Why do political pundits and commentators keep saying things like (these aren't direct quotes):

'Obama ran from the middle.'

'Obama portrayed himself as more moderate, and not an extreme liberal, and that's why he was elected.'

'President Obama has moved way to the left, and that is why his popularity is sagging - because he isn't being true to the more centrist position that he represented during the campaign.'


Are you kidding me? Are people really that oblivious, or do they just have short memories? Did I miss something? Didn't Obama run as an extreme liberal, at least fiscally speaking? Didn't everything he said give us cause to believe, or create the impression, that he was going to be an extreme radical leftist, fiscally speaking? Now, I'll admit that I didn't go out of my way to pay attention to the political goings on surrounding the campaign - but I heard enough that there was no doubt in my mind where Obama was ideologically.

If you voted for him because you thought he was going to be a fiscal centrist, then I have grave concerns about your general awareness and ability to digest what is going on around you. If anything, President Obama has governed from a less fiscally liberal place than his campaign rhetoric might have had us believe - that's not to say he hasn't come off as a radical fiscal liberal, but he presented as such when he was campaigning.

Somebody help me out here. Having not played golf this morning I actually suffered through a little bit of early Sunday morning political commentary, and I felt like I'd been Alice in Wonderland - like I'd somehow lived through a different reality then other people had. Am I the crazy one, or are we getting what we expected when we elected President Obama?

Why do political pundits and commentators keep saying things like (these aren't direct quotes):

'Obama ran from the middle.'

'Obama portrayed himself as more moderate, and not an extreme liberal, and that's why he was elected.'

'President Obama has moved way to the left, and that is why his popularity is sagging - because he isn't being true to the more centrist position that he represented during the campaign.'


Are you kidding me? Are people really that oblivious, or do they just have short memories? Did I miss something? Didn't Obama run as an extreme liberal, at least fiscally speaking? Didn't everything he said give us cause to believe, or create the impression, that he was going to be an extreme radical leftist, fiscally speaking? Now, I'll admit that I didn't go out of my way to pay attention to the political goings on surrounding the campaign - but I heard enough that there was no doubt in my mind where Obama was ideologically.

If you voted for him because you thought he was going to be a fiscal centrist, then I have grave concerns about your general awareness and ability to digest what is going on around you. If anything, President Obama has governed from a less fiscally liberal place than his campaign rhetoric might have had us believe - that's not to say he hasn't come off as a radical fiscal liberal, but he presented as such when he was campaigning.

Somebody help me out here. Having not played golf this morning I actually suffered through a little bit of early Sunday morning political commentary, and I felt like I'd been Alice in Wonderland - like I'd somehow lived through a different reality then other people had. Am I the crazy one, or are we getting what we expected when we elected President Obama?

I am so sorry to have to break this to you, but THIS is the crux of the issue. The majority of people in our country simply do not do this. They are so involved in the minutiae of daily life that the larger picture involved in understanding the politics escapes them. I try to believe that it is not because they do not care, but because they do not have or take the time to do a little research before they vote. Their decisions are made based upon those little 10 second sound-bites that come across their TV screens. Political campaigns for the most part these days are not about the issues, they are about who "sounds" the best in that short little period of time, or whoever "seems'' to be the one who will win. In many cases, when it comes time to actually talk about issues and concrete suggestions for working through them, things get uncomfortable and the personal insults start flying to deflect attention away from the uncomfortableness. Politics these days is not a rational discussion of issues and possible solutions -- it is, quite simply, who's got the better propaganda.

No, you are not crazy.:coffee:

Why do political pundits and commentators keep saying things like (these aren't direct quotes):

'Obama ran from the middle.'

'Obama portrayed himself as more moderate, and not an extreme liberal, and that's why he was elected.'

'President Obama has moved way to the left, and that is why his popularity is sagging - because he isn't being true to the more centrist position that he represented during the campaign.'


Are you kidding me? Are people really that oblivious, or do they just have short memories? Did I miss something? Didn't Obama run as an extreme liberal, at least fiscally speaking? Didn't everything he said give us cause to believe, or create the impression, that he was going to be an extreme radical leftist, fiscally speaking? Now, I'll admit that I didn't go out of my way to pay attention to the political goings on surrounding the campaign - but I heard enough that there was no doubt in my mind where Obama was ideologically.

If you voted for him because you thought he was going to be a fiscal centrist, then I have grave concerns about your general awareness and ability to digest what is going on around you. If anything, President Obama has governed from a less fiscally liberal place than his campaign rhetoric might have had us believe - that's not to say he hasn't come off as a radical fiscal liberal, but he presented as such when he was campaigning.

Somebody help me out here. Having not played golf this morning I actually suffered through a little bit of early Sunday morning political commentary, and I felt like I'd been Alice in Wonderland - like I'd somehow lived through a different reality then other people had. Am I the crazy one, or are we getting what we expected when we elected President Obama?


To many commentators Obama is, in fact, a middle of the road character...from THEIR perspective.

Your view, my view, the view of a 20 year old, a 60 year old, regional bias, educational back ground, the simple fact is that many 'journalists' have liberal arts backgrounds and that means they explored and studied life and history from a profoundly left wing, socialist viewpoint. To them, confiscating the profits of an oil company is not some controversial new idea they've never considered. Hell, they've studied TAKING over the companies so, a tax is a huge compromise.

Look at taxes themselves. For over a generation, most journalists discuss tax cuts from the view of whether or not the GOVERNMENT can afford it!

Obama is, to many people is, clearly, a very left leaning potus, perhaps our most socialistic, ever. Those type of people are not, by and large, journalism majors who think it is a fine idea for the government to dictate health insurance, industrial policy and control the speech of those hostile to those ideas.

Our media is profoundly, deeply left wing, socialist, not so much in the actual end product, though most is clearly left leaning. Our medias real ideology is in the beliefs and backgrounds of those who hold the microphone, write the columns, help shape the opinions. The reactions. The nuanced. The way a question is framed.

It's funny your brought this up because I was about to start a thread about this very thing, journalists and lying, what it might be like to actual lie for a living, day after day, story after story and know it, live with it, justify it, or, at the very least, be in such deep denial about ones own objectivity.

This is deeply, critically important to these folks, the lies they help spin. They believe, true or not, that their views, the ones they are supporting, are SO important that, even if they are in denial, even if they know they are spinning, that the ends justify the means.

At the end of the day, their bottom line justification is that their opponents, their enemies, are doing the same thing, they must be, thus, it's a simple matter of winning or losing, truth be damned.

:buddies:

Two sayings come to mind:

Perception is reality.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

To many commentators Obama is, in fact, a middle of the road character...from THEIR perspective.

Your view, my view, the view of a 20 year old, a 60 year old, regional bias, educational back ground, the simple fact is that many 'journalists' have liberal arts backgrounds and that means they explored and studied life and history from a profoundly left wing, socialist viewpoint. To them, confiscating the profits of an oil company is not some controversial new idea they've never considered. Hell, they've studied TAKING over the companies so, a tax is a huge compromise.

Look at taxes themselves. For over a generation, most journalists discuss tax cuts from the view of whether or not the GOVERNMENT can afford it!

Obama is, to many people is, clearly, a very left leaning potus, perhaps our most socialistic, ever. Those type of people are not, by and large, journalism majors who think it is a fine idea for the government to dictate health insurance, industrial policy and control the speech of those hostile to those ideas.

Our media is profoundly, deeply left wing, socialist, not so much in the actual end product, though most is clearly left leaning. Our medias real ideology is in the beliefs and backgrounds of those who hold the microphone, write the columns, help shape the opinions. The reactions. The nuanced. The way a question is framed.

It's funny your brought this up because I was about to start a thread about this very thing, journalists and lying, what it might be like to actual lie for a living, day after day, story after story and know it, live with it, justify it, or, at the very least, be in such deep denial about ones own objectivity.

This is deeply, critically important to these folks, the lies they help spin. They believe, true or not, that their views, the ones they are supporting, are SO important that, even if they are in denial, even if they know they are spinning, that the ends justify the means.

At the end of the day, their bottom line justification is that their opponents, their enemies, are doing the same thing, they must be, thus, it's a simple matter of winning or losing, truth be damned.

:buddies:

Back when I took a journalism class in college (part of communications minor), the major thrust of the entire class was learning how to be objective. That the sole task of the reporter was to "report" the story by relating facts. We were to take all steps necessary to keep any type of bias out of our stories. Of course, I was constantly getting into trouble with my stories because I was, as the Professor put it, "too fond of using descriptive language that led the reader towards forming an opinion on one side of the issue". He hammered me all semester with that message. The man knew what he was talking about, having been editor of a newspaper for many, many years. Unfortunately, that was in the late '70's. I shudder to think what the same class would be like now. We have slid far down the slippery slope of "political correctness" -- oops, there I go again! :lmao:

Back when I took a journalism class in college (part of communications minor), the major thrust of the entire class was learning how to be objective. That the sole task of the reporter was to "report" the story by relating facts. We were to take all steps necessary to keep any type of bias out of our stories.

And that means that the folks who pursued journalism as a profession damn well know this, inside out, right?

Which then means they intentionally lie, distort and color stories.

Why do political pundits and commentators keep saying things like (these aren't direct quotes):

'Obama ran from the middle.'

'Obama portrayed himself as more moderate, and not an extreme liberal, and that's why he was elected.'

'President Obama has moved way to the left, and that is why his popularity is sagging - because he isn't being true to the more centrist position that he represented during the campaign.'


Are you kidding me? Are people really that oblivious, or do they just have short memories? Did I miss something? Didn't Obama run as an extreme liberal, at least fiscally speaking? Didn't everything he said give us cause to believe, or create the impression, that he was going to be an extreme radical leftist, fiscally speaking? Now, I'll admit that I didn't go out of my way to pay attention to the political goings on surrounding the campaign - but I heard enough that there was no doubt in my mind where Obama was ideologically.

If you voted for him because you thought he was going to be a fiscal centrist, then I have grave concerns about your general awareness and ability to digest what is going on around you. If anything, President Obama has governed from a less fiscally liberal place than his campaign rhetoric might have had us believe - that's not to say he hasn't come off as a radical fiscal liberal, but he presented as such when he was campaigning.

Somebody help me out here. Having not played golf this morning I actually suffered through a little bit of early Sunday morning political commentary, and I felt like I'd been Alice in Wonderland - like I'd somehow lived through a different reality then other people had. Am I the crazy one, or are we getting what we expected when we elected President Obama?

It seems to me people are easily molded. Eight years of beating up Bush on everything from the war, to Katrina, to global warming, to being a radical right-wing extremist (which he is far from it), failure, after failure, etc… Then you get a new guy come along. He was an unknown; having the appearance of not being enamored in the old-school of politics (when in reality he is). And a glorious song that everyone wanted to hear: CHANGE! And he is African-American. He represented everything that people were ready for: Change from 8 years of Bush and breaking that racial barrier. All the other rhetoric – running from the middle, moderate, etc… - was simply used to add fuel to the persuasive fire. Everyone was so focused on the social aspect of the race that the real issues were just not that important.

I wont even get into the "the country is left-leaning" bit, because I'm not in the mood to get into it with Larry :lol:

Obama has basically stuck to what he said he was going to do. I think people who voted for him are just pissed off because they didn't think he would...that or they were just blind and voted him because he is black or a Democrat. To be fair, how often do people stick with what they're campaigning? Usually they just dream some dreams that can't be realized and people figure those dreams are delusional and won't happen. But when you have the same party dominating the Executive and Legislative branches, bad policy can become reality. OOPS!

And that means that the folks who pursued journalism as a profession damn well know this, inside out, right?

Which then means they intentionally lie, distort and color stories.

ahhh, where to start...

Yes, they should be learning it in college.
Then, they get a job with a newspaper or television station.
The newspaper or television station is kept alive by advertising money.
The higher their circulation, the higher the fees they can charge for advertising.
Circulation is boosted when people buy the paper or watch the television station.
People buy or watch when there is something exciting to watch.
Reporters, writers, etc. are under orders from management to make things "exciting" so the bottom line stays manageable and everyone stays employed and in business.
This requires seeking the most sensational angle which oftentimes requires "jazzing up" reality, which means ditching the "just the facts" angle.

This then sets up "Ratings wars" which exacerbates and escalates the "sensationalism" factor until we end up wherre we are today.

How do we get out of this spiral? No clue! Most solutions I can think of are even worse -- taking the money factor out involves "someone" with money stepping up & saying "screw this -- I'm reporting the facts & just the facts and the hell with all the rest of this stuff". Would people watch or listen? Who knows? And that's assuming that you could find someone who's willing to step up for the cause & basically just piss away money for no return. Probably not going to happen. Could do a government-sponsored just the facts but we all know how "accurate & unbiased" that one would be. I don't know the answer other than it won't get any better until the financial reward piece gets taken out of the equation.


Damn, now I'm really depressed, thanks!

Twin Oaks is correct in that most of the people of the United States who vote,only listen to the sound bytes.

Reporters were hypnotised by this Kenyan who sounded like he was bright and had new ideas. Now they are beginning to awaken and see what they missed. The few honest ones are admitting that they let themslves be mass hypnotised into believeing Obama was in the middle of the road. The dishonest ones will never admit their error and they are still covering for themselves by covering for Obama.

In 4 years we will be so screwed that it really wont make a whole lot of difference .
If Obama thinks he inherited a mess it wont be anything to the mess he leaves. Trillions in debt, the dollar not worth a nickel, and still buying energy from Saudi's who hate our guts. Oh!!! Yeah we will have Chinese Windmills running and supplying .01% of our energy needs.

Obama has basically stuck to what he said he was going to do. I think people who voted for him are just pissed off because they didn't think he would...that or they were just blind and voted him because he is black or a Democrat. To be fair, how often do people stick with what they're campaigning? Usually they just dream some dreams that can't be realized and people figure those dreams are delusional and won't happen. But when you have the same party dominating the Executive and Legislative branches, bad policy can become reality. OOPS!

Gitmo? Still open.
Wars? About to expand, to end.
Economy? Worse.
Race relations? Race baiter in chief
New politics? Not so much.
Lobbyists? More than ever
Windfall taxes on oil? Nope
Bush under investigation? Not yet
Cheney in jail? Not yet
Cap and trade? Not yet.
Socialized medicine? Not yet.

Gitmo? Still open.
Wars? About to expand, to end.
Economy? Worse.
Race relations? Race baiter in chief
New politics? Not so much.
Lobbyists? More than ever
Windfall taxes on oil? Nope
Bush under investigation? Not yet
Cheney in jail? Not yet
Cap and trade? Not yet.
Socialized medicine? Not yet.

He's been working on some of the stuff he promised...I thought he was working on closing Gitmo and said we'd be out of the war in Iraq at some point...already handed some stuff to the Iraq military and government, as well as trying to get them back on their feet in other ways. His focus was more on leaving Iraq than Afghanistan.

Economy...he did the bailouts. His campaign wasn't simply "I will make the economy better!" -- it was how he would do that. He's been working on that part. But hey, everyone said bailouts will start off hurting before they help. Time will tell. We can only hope, for our sake.

Bush and Cheney? Who gives a crap. There are more important things to focus on...like the economy and some wars, among others. He's been working on the whole medicine and medical coverage crap.

Basically you're saying he isn't following anything he promised because he has been unable to succeed yet (even though he followed through with many of the methods he promised) or because he is still working on it? His campaigns are for a 4 year presidency, not a 10 month presidency. Same with every president. If I say I will make the economy 125% better in a campaign promise and state how, if I haven't done that in 10 months it doesn't mean it won't happen at the end of 4 years.

My point was that people didn't like some of the methods he promised, didn't think he'd be able to go through with them because they were crazy or unrealistic, but are now pissed because he's actually trying them and having a moderately successful push.

Oh and yeah, he's a race baiter for sure. If anything, racial relations have probably degraded because instead of bringing the races together, he made it a "black power" kind of thing.

He's been working on some of the stuff he promised...I thought he was working on closing Gitmo and said we'd be out of the war in Iraq at some point...already handed some stuff to the Iraq military and government, as well as trying to get them back on their feet in other ways. His focus was more on leaving Iraq than Afghanistan.

Economy...he did the bailouts. His campaign wasn't simply "I will make the economy better!" -- it was how he would do that. He's been working on that part. But hey, everyone said bailouts will start off hurting before they help. Time will tell. We can only hope, for our sake.

Bush and Cheney? Who gives a crap. There are more important things to focus on...like the economy and some wars, among others. He's been working on the whole medicine and medical coverage crap.

Basically you're saying he isn't following anything he promised because he has been unable to succeed yet (even though he followed through with many of the methods he promised) or because he is still working on it? His campaigns are for a 4 year presidency, not a 10 month presidency. Same with every president. If I say I will make the economy 125% better in a campaign promise and state how, if I haven't done that in 10 months it doesn't mean it won't happen at the end of 4 years.

My point was that people didn't like some of the methods he promised, didn't think he'd be able to go through with them because they were crazy or unrealistic, but are now pissed because he's actually trying them and having a moderately successful push.

Oh and yeah, he's a race baiter for sure. If anything, racial relations have probably degraded because instead of bringing the races together, he made it a "black power" kind of thing.

He said Gitmo closes day one.

He said the stimulus will keep unemployment at or under 8%.

I don't know of anyone who voted for him who doesn't like his methods. They all seem to be mad he's not doing ENOUGH of his 'methods', ie, socialism.

I don't expect him to get it all done right away but I will point out his own words, the things he was specific about.

:buddies:

He said Gitmo closes day one.

He said the stimulus will keep unemployment at or under 8%.

I don't know of anyone who voted for him who doesn't like his methods. They all seem to be mad he's not doing ENOUGH of his 'methods', ie, socialism.

I don't expect him to get it all done right away but I will point out his own words, the things he was specific about.

:buddies:

I thought he had a 1 year plan for Gitmo or something...and signed something that'd close it down shortly. You can't close a prison in 1 day. Looks like they're still working on the details: Senate Approves Plan to Transfer Gitmo Detainees to U.S. for Trial - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/20/senate-approves-plan-transfer-gitmo-detainees-trial/)

He may have said the stimulus would keep unemployment at or under X% and that it would improve the economy. My point is that the method he promised was the stimulus, while the results are always TBD.

Obviously some people want more "socialism" but there are a bunch of people who didn't even know his methods. You have the black people who voted for him because he was black and aren't seeing improvements...they're pissed. You have Dems who voted for him because he's a Dem...same thing there. You've got another group representing both parties (aka the Moderates) that figured the GOP went off the deep end and became too conservative so they were hoping Obama would be more moderate and they're pissed too. :shrug: