What's the score in Obama's America?

[The Backlash Cometh]

I'm hearing the usual buzz words of too much polarization. I can see how Obama will be able to make his point understood as far as the right-wingers are concerned, because we're coming off eight years of reckless right-wing control, and even longer in right-wing media spinning. But I'm wondering how Obama expects to make any inroads with the Left? Where does he think he has any grounds to silence us when he has nothing to sink his teeth into? All he can do is ask us to be good victims and I don't think that's going to work.

[Uben]

1. Huh?

I've read a lot of praise of the man lately, so I can't fathom where you're coming from. Silence us? Good victims?

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. He was very effective last night.

I'm eager to see him stand up and be a good president for all of us, but, many of us have valid grievances. Ignoring them won't make things better. It might win him the next presidency, but it won't bring on lasting change.

[Little Star]

53. I too feel that I have valid grievances.....

I have not been very happy with the way many, many, many things are going. But he did a fantastic job last night. He set a good example of how we Dem's should be talking and acting regarding the vitriolic atmosphere of today.

Maybe we who are not happy should wait until this tragedy has some time to heal before we start raising our voices again. Who knows maybe some good will come out of his good leadership on this issue if we give it some time and try following his example in our everyday lives.

There is a time and place for everything. That said, we should NGU!

[derby378]

66. I wish we had the luxury of waiting for a few days

That, however, is assuming that the teabaggers are going to do the same thing, which they've already indicated is not going to happen.

I thought Obama's speech, though good, was far too conciliatory towards the extreme right. He may want our republic to by what little Christina always imagined it to be, but if we take a back seat to the teabaggers, that will always remain only a dream, nothing more.

[emulatorloo]

2. Maybe you should wait a few days before flying off the handle

"Where does he think he has any grounds to silence us"

Just step back, take a deep breath before you decide the left is the victim.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. You don't see it coming?

Maybe it's because I've stood in front of a crowd of people who couldn't handle the truth, that I know what the next move will be.

[emulatorloo]

14. No.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Okay. I'll be sure to PM you when it does.

We'll start a thread because the one question I will have for you is, what blocked you from seeing it?

[emulatorloo]

19. In the meantime why not drop the conspiratorial rhetoric

as in "Obama's secret plot to silence us". There really isn't any basis in fact for it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. I don't see it as a secret.

What do you think all that talk about the professional left was all about?

[emulatorloo]

23. Let's break down some things. First the President does not have the power to silence

people who express their opinions or assemble peaceable.

Secondly the "Professional Left" is people who make money shaping opinion. Opinion writers, Radio hosts, Television hosts, Bloggers that support themselves with their blogs. In other words, professional opinion shapers.

Gibbs was not the first press secretary to criticize press coverage and he won't be the last. While it may have seemed over the top, that is what it was.

As far as I know neither you nor I fit that description.

I've got some other thoughts on the issue but gotta run out to the doctor, Will check in with you later.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. Not sure there's much more to say.

Our points are clearly defined. We are now in a wait and see mode to find out who is correct on this issue.

[shraby]

3. I very rarely unrecommend..this is an exception.

Unrecced for divisive language in the post. That's not what Obama called for last night. The "too much polarization" talk is coming from the right wing and it's called "projection". Fergitaboutit.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. "Too much polarization," Didn't I just hear that from his press secretary?

[lamp_shade]

4. Why are you so unhappy today?

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Because I know, too well, some of Obama's campaign donaters.

Very powerful. Very unethical and I don't see him distancing himself from them.

[mmonk]

5. I doubt he will make many inroads with us politically.

He is seeking unity. It's a good theme for the nation in troubling times. But no, it doesn't address differences. But I'm sure the party will seek unity around the situation due to the banality of the present conservative movement from the other side of the aisle.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. He would have to be specific and relevant before I even considered it.

[mmonk]

11. That's not his style.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. What is his style? Generalities?

I don't see it.

[mmonk]

17. More or less as an inspirer of national unity.

But if the human condition doesn't improve here, it will fail unless people get a gut full of Republican behavior.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. The only thing that I would approve of, is stopping the irrational, violent

rhetoric from the right. I think it was allowed to get out of control when we had a president who was marching to war. He wanted people to react emotively. It didn't go well for us. If Obama wants to access the same emotive response, it might work for a little while, but it won't be lasting.

[mmonk]

21. No it won't last long.

My family has decided to be on the front lines of this corporate only run economy. At Catholic Parish Outreach at just one location where we volunteer, we feed some 190 or so families a day. Speeches won't fix that. Further compromise with an intransient right won't fix that. Only proper action will fix that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. We're on the same page.

[Skidmore]

6. Ah the mud of angst...

won't join you in the wallow. There's too much constructive work to do.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Define constructive?

I'm all for constructive if it means bringing integrity to our government. Very opposed if it means continuing the practices that make Assange so relevant these days.

[hfojvt]

25. maybe we should be silenced

if the only things we have to say are "fuck you" and other messages of hate and disrespect to the other sides.

This reminds me of the time that Coulter complained that the left used people like Michael J Fox that the right could not respond to. As if their only possible response is to attack the messenger rather than to answer the message.

If a person tries to limit their own hateful rhetoric, there is still a lot of things that can be said. Lies can still be answered with facts, and progressive policies can still be promoted and progressive principles expounded.

There are more than the two choices of either hate or silence.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. If all they have on us is the reactive "fuck you," to the things

they say and do, well, that's just lame.

Our moderators have been very active tombstoning Liberal opinions on DU that crossed the line of hate and disrespect, so I don't see how that argument can stick. At least not here.

But we do need to be aware that there are differences within the Democratic party. And it would be very unfortunate if the side that's in power attempted to silence "the other Democrats" because it hindered them from cutting deals that many of us see as detrimental.

[hfojvt]

35. again

you make it sound like the only way to complain about bad deals is with hate speech http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138

[The Backlash Cometh]

39. You may be hearing that, but I'm not saying that at all.

I do, however, believe that the proper reaction to the right-wing's irrational reasoning is sometimes a good, What the fuck!

Jon Stewart illustrates this response to perfection. If you consider this hate speech, so be it.

[hfojvt]

41. you implied it though

that somehow the left is being asked to shut up. That asking for less hateful rhetoric is the same as asking for silence.

And a :wtf: is worlds away from a "fuck you" even if they do use the same expletive. One says "that's absurd" and the other says "I hate you".

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

The "F" word has not risen to the level of hate speech, in the way the "N" word has. Here is the definition of hate speech:

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.<1><2> In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

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

[hfojvt]

43. I didn't say anything about legal definitions

what I said was about the meaning of a phrase. "Fuck white people" may not be considered hate speech even if you replace the skin color in the phrase, but it certainly means "I hate white people" or "I hate 'blank' people".

although from reading that it seems like the only reason that "fuck white people" is not considered hate speech would be because white people are not one of those protected groups. So much for equal protection under the law.

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. Some day, hfojvt, some day soon, things will change and your words will

have validity.

However, I know that on DU, there's a balance. Most of the time, words as you wrote them, are not acceptable. I know because I generally write to the edge of the definition, having to be specific about who I'm referring to whenever I "go there." Every time I have made references to white males, or white people, I'm referring to a very defined category:

Angry white male

Angry white male or AWM is a term which typifies a white male who holds traditional conservative views, especially in the context of U.S. politics and opposition to racial quotas, political correctness, liberalism, reverse discrimination, and affirmative action and other policies viewed as discriminatory or harmful.<1><2>

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

This is why there's a danger in getting into the linguistic games you're playing, because, at least in this day and age, the definition is valid.

[hfojvt]

57. its kinda hard for me to figure out what the fuck you mean

If anyone is playing linguistic games, it seems to be you. I am saying quite straightforward that the phrase "fuck you" is generally equivalent to "I hate you".

Your counter-argument seems to me to go all over the map into hate speech into definitions of angry white male, etc. And yet I am the one playing games?

Further, whatever the technical definition of angry white male is, it's pretty hard for me not to think that applies to me since I get angry whenever the Yankees win another pennant. Also, I am generally angry about the circumstances of my life too. The fact that I generally work shitty, low paying jobs, and have a non-existent love life.

[The Backlash Cometh]

58. Okay. I'm glad you put it in those terms.

No, I don't think "fuck you" is equivalent to "I hate you." I listen to Jon Stewart and I love listening to the British and they use it fluidly. Can someone say it in anger? Yes. Lots of things can be said in anger. But that doesn't make "fuck you" a hate word. I gave you the definition of hate speech to explain why. If you disagree, we could always start a thread and see what others think.

I referred you to a definition because definitions are used as a reference. It's what people do when they try to find a higher authority to resolve a difference of opinion. I didn't realize that looking for a primary source was considered "playing games." I see it as using logic.

I think the definition of angry white male is very clear. I'm sorry about your circumstances, but if you're a conservative white male who doesn't care for liberal values, maybe this is the wrong forum for you?

[mmonk]

34. They have been mindframed. That means you can't argue with them

and they change their minds. They have to actually see cause and effect. That is where we fail with centrism.

[hfojvt]

38. I don't think they were framed

I think they actually did the crime. In fact, I think the crime was part of a co-ordinated plan. An operation, as it were.


In my experinece though, it is pretty hard to change anybody's mind if they are over ten years old, and you probably cannot change the younger people's mind either. They still think you are wrong, but your superior size trumps them.

[Poll_Blind]

26. His entire stance with the Left is a play for the Center, and 2012.

Left gets you elected, Center gets you re-elected. At least according to that playbook.

PB

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. The next couple of years will be interesting.

[Poll_Blind]

29. They might be interesting but I do not think they will be surprising, given the last two years.

These next two years are going to be filled with some of the deepest cuts to social services since Bush. It's going to be a bloodbath for the middle class and the poor. And I can't be sure of it but I feel that the "President's Address to the Nation on the Topic of Our Austerity Program" will come, will have to come before the 2012 elections, if not much sooner.

PB

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. I'm really getting the impression that the Obama Administration for Lefty causes

is like eating a lot of empty filo.

[Poll_Blind]

31. Well, there's one last bit of legislation which will give a definitive answer on him, IMO.

And that is how all of this plays out with the Debt Ceiling. If he pushes through cuts on Social Security & social program while keeping the military budgets uncut or cut only in the most meager way, then having a (D) in front of his name will have only been the thinnest of political veneers. I am through with politicians who don't deliver.

My rep is Peter DeFazio, my Senator is Ron Wyden. Both of those politicians deliver for the Left.

PB

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. Another game of wait.

Thanks for the info.

[Poll_Blind]

33. Well this one is going to be over fairly soon because the government's just about out of dough.

We won't have to wait 6 months to learn how all this shakes out. I'm actually thinking sometime less than two months more.

PB

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Thanks for the head's up.

[wiggs]

36. He knows, as well as we do, about which party is responsible for more hate-filled

rhetoric. He sees all the death threat briefings. He is on record (to his dismay) about his feelings toward Fox. He gets security information that would likely stun the public regarding all the RW splinter groups and lone wolves. His non-confrontational, centrist sense of calm is likely pricked every day, every hour by toxic RW rhetoric.

He knows. He hopes the right can be better, but BELIEVES the left can be more helpful...can be the bigger player, can be the big brother (no pun intended) to the right wings pesky little brat. He is trying to get the country to drag the RW by the hair forward into a better future...I bet he knows that Kyl, Hannity, McConnell, Bachmann, etc are lost causes.

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. If he were to direct his criticism to the people who are creating the problem, he would have more

success in bringing attention to it.

But collective punishment will not work, especially in this case.

On the other hand, maybe Obama would have more success if he realized that the Democrats who have been most complicit with the right-wing ARE Centrists.

[wiggs]

50. I personally agree with you but PO clearly thinks that more can be

achieved by not fanning flames right now, even if justified.

His approach to government as a process of compromise, give and take (even when giving is not good policy), accommodating different points of view, bringing everyone to the table, optimizing communication, etc may be frustrating to me and you but it represents a way forward for him.

[TheKentuckian]

71. If he believes that then he needs to give up on the magic mushrooms or wake up

Big brother to the pesky little brats?!? Cereal?

If Kyle is a lost cause the Dittohead with the slow clock speed ain't got much hope either.

I don't get what about IT DOESN'T WORK folks can't get. What is different to expect new results?

[JoePhilly]

44. Obama's approval with liberals is at about what, 75% isn't it??

Seems like a pretty good "in-road" with the left.

How is he trying to "silence" the left?

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. Post your link, please.

There's no reason why we can't support him, and still voice our disagreement with portions of his agenda. Wow. You don't suggest that we should stand around mute, do you? The way we were asked to remain mute when Bush was orchestrating an unnecessary war?

[emulatorloo]

47. Jan 3 - 9, Gallup: Obama Job Approval - Liberal Democrat 87%

Liberal Democrat 87%
Moderate Democrat 78%
Conservative Democrat 71%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. Post somebody else than Gallup.

They fudge their polls, by not getting equal samples of the groups for a fair representation.

However, explain why we can't have differences with Obama even if we would say we approved of his presidency during a poll?

[emulatorloo]

49. Can't find any polls that separate Dems out like gallup does

Maybe you can turn up something.

As to gallup from what I remember there were questions about their "likely voter" model and whether it was representative or not.

I don't believe there was an issue with their standard polling. This is standard polling, not "likely voter"

=====

I think for most people agree with your question (Approve Obama while having differences w Obama). I think that is true.

ON EDIT formatting thing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

52. I began to dislike Gallup long before we realized how lopsided they

were polling Republicans over Democrats. A right-winger I know considered him a role model. That was my tip-off.

I think the most civil conclusion on the other thing, is that we can still approve of Obama in a general poll, but still have grounds for disagreement on specific programs.

[JoePhilly]

51. Demand a poll, then when handed one, complain ... Bwahahahaha!!!

As for your question about disagreements or differences with Obama ...

You can have all the differences you want. If there are enough points of disagreement, then you will likely answer DISAPPROVE, if there are not enough points of disagreement, then you will likely answer APPROVE.

Pretty simple really.

Now, if you asked the question ... "Do you have any policy disagreements with Obama", you will likely get an answer above 50% for sure.

Regardless, you claimed that Obama needs to make "in roads" with the left, using no data of your own to prove such "in roads" are needed.

When presented with data that refutes your "data free" assertion that Obama needs to make "in roads", you complain.

[The Backlash Cometh]

54. Anybody but Gallup.

You can do a search on my posts and see I'm consistent on that issue.

Refresh my memory. Which post are you referring to where I said that Obama needs to make in roads with the left? I'll pick it up from there.

[JoePhilly]

55. Its right there in your original OP ...

"But I'm wondering how Obama expects to make any inroads with the Left?"

Why would Obama need to make inroads with the left, unless he has a very large deficit there? You have a poll for that?

Also ... let's take this IPSOs poll from Jan 1-7 ...
http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10326

Obama approval among Democrats is 77% Approve, 20% Disapprove.

That 20% disapprove can't all be "the left", but let's assume that most of it, say 75%, is disappointed folks from the left (I think that is generous). You end up with 15% of dems on the left who disapprove of Obama, with 5% of centrist dems seeing him as too liberal.

For your claim to make sense, the left has to be large, and it has to disprove of Obama in large numbers (requiring him to make "inroads"), but there is nothing in the Gallup, or the ipsos poll to lead to such a conclusion.

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. Oh, I see the disconnect.

Stay within the context of the paragraph in the original post. I'm specifically questioning his chances for success in using the Gifford shooting to change the tone coming from Left-wingers, since the problem of violent rhetoric is exclusively right-leaning.

Capiche?

[JoePhilly]

59. Actually, no.

He doesn't need to make inroads with the left to change their tone. Their tone is fine.

So why would his "chances for success" be low?

How could he be unsuccessful doing something he didn't need to do in the first place?

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. Now we go back to an argument that has been covered by others in the above threads.

I do see an agenda. Others, like you, apparently don't. So I will end this the way I ended it with the other poster. We will wait and see in the coming days and weeks how Obama will frame what he means by toning down the rhetoric, or more to the point, how he intends to apply that to the Left.

[JoePhilly]

61. Do you anticpate the left using violent rhetoric?

I don't.

Does anyone on the left demonize Obama? Not really.

Do some on the left complain endlessly? Yes.

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Strawman argument--the first two.

The last one is just silly.

We'll see. Time will tell who is correct.

[JoePhilly]

63. Can you tell me what "time will tell???"

I can't figure out what future event you are predicting ...

So just spell it out.

[The Backlash Cometh]

65. I would just be repeating the original post.

[JoePhilly]

67. So nothing ... gotcha.

[The Backlash Cometh]

68. Watch the talk shows.

We will agree to disagree. You're just being rude.

[JoePhilly]

69. I'm "rude"?

You have not predicted anything. At least nothing of substance.

And your "watch the talk shows" statement could not be more shallow of a response.

Agree to disagree ... sure ...

[The Backlash Cometh]

70. We have a disagreement. If how you're handling this disagreement is

any example of what we can expect from Obama's America, it's not reassuring.

[JoePhilly]

72. Of course ...

Because I called for your violent death or the death of those who agree with you ... oh wait ... no, that did not happen.

So maybe because I called you names ... oh wait ... no, that did not happen either.

So it must be because I called you "rude" ... oh wait, no ... that's what you called me.

The fact that your argument fails, doesn't make me rude or violent.

[The Backlash Cometh]

73. Just because you don't have the experiences yet to acknowledge my

point of view, does not make you right. It just makes you closed minded.

[treestar]

64. How can he silence you?

He has been hearing your complaints over every single issue for two years now.

[blindpig]

74. Score? The Rich 100, The People 0.5 n/t