going on. This President has been held to a standard that no other president has been held to. I find it very discouraging indeed, but I don't lay all the fault at his feet at all.
The thugs own the media, they own wall street, they own the banks. I believe they are deliberately not lending just to make him look bad. That's how I see it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to chameleon
Sure is, I bet he has taken 5 strokes off his Golf handicap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Don;t even go there. Bush was on a perpetual vacation. At least this President is trying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to chameleon
He's trying. Can you set the bar any lower?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Hear me now. I have no desire to have a conversation with you. You are like the dogshit on the soles of my shoes that I scraped off and threw in the trash weeks ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 10, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Now you're just being inane. Ted Williams never golfed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 11, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to glblank
I hear he was great on the balance beam...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bob White
July 9, 2010 7:10 PM in reply to chameleon
Yeah, hardest working... on his golf game.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 7:16 PM in reply to Bob White
And busy at town hall meetings. What a presence!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 7:16 PM in reply to Bob White
You are an idiot. That was a stupid statement. So what if he plays some golf. He's not entitled? But you know what, I can direct you to someone who would love to talk to you. His name is Clarence Vine. I am sure the two of you have a lot in common.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 7:39 PM in reply to chameleon
yes we do, with breaking your chops at the top of our list. What's amatter baby, don't you love me anymore?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 2:58 PM
One thing I've learned from being politically active is that polls can be tampered with.
Earlier this year I got of all things a letter from the republican party asking about health care. Had I not been suspicious of them and had knowledge of what was purposed in that bill I would have answered their poll the gop way, as their questions were based on nothing but lies.
Do not let polls sway you as some of them are not neutral at all, they have ulterior motives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
krag
July 9, 2010 3:03 PM
These same (white middle age) people are either on Medicare or will be once they reach age 65, you can bet the farm on it.
Would they give up Medicare (socialized medicine)?
Hell no!
They have NO credibility with me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BrownEye
July 9, 2010 3:22 PM
I'm one of lowest life forms on the planet and knew it was Fox News. Duh!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Canny
July 9, 2010 3:26 PM
This was a stupid poll by people who, after the Primaries, may have suspect reasons for asking a dumb question as a suggestion that makes Obama look bad. The response was predictable. I was surveyed by Rasmussen last week and in asking for my yes/no responses to voting in the Primary here, totally left off - in every question - the name of the most popular candidate as a choice! Bottom line - I don't trust any of them anymore. As to Fox being the cause? Yes, a lot, but CNN and MSNBC both push Palin and let total untruths hang out there unanswered rather than (God forbid) appear partisan. They need to call out people when they are lying. They don't even try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lovethesinner
July 9, 2010 3:27 PM
ALL POLLS ARE "PUSH" POLLS. All stories based on polls are propaganda. It's just human nature.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
July 9, 2010 3:38 PM
I submit the reason voters believe Obama's a socialist is because the right-wing media has been so successful spreading that message, the progressive media apparently doesn't have enough reach to counter it, and elected Democrats are too cowardly to stand up and refute it.
I suspect 65 percent of voters can't even spell socialist, let alone define it. As Bill Maher repeatedly points out, Americans are stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
riceroni
July 9, 2010 3:43 PM
Now do you see America? Do you see how willfully ignorant and laughable we look to the rest of the world?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 9, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to riceroni
American Exceptionalism has blinded a good majority of the American people from seeing the folly in their way. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 3:46 PM
Corporatist, fascist, Obama!
He's a stooge for the TriLateral Commission. He commandeered a car company. He funded private bankers. He put an international banking conglomerate head in charge of the Treasury.
Fix your compass, you look like an uniformed bedwetter when you write.
Capitalism for the big corporations, and socialism for the little guy! And you criticize those who learned he's just another Bush! Halliburton loves Obama. He is securing their jobs in the middle east for many more years, while he's crashing the dollar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
July 9, 2010 4:12 PM
A socialist in a capitalist country is a perfect match. A socialist in a communist country or a socialist country is not so good. We need a socialist to keep in check on corporate greed and to make sure the middle and lower classes are protected. Keep up the good work Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to jonez
Amen to that jonez. I'd like more of this kind of socialism please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 9, 2010 7:12 PM in reply to jonez
LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mark P. Kessinger
July 9, 2010 4:21 PM
Yeah, well, 55% of likely voters are blathering idiots who aren't even smart enough to know that they don't know what they're talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
July 9, 2010 5:11 PM
And if they don't learn what the frigging word means until after Goldman Sachs and the G20 have finished looting the economy and the Cat Food Commission and the deficit peacocks have signed away Social Security, 55 percent of Americans are going to wish Obama really had been a socialist.
Where's FDR when you need him?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
July 9, 2010 5:43 PM
Actually, Obama is what they call a Democrat.
But, hey, if Faux News calls him a Socialist, he must really be a Socialist.
So my idea is this: Even though most progressives are above false labels and flat-out lies, we're also playing with one hand tied behind our backs. So let's just start falsely labeling the Rethuglicans for what they sort of are -- NAZIS. Or at least let's consistently call them fascists.
Like ... That John Boehner and Mitch McConnell -- they're just Nazis.
Then repeat it about a half billion times and maybe 55 percent of the nation of ignorance will believe that Boehner and McConnell are Nazis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artappraiser
July 9, 2010 5:58 PM
Geez I waited for all these comments to load, looking for TPMCafe regulars "oleeb" and "bluebell" to chime in on this news and preach that the Dem party must move way to the left of Obama and his minions in order to win elections, as they are often wont to do. And they are missing in action.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 6:10 PM in reply to artappraiser
Yeah, I hear ya. Oleeb and Bluebell and the rest of the whiners are all stuck in the cafe propping each other up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sicily726
July 9, 2010 6:17 PM
The ONLY thing this poll indicates is that 55% of those polled do not know what a socialist is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bob White
July 9, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to sicily726
It is not useful to argue over the definition of socialist. Obama is certainly closer to socialist than libertarian.
At one time, "liberal" referred to people who supported individual rights and protection from a strong state. In fact, in Europe, it still means that. My European friend surprised me by calling me a liberal, because I am what Americans would call a conservative.
In Europe, Obama would be called a socialist. It is only here in America that we bridle at the term. It is accurate to call him that. He believes in a strong state. He does not always support individual rights and choice (witness the mandate of insurance coverage; the notion that we must all submit to federal regulation of the health care system).
Perhaps these things are not what traditionally qualify as socialism (I think they do, but perhaps you don't). Nonetheless, if 55% of the people think that a term applies to someone, the meaning of the term may very well have shifted.
Majority rules when it comes to what a word means. Consider what the word "gay" meant 100 years ago and what it means to us today. I love the word "queer". It's a great word, but you can't use it anymore because of its association with past bigotry toward gays. Words' meanings change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bob White
July 9, 2010 7:08 PM in reply to Bob White
And now you leftists have co-opted the term progressive. I certainly do not think that statism is progress. You abandon the term liberal because it took on a pejorative aspect. Did you think to wonder why people took to disparaging it so, rather than merely abandoning the term and rebranding yourselves? If you are hell bent on adopting the term progressive, can we true liberals, classical liberals, have the term liberal back?
Why not just be honest with yourselves and call yourselves socialists? Socialism has a long history. There are many non-Soviet socialists (Orwell, John Stuart Mill). I think it is a mistaken political bent, although I warrant most socialists mean well (it's just that the system never works out, especially for those it is most supposed to help).
I stand with Alexis de Tocqueville:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 8:27 PM in reply to Bob White
Great post Bob and an even better question...
The honest intellectual reason is 'progressives' know full well if the Constitution is read as a legal enduring document with the text and intent understood when it and its Amendment were ratified the 'progressives' will be branded as in sedition against our Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 9, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
hey dungus, how many times does 'sedition' appear in the text of the constitution?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 9, 2010 9:06 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
The same amount of times as 'democracy' or 'immigration', the fact it is not mention is irrelevant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 10, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
so... that 'sedition' does not appear in the constitution is irrelevant, but that 'democracy' does not appear is the foundation of your supposed originalist 'republic not democracy' diatribes... (neverminding that 'republic' just means 'representative democracy' anyway...)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 10, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Correct, apples and oranges....
Wrong...our unique republican form of government is based on republicanism and we are a representative republic with a Federal Constitutional Republic. Progressivism has indoctrination the masses to confuse 'republicanism' with democracy to introduce more socialism into our republican form of government without going thru the Article V Amendment process, do you understand?
Now that you have been shown the historic truth about our Constitutional Republic, you can go on with your misguided ways or accept our Republic for what it is!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 3:47 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
"Wrong...our unique republican form of government is based on republicanism and we are a representative republic with a Federal Constitutional Republic."
Wow. 3 different forms of government in one sentence (that doesn't make sense at all, but whatever). And not a single definition or indication that you actually understand what the hell they mean, aside from as a handy slogan.
You could be friends with the Irish Republican Army though...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trippin
July 10, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to Bob White
"Nonetheless, if 55% of the people think that a term applies to someone, the meaning of the term may very well have shifted."
Yes, the incessant drone of people misusing the term under the orchestration of right wing media has shifted the definition of "socialist" to include "corporatist."
That's because being a "corporatist" isn't good enough for a libertarian. For them, we have to go all the way to full-on fascist or they won't be satisfied.
To the libertarian, "freedom" means freedom of those with money to exert their will over those that don't, and they bridle at the notion that our last thin line of defense -- namely, our government -- would dare stand in the way on behalf of the public at large.
So a gas station owner should be free to deny a black family the use of the rest rooms, but that family's freedom to travel without having to take a sh!t in the bushes matters not one iota. Yeah, that's beyond corporatist all right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
July 9, 2010 7:55 PM
If only!
Boy that messaging a la Goebb*** works on an uninformed public.
As for liberal/socialist/conservative: 'liberal' used to mean for laissez-faire regarding commerce and free market. But by now, anyone who believes that society exists at all --as opposed to the silly egocentric idea of conservatives that 'society doesn't exist'--gets labeled a 'socialist'.
Sad state of education in our nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 9, 2010 9:41 PM
55% of the population are idiots. Why? Because Obama is not a socialist and actually not even close to being one. I know because I am one and he ain't doing a thing that I am happy with. Now a not insignificant portion of the other 45% are proving they are just as stupid. That means you freerider, chameleon, OT, etc. We are racist? You guys are an embarassment to all forms of higher thought...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 9:47 PM in reply to Libertine
Yeah and you are one of those idiots in that 55%. If you're a socialist move to a socialist country instead of hoping for a president who is - cause it ain't gonna happen - not even close - not in your lifetime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 9, 2010 10:02 PM in reply to chameleon
HAHAHA...let me see I am one of the people in the 55% who are idiots because I know the president is not the socialist the 55% claim he is? Thanks for proving my point on your portion of the other 45% hun...
I'm off this thread. Not that I can't go on all night about this but this thread is so long it takes 10 minutes to fully open. I wish TPM could do something about this but it is what it is...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 9, 2010 10:07 PM in reply to chameleon
Idiot. American Socialism is why you have it so good. So now you are Anti-union? Anti-firefighter? Anti-highway? Just to kiss a centrist's ass? Can you say cut off your nose to spite your face?
I can't believe that douchehead freerider isn't here telling you what a moron you are for that ignorant statement. You apparently don't understand the traditional meaning of "socialist" and are adapting the teabagger version of it.
Brilliant. (not)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 9, 2010 10:50 PM in reply to chameleon
Stupid fuck, this is a Socialoist nation as much as it is a German, Western European nation, iow the multicultural antethesis of the melting pot you Know-Nothings want it to be. In short, you don't know yer ass from yer face but yer bignorance is good for a loaugh now and again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 10, 2010 9:29 AM in reply to glblank
If any of you believe this country will ever be close to a socialist country you are crazy. It ain't gonna happen, no matter how many idiots and stupid fucks you call me. I personally, happen to like the idea of a social democracy and would even prefer it, but we don't have one here and never will, no matter how much social security, medicare and fire and police we have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 10, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to chameleon
Nice try. Narrowing your terms to cover up the fact that you were way off base is pretty lame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 10, 2010 5:39 PM in reply to Bwakfat
I didn't narrow terms to cover up anything. I am a realist. This country like or it not, is based on capitalism and it is not going to change no matter how much you cry about it. End of story for me. I don't really like to waste my precious time dealing with idiots so you can post all the vitriol you want, but I've said what I had to say to you and I'm done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 11, 2010 10:45 AM in reply to chameleon
What is Social Security, Einstein?
hint It has the word Social right in it, so it couldn't be part of a Capitalist country, right? You are fond of trying to run people out of here, fist Vine, now Libertine. Who in the hell do you think YOU are? A Nazi?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trippin
July 10, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to chameleon
Stay the fuck off our highways. And if your house catches fire, don't call our fire department. Or our police if somebody steals your Lexus. We socialists own those -- you get your own.
After all, you made it on your own -- so keep it that way. Keep your grubby mitts off our stuff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 10, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to trippin
You are an idiot. I am a liberal democrat but a realist who deals in realities. This country will never be a social democracy at least not in many lifetimes from now, if at all. That was decided and determined many moons ago - its called capitalism. And you know what mother f*c*er, I pay taxes so I will use the roads and the fire department and the police just like everyone else. You are a moron. If you want to live in a social democracy, you will have to live somewhere else - it's not going to happen here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 10, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to chameleon
Wow Chammy, trippin really giving it to you -
"Stay the fuck off our highways". Nice line.
Do you need any help? You know I'm here for you and you alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyris
July 9, 2010 10:15 PM
Well we all know that the teabagging/gop are clueless in general, so why should they be any different about socialism?
They seem to eat sleep and everything else with fnc, and it's frightening that they are allowed to drive vote and procreate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 9, 2010 10:43 PM
90% think the earth is still flat and get Sarah Palin through their tinfoil hats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LJG
July 10, 2010 12:26 AM
Obama isn't even a liberal. He's a centrist.
Obviously propaganda works. Public opinion can be bought. Democracy, the greatest experiment in the history of civilization, has failed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kfdan
July 10, 2010 3:33 AM
If this poll is anywhere correct, it just goes to show you that a large number of those polled are ignorant ... and that tells us what the real state of the nation is! To call Obama a liberal or centrist is also missing the point ... he's Wall Street's man on the scene and will do whatever it takes to further the financial elite's interests!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rhallnj
July 10, 2010 6:17 AM
Of course, only a tiny fraction of those know what the proper definition of Socialism is. Poor Obama, he has ascended to the Presidency of a nation of cretins.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
woundedduck
July 10, 2010 10:38 AM
Since most Americans have no idea what socialism is, they're using that as a place holder for being a "nigger." Replace that term in the polling and the 55% makes a whole lot more sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 10, 2010 10:58 AM in reply to woundedduck
Not really. While the opposition to this president is in part racist, the other groups that comprise this number are ideologues and people who are so ignorant that they might as well have their voting rights revoked because they vote on the basis of familiarity and looks instead of issues and ideas. Not all teabaggers are racist, but all racists are teabaggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
July 10, 2010 10:40 AM
Socialist? Nah. He may have been elected by dopey socialists and communists, but Obama is wholly owned by Wall Street and the banksters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 2:46 AM in reply to Silence
If there are enough communists and socialists to create a landslide, how come you keep yammering America is a conservative country? :D
By the way support for the Tea party is dropping away...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 10, 2010 1:31 PM
American Dad,
I think you are gravely mistaken and sorely confused...
Jefferson seems to making an argument for original intent to Justice William Johnson, not against it….common sense must guide your thought process whenever reading the Constitution my progressive foe, please use it.
Jefferson is clearly making a statement against any reading of the Constitution that would clearly undermine the text and original meaning or intent, surely Jefferson would be appalled at activist judges, progressivism and followers of a living constitution where the text of the constitution would change without going thru the Article V Amendment process.
ADKISON, M. Danny. "The Federalist and Original Intent," Political Science Reviewer 17 (Fall 1987): 219- 240.
http://www.mmisi.org/pr/17_01/adkison.pdf
Original intent like congressional intent has been a foundation in constitutional law until progressives started to undermine it with the false doctrine of the ‘Living Constitution’ and their evolutionary theories about the Constitution.
Does Chief Justice Taney contradict Jefferson in regards to ‘original intent’, no but hell no! Chief Justice Taney drives a stake into the heart of the progressive movement and the followers of the false doctrine…the living constitution is dead!
In keeping with the theme of this thread, I’m sure Thomas Jefferson would oppose Barack H. Obama’s attempts to ‘fundamentally transform’ this government into a socialistic one without going thru the Article V Amendment process.
Obama has been a stealth socialist to most people, it’s time to bring this socialist out in the light and expose him for what he truly is…in sedition against our ‘republican form of government’.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trippin
July 10, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
"Jefferson would be appalled at activist judges..."
Like Alito, Thomas, and Roberts, who confuse money and speech to the point of approving unlimited corporate (including foreign) money in our elections.
I'm appalled at them as well. Shall we impeach them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 10, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to trippin
If your point is there is NO support in the 14th Amendment that gives 'person-hood' to corporations, I would agree and that activist judges did indeed force their politics on the American People in that ruling.
Alito, Thomas, and Roberts were correct, its about 'Free Speech' and not about 'approving unlimited corporate money in our elections'. Thomas Jefferson would not be appalled in ruling in favor of 'Free Speech', sorry!
Congress should do its job and reign in corporations at the peoples request and benefit when they are at odds with the Constitution and not depend on the court system to make legislation from the bench.
There are already existing laws covering foreign money in our elections!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 10, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to trippin
"Shall we impeach them?"
No, they are outstanding Supreme Court Justices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 11, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
The U.S. Supreme Court, Inc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 2:58 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
"in sedition against our ‘republican form of government’. "
Ha ha haaa, Not too long ago you were yammering that he was cdommitting sedition agains the constitution, after getting your stokkick torn out on that one you are now bieng far more careful in your language, AND putting it in quotes to clain you are just quoting
Unfortunately, you are still full of shit
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sedition
"Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force."
So there you have it. You have to preach the VIOLENT overthrow of A GOVERMENT.
YOU CANT COMMIT SEDITION AGAINST A FORM OF GOVERMENT, YOU NITWIT. ANY MORE THAN YOU COULD AGAINST A CONSTITUTION!
Seriously every time this comes up you try and twist sedition to something else and you ALWAYS wind up with egg on your face.
THE ONLY person committing sedition in this scenario IS YOU. AND you are doing it AGAIN!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 10, 2010 1:59 PM
dwjoae,
GWB open the door from the socialist 'Barry' to walk thru when he, "Abandoned free market principles to save the free market".
This is unpardonable to any defenders of our Constitution and republican form of government!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarciaJ720
July 10, 2010 4:46 PM
Sadly, we are closer to having a fascist form of Government than a socialist one.
And anybody who thinks Obama is a socialist is too dumb to vote and should not be allowed to.
I'm being bad...... I know - but think about it. Do we really want the ignorant voting on things they obviously know nothing about? Like Politics?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 10, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to MarciaJ720
You got it right Marcia, we are closer to a fascist state than a socialist one. Not even close. These idiots are lost in talking points. This President, by his deeds, has not shown me one socialist bone in his body! And that's why I rail against him when he legislates hat-in-hand to his Wall Street masters! My God, this President is so deep into the corporate capitalist way of life that we will never return to a democracy. It's going to gated communities on top of the hill against the rest of us 95% down the bottom fighting over the crumbs! Socialist, LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ricky
July 10, 2010 6:35 PM
yea yea yea.. more than half the people screaming the word socialist.. don't even know what the WORD MEANS !!
the dumbing down of america has worked... America will not be the world power with a country full of dummies
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 10, 2010 7:11 PM
All it really signifies is what a vacuous populace will label an unpopular President. Yeah, I have a few bones to pick with Obama, but a Socialist? Pick up a few books that go beyond "Goldilocks and The Three Bears".
Emily
http://emilyscoffeespot.blogspot.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 10, 2010 8:50 PM
It's amazing how many users here chime in with their witty proclamations to say Obama is not a socialist! It's even more interesting that none of these geniuses to date can construct one paragraph with their unique insights explaining to us less gifted citizens why we all are wrong on Obamaism!
Never mind Obama’s parents were both Marxists which had a very powerful influence on his life and ideology.
Never mind Obama only studied the Constitution to undermine it later whenever he got the chance.
Never mind, Obama surrounded and still surrounds himself with Marxists friends like Rev. Wright (Marxist Church), Marilyn Katz (head of security for SDS), William Ayers (Weather Underground), Valerie Jarrett (creator of the diversity czar), Mark Lloyd (Saul Alinsky disciple who praises Hugo Chavez for his democratic revolution) and appointed Marxists to CZAR positions such as Cass Sunstein (regulatory czar) an animal rights nut job, Ron Bloom (manufacturing czar) believes manufacturing jobs is primarily the responsibility of government, not the private sector and was quoted saying, “we kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun”, let’s not forget Van Jones (green czar) the self-described communist but the most telling appointment of Obama’s socialist designs on America is the appointment of Harold Koh as a legal adviser to the State Department. Koh is a Transnationalist Socialist who believes in the false doctrine of the “Living Constitution” and once said, “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States, sedition? Of course it is, sharia law establishes Islam as the official state religion and that goes against the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
I guess we less gifted citizens are just suppose to have 'faith' in their 'unique insights' and move along!
I Hate Democracy
Restore the Republic and the Constitution to its rightful place in Government
CHEERS...
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
July 11, 2010 10:18 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
"none of these geniuses to date can construct one paragraph with their unique insights explaining to us less gifted citizens why we all are wrong on Obamaism!"
Anyone who reads this entire thread knows this is the most arrogant and delusional comment you or anyone else made here. You got your debate butt kicked all over this thread by wiser and more eloquent folks than yourself, so you hang out allnight waiting to get the last word, and thatr last word is to promote a myth of mythic proportions.
You have never won a serious debate in all the time I have read here, Dogfart, but as long as there is no authority to tell you how futile your arguments have been, you will continue to delude yourself that you are constantly victorious against every adversary.
As for hating Democracy, you are in for a big surprise before your days have passed. You can not even imagine what is in store.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 11, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to JEP07
Well…excuse me….but I have not lost a single debate on the Constitution with my progressive foes here on TPM. You are under the influence of progressivism and that fact does not make you an objective commentator as to who is winning or losing debates, you have a dog in this hunt and this dog is named “Progressivism” or what I like to call “socialism with a smiley face”. As long one professes to be a “Progressive” that person will always lose any and all constitutional debates with me or any other conservator because progressivism is based on the false doctrine of the living constitution. Your inability to concur with me is based in progressive dogma, in fact you and your ilk are under strict marching orders from your progressive’s leaders like “Digby” (Internet Columnist) and Eric Burns the President of Media Matters to “Do not validate Conservative values, thought or talking points” ...
Campaign for America's Future
Your progressive leaders from the various media outlets have sent the tone of the debate with Conservatives, “Do not validate Conservative values, thought or talking points” and you seem to be obeying your marching orders!
Please enlighten me with your Nostradamus like insights…
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 2:24 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
"Well…excuse me….but I have not lost a single debate on the Constitution with my progressive foes here on TPM."
Thats because every time you get landed with a point you cant answer you immediately drop to a bullshit talking point like "Whats the definition of a living constitution." You dodge buch and weave and drag in pages of irrelevant crap, but you refuse to discuss the interpretations or the context of the constitution, clinging blindly to what your perceive as the raw text, without proper interpretation or raw context. Even your stupid insistence on "republican" government is bogus, as you have NEVER ONCE explained what that exactly is. Its just a slogan to you, to cloud the facts. Fact is Today it means the same as representative democracy without a monarch, and you know that damn well.
I remember when I pointed out the historical facts of the constitutions drafting - that it was influenced by the Ideals of the french revolution of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality, a revolution that would be called socialist today. (why do you think the french sent over the statue of Liberty) You refused point blank to answer me, and claimed you were going off on DEPLOYMENT. Even when I challenged you to obey the oath you claimed to have sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies,you broke your oath. You repeatedly refused to refused to defend the constitution from what you perceived as my attack. You could not do it.
You lost your debate with ME.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 12, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to Sir T
Liberalism/Progessivism are truly a mental disorders...ha..ha!
Not only are you a lying seditious progressive bastard with an unhealthy fixation on me, you're a moron to boot!
Afraid of people like you, listen carefully moron I live for people just like you who follow me around on TPM degenerating the thread and making mockery of civil debate. People like you not only entertain me, but they validate my belief system about progressives and their intolerant ways. Checking my facts and replying with ‘Progressive Conjecture’ does not win any debates, it only amuses the masses. It’s interesting and very telling that you glossed over my …
post…
where I factually outlined the historic evidence of our Constitutional Republic being a representative republic and not a representative democracy your failure to acknowledge this just validates my …
post …
on how your progressive masters from the various media outlets have been setting the tone of the debates with Conservatives, “Do not validate Conservative values, thought or talking points” and you seem to be obeying your marching orders and refusing to validate any of my arguments even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I on the other hand can be objective and will acknowledge the truth no matter where the source because I'm a rational sane person. Any rational, objective or sane person could see my arguments as being factual or true, not seditious progressives their dogma trumps the facts or truth.
“Hide”, from the likes of you? Your one funny moron, that’s for sure! What’s a Sir T? You give no clues as to who you really are; hell you may be Eric Burns or some prisoner serving time in federal prison for cyber stalking. No dirt-bag you are the one hiding behind ‘Sir T’ and pretending to be a champion of ‘progressivism’. I’m not hiding or pretending that I like the attention and love the replies even the hateful ones, they make my day! If you really wanted to hurt me you would ignore me, but you must be insane because its obvious rationality is not one of your positive character traits as evidence of you hounding me with your persistent progressive conjecture and outright lies. I’m not going to address your lies (too many) because it would be a waste of time and fall on deaf ears.
I’m just going to punish you by ignoring you for 3 months. You’ll go madder that a hatter still…ha…ha!
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 11, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
You are the one making the affirmation, it is your duty to show he is, not ours to show he isn't. You have not made one cogent point regarding your beliefs, then slap up a bunch of specious nonsense that reflects your belief system with no substantive facts to back up your beliefs but your specious opaque rhetoric masquarades artlessly as thoughtful prose that most everyone here sees through. You shout Marxist and we are left to try and research your claims as you provide no evidence. That may work in the parallel dimension of Orley Taitz but your thesis goes further than her delusions. You equate Socialism with sedition and expect it to stand on your say so. Now you try your hand at amateur developmental psychology and for all we know you have yet to stop beating your wife and children. Son, your Liberutopian Inanities make for good comedy, but aren't you overdue for the Lew Rockwell Rank on Lincoln Drunk Fest
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 11, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to glblank
For the record I didn't even hear the name "Lew Rockwell" until you brought it up! I have come to my own conclusions about why socialism is sedition based on my own research, not on any conservative or republican think tank. In fact no other conservative has really discussed this grave issue but me!
You seem to have completely ignored my factual post so engaging in a honest debate with you might be a complete waste of time, give me 3 reasons why I should debate you on the merits of why socialism is sedition?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 11, 2010 10:03 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
The fact remains that you have been proven wrong by SCOTUS and that attempts by Woodrow Wilson to make it sedition was ruled unconstitutional and that the Espionage Act narrowly defined sedition with regards language and not to the politics of what was then German-American Socialism. And you still have not provided ANY evidence of Obama's socialism other than guilt by association and the sophistry that his parents and preacher were socialists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 12, 2010 2:10 AM in reply to glblank
I’m not speaking of sedition as a crime but by but by definition, if am to take SCOTUS seriously then seditious speech or language and sedition itself is protected by the Constitution. But I’m speaking of sedition against the constitution’s 'republican form of government' without going thru the Article V Amendment process, this is a novel concept yet to debated in depth.
Nonsense I provided enough evidence for any fair minded person to digest smoothly. Would Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush appoint known Marxist to their Administrations? Of course not, Obama has appointed known Marxists and Socialists to his Administration because they share his political views and objectives.
Spread the Wealth Around
Presidents that believe in our free market system do not believe in spreading the wealth around by government programs. It’s the private sectors job to create wealth, not the governments’. Obama reveal to Joe the Plumber his true socialistic plans for America.
Obama 2001 Radio Interview
“Economic Justice and Change”, “Redistribution of Wealth” and “Social Justice” are code words for Socialism; to deny this would either make you a stupid, a liar or a progressive who is under orders not to validate conservatism.What kind of President is willing to admit to being a one term president, a radical one who has been caught in his socialism?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 2:44 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
"But I’m speaking of sedition against the constitution’s 'republican form of government' without going thru the Article V Amendment process, this is a novel concept yet to debated in depth."
I told you before, its not possible to have sedition against a constitution. The Sedition acts in world war 1 SPECIFICALLY left out the constitution as something you could have sedition against.
As for "this is a novel concept yet to debated in depth." That's flowery language for "I just made up this crappy concept and havent dared throw it in front of a laywer in case he laughs in my face"
In other words, I think Butterflies have Human rights and should live in houses with a jacuzzi. This is a novel concept yet to debated in depth.
"Obama reveal to Joe the Plumber his true socialistic plans for America."
He was revealing Kensian economics, you uneducated buffoon. No that does not mean its from Kenya.
"Nonsense I provided enough evidence for any fair minded person to digest smoothly...."
As for all the so called Marxists he has surrounded himself with... NAMES. EVIDENCE. Yammering that Genn Beck said it once does not make it true.
The fact is that you are throwing around baseless accusations with no proof. All the proof you have given is you saying he has surrounded himself with Marxists. That's it. Your word. Which is as worthless as your oath, as you and I have seen.
"What kind of President is willing to admit to being a one term president,"
A good one
"Economic Justice and Change”, “Redistribution of Wealth” and “Social Justice” are code words for Socialism"
Says who? What they ARE are concepts which Jesus instructed his followers to live by. Since Obama is a Christian, it makes sense he would use them in their correct definition.
You are a sad little man, just as sad as when you originally came on and were pretending that you could only stay a short time because you were being deployed. You were lying and all the quotes you pull out of your ass does not disguise that.
Your line is "What is the definition of a living constitution?" or some other equally stupid question that means nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wial
July 11, 2010 10:30 AM
There are two kinds of socialism: that which doesn't trust humans not to be corrupt, as espoused by Adam Smith, and that which thinks humans are basically good and don't need thorough accountability, as espoused by Marx. One of the tragedies of history is the latter supplanted the former. Socialism with checks and balances intended to constrain the money power, as created by the founders on the United States, can work given constant vigilance. Socialism that puts undue faith in the working class and the vanguard of the revolution: not so much, obviously.
The American revolution was fought against the very people who are anti-socialist today, in particular against corporate power in the form of the East India Tea Company. Given British reactionary capitalism's weird reincarnation in the form of bp, isn't it past time we stopped America's manufactured narcissistic individualist nonsense and rescued our society from corporate stupidity again?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 11, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to wial
Nicely written.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 12, 2010 2:49 AM in reply to wial
Interesting thoughts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
July 11, 2010 3:38 PM
55% of the people are too dumb to know what a socialist is, but it sounds bad, so he must be one....along with a facist, a nazi, and the anti Christ...he's quite a multi-tasker!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
July 11, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to stillidealistic
No he is not the 'anti Christ', socialist yes anti Christ no!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?