Memory fails. When was the last time that an act of Congress spawned a flood of media advertisements against a law, rather than a candidate? Suddenly, there are a thousand little outfits like Americans For Crunchy Goodness, The Freedom and Liberty God Group, Americans United to Beat the Dutch, and dozens of others. Like a more loathsome variety of mushroom, they spring up. And I mean thousands figuratively, but maybe dozens literally. Who knows, maybe hundreds…
And they are all the same thing, Pete and repeat and repeat, Tweedledumb and Tweedlebatshit. You cannot remember hearing of them before, and will not likely remember if you do hear of them again. And you can give all the money you want to them! How free is that for freedom, your money is speech, and you can yell as loud as you want to, so longs your checks clear!
The ordinary folks who are most fiercely opposed to the ACA are also the most ill-informed. Now this is a bit surprising, because it seems to me that, in the past, people were most fiercely opposed to things they did, more or less, understand. People know what they hate about gay marriage, reproductive rights, making God illegal, stuff like that.
So, anyway, when was the last time there was a major political advertising effort against a particular piece of legislation, and/or one that was actually already law? Can’t remember one, but then maybe I’m having a puppy moment.
From the perspective of a high schooler, almost every person my age puts the blame on the GOP. This isn’t an informed decision. It’s a combination of the media and the liberal rhetoric of many teachers.
Personally, I think the Republicans are throwing up a hail mary here. I don’t see it working out well for them.
What should perhaps matter most is what effect the shut down is having on public opinion. The numbers Gingerich selectively uses do not inform on that. There are other numbers to consider.
Let’s start by looking at '95. Gingerich had already managed to drive GOP congressional disapproval pretty high, from only 28% at the end of '94 to 51% *before *the shut downs began. Disapproval went up a bit more with the shutdowns … a few more points. Obama went from a 48% approval in in 10/95 to 55% afterwards in 3/96. The spread of his approval to disapproval went from +6 to +17
Now here’s another pollto consider that shows some early before and after this time.
The more damning part though is where it has come from:
Don’t feel comfortable with who calls themselves “independent” nowadays? Okay.
Before afters on disapproval …
Among moderates unchanged for Democrats and +7 for the GOP.
Among “somewhat conservatives” +5 for Democrats and +10 for the GOP.
Yes this plays well to the “very conservative” core that never swing any which way. And on the Democratic side to the liberal base even more so. Both sides’ cores are revved and angry. But the effect on those who may vote either way, those people who at the start had no clear preformed take on it, that segment that decide elections, before and after has been large. They are developing much greater disgust for the GOP than for anyone else.
Yes. Responsibility implies expectation of follow through, of taking positive action.
A person can be blamed - yelled at, called names, punished, ostracized, ignored without being held to task. That seems to be the level the gang is functioning at presently.
I do understand that the definition in the dictionary is similar. But blame, I think, implies an element of emotional expenditure for someone else’s behavior.
“Blame stresses censure, punishment.” These are not necessarily productive of resolution.
Can I just point out, there’s also a big difference between “angry at” and “blame”
I can be angry at the Dems for “creating an environment where the Republicans think they can get away with this” even as I blame the Republicans for shutting down govt.
He would probably beg off on the grounds of insufficient data. Remember, in the election tumult, there were oodles of polls, lots of number to crunch. And over an extended period of time. And polls of any value are expensive.
So, what we got here is more or less immediate, hence transitory, and not very much grist for the mill. That’s probably what he would say, but he would accept your check for saying it.
But there should be more polls on this topic coming fairly quickly to start looking at data. And he’s pretty good at looking at sources, questions, and methodology on a single poll to say “nah, that one is bullshit, look at the questions - and its a sample of people who were home at 3 in the afternoon!” I can do that, but not with nearly the expertise.
Most people, at some level, believe that ultimately, the party in the White House should shape policy. Even in a deeply polarized political climate.
If you’ve become deaf to the spin and the rhetoric, it sort of seems to boil down to the party that lost shutting down the government to get their way. Even a child in a school yard could recognize that, I think.
So yeah, you can dress it up a lot of ways, but ultimately that’s what I think people are seeing. They can also, pretty clearly see, for themselves, how this will effect the entire economy. I think a lot of people struggled through a bad recession and aren’t amused to see them pulling this shit. I also think people have been longing, for two administrations for OBama to finally draw a line in the sand and call them on some stuff.
I’ve been waiting for Obama to, if you’ll excuse the sexist expression, grow a pair when it comes to dealing with the Tea-liban and their Republican minions.
Not that simple. Not so sure I would have wanted JFKs actions to have been determined by his level of testosterone. History indicates this is often incompatible with reasoning. My history, at any rate.
If he can’t find some sort of face-saving sop to offer them, and he stands up them, and they really do burn the whole thing down…how much comfort will it be to him that he grew a pair? And he can’t even know, can he? Nothing like this has really ever happened, how can anyone reliably and reasonably predict the consequences? Suppose every body takes a “we’ll muddle through for a bit, they’ll come around” and they do come around? Maybe not so bad. Other hand, it only takes one lemming to panic the herd.
Is growing a pair and standing firm more important than preventing a catastrophe when you don’t even know how big the catastrophe might be? I’m glad that decision is his and not mine, and that, in a nutshell, is why I voted for him. If he has to eat some shit in order to prevent a total meltdown, I expect him to say “Here’s my spoon, here’s my grin, bring it!”
John McCain would stand firm, jut out his chin and dare them to shoot. Which is another reason I didn’t vote for him.
