Sam, thank you for saying how I feel so eloquently.
That may be true, but I am more than twice as ready to admit the weaknesses of the other side, so it balances.
People have been saying this for 5-6 years now, and it hasn’t happened. I’ve been around for a bit, and the board has leaned a bit left the entire time.
So, I’m not buying it.
After all, you’re still here. The only conspicuous right-wing ideologues who have bailed have been the stupid ones.
Some of the stupid ones are still here. Most of the intelligent ones are still here. The board is still mostly left.
The latter does not surprise me.
[Partisan comment]People who put the seeking of truth and facts over ideology are more likely to be liberals. As Stephen Colbert put it, "facts have a well-known liberal bias.[/Partisan comment]
Seconded. Excellent post, Sam.
You know, Sam, if I were inclined to grow up, I’d want to be just like you. 
Thanks for a superb post.
I’ve got no huge problem with the rest of the quote, but what observations support the bolded opinion? What could Obama do or say to indicate to you that he’s in touch with small town America?
I ask because, in my assessment, small town concerns pretty much align with those articulated by Obama in his campaign. -The solutions he proposes don’t always align with small town thinking, but that doesn’t say “out of touch” to me as much as “coming from a different point of view.”
Sampiro - I’m so using Obamajadin. I probably won’t credit you.
Knorf - I’ve been around for a bit also, and I agree.
His statement that people in small town America cling to religion and guns instead of issues that should be more important to them is what I’m basing this on. He doesn’t seem to realize that a lot of working-class people really feel strongly about religion and gun control, and they’re not just being avoidant of their real problems. It gave the impression that he believed that if there was a good economy, good jobs, and good healthcare available to these people, religion and guns wouldn’t be as important to them, which I don’t think is true.
He didn’t say we cling to religion and guns to avoid our real problems. He said we vote on those issues because we feel we can exert some ballot-box control over them, unlike with the economy. He was talking about how inaction by Washington on real economic issues creates cynicism and apathy regarding government, and how that’s exploited through the use of “hot button” issues by equally cynical politicians.
Here’s Obama’s remarks in context as delivered at a fundraiser in California:
It was an unprepared remark made to a friendly crowd of supporters attempting to explain to them why blue collar workers (and small town Americans) are tough sells on promises of economic recovery. He admitted afterward that it was poorly phrased and not meant to denigrate the sensibilities he was describing, but the Clinton and McCain campaign had a field day with it any way.
Shouldn’t be a basis on which to judge the man’s understanding of small towners and working stiffs.
Trust me, we’ve lost a lot of very good conservative posters.
Or maybe the ones that are left are just more thick-skinned or stubborn and refuse to concede the ground.
The notion that the facts are all on your side is exactly the kind of close-minded dogma that I’m talking about. The minute you start believing your own press and assume that there’s no question you are right is the minute you stop learning and just become another voice in the echo chamber. I’m certain that statement won’t change your mind, because that partisan quip indicates that your mind is no longer capable of being changed.
I for one don’t think all the facts are on my side. I think some are. I’m a libertarian-conservative because I think on balance my analysis of what works and what doesn’t leads me there. But I’m not dogmatic about any single fact. I read a lot of conservative journals and books, and I’m fully aware of the power of confirmation bias. That’s why I come here. When I formulate an opinion, I have a strong desire to test it against others who don’t share the same beliefs to see what I may have missed.
Someone above just said that conservatives are unwilling to admit that Palin has any shortcomings. Well, that’s what a combative message board does - it polarizes people. My wife and I just finished having a nice calm discussion about Governor Palin’s various faults over supper. I certainly recognize them. Unfortunately, serious, reasoned discussion of them is impossible here, because I know the other side would not discuss them in good faith, or reciprocate with an honest discussion of Obama’s faults so that we could bat them back and forth like adults and educate ourselves. Instead, there would be jeering and sneering and anything I offered up would be used as ammunition against me and the other side would still give no ground.
The result is that the only debate that’s possible here is adversarial debate, where each side stakes out their unbending opinion and seeks to tear down the other side. It’s better than nothing, but it could be so much better if everyone was willing to behave like there was at least an outside chance that they don’t have all the answers and that the other side is populated by evil troglodytes who simply must be crushed at all cost.
I started out the McCain/Obama debates by declaring that I didn’t really have a favorite, and that I saw lots to like in Obama and lots to dislike in McCain. But the arguments for Obama and against McCain quickly became so strident and over the top that I along with everyone else was forced to choose a side and hold my ground with the rest. It’s either that, or be steamrollered.
That too is a damned shame.
It may be an unavoidable problem on a large message board. This may sound ‘elitist’, but far too many people hold incredibly strong political opinions based on sound bites and snippets of ‘facts’ they hear from their side. They are completely unable to hold a serious intellectual debate on the underlying issues or treat the subject with any kind of nuance. So perhaps it’s not surprising that when challenged they just become more strident and yell louder.
The level of anger someone brings to a debate is often correlated with a weak understanding of what it is they are debating. They are insecure and have no depth to their strongly-held beliefs, and have no choice but to defend them by dismissing the other side completely. It’s the internet equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and going, “lalalalalala”. There are people like this on both sides, and perhaps when a message board reaches a certain level of popularity you collect enough of them that they simply drown out the debate.
Just try to not be one of them.
ohmygod xeno!!! HI, guy!!!
Hey wring! What’s shakin’? Want a nice Chardonnay while you’re here?
absofuckinglutely!!! having one now, have the same email, still live in mid MI- let’s talk!!!
I don’t believe those issues are sublimated frustration from having no good jobs, though. There are people who are doing quite well, with no economic frustration, who feel that these issues (immigration, gun control, religion) are the most important. I can get that these issues may be more important to these people because they are cynical about either party’s ability to help their economic situation, but there are plenty of people who would vote against someone who they honestly believed would help the economy more than their opponent if that person was also for greater gun control.
Do you get the feeling that Obama does or doesn’t understand that? I acknowledge that he disagrees with that prioritization, but I don’t see any indication that he doesn’t understand it.
In that the Lefties win-Olbermann is far, far better looking than anyone on Fox.
I’m lucky in that I work for a lot of Republicans, in a fairly Red state (Kansas). Some of these folks I’ve known for 20 or more years, and we are able to have reasoned, respectful discussions and maintain our friendship. I don’t know if that is possible on a text forum.
By the way, one of my friends - a wealthy physician - has come around on the need for national health care.
At least on the SDMB we get to see actual political debate, something that has vanished from TV, where people shout talking points at each other, from both the left and right.
Hey, can I play? I’m havin’ a salad and some nice Pinot Grigio as we speak.
Hope you enjoy your wine, SA. (And that it’s not one of those really sweet Pinot Grigios, but one of the nice spicy, full bodied ones…)
[/non-partisan good will]
I couldn’t say, to tell you the truth. A certain woman I know who doesn’t like sweet anything doesn’t like it, but she didn’t complain that it was too sweet.
In fact, now that I think about it, none of the women I know don’t like any of the pinot grigios I’ve served them, and they almost always prefer the chardonnays.
Something to think about, huh?
P.S. - There’s an apartment house here called The Chardonnay. It has a beautiful, sandblasted wooden sign depicting RED grapes!!!
The horror! I can hardly stand it! 
[/non-partisan good will right back atcha]
Double post. Never mind.