Thoughts on Kathleen Sebelius:
The mere presence of Sebelius at the top of HHS will be enough to push millions of pro-life Americans into adamant opposition to the whole health-care reform enterprise. The president and his team may think it won’t matter — that they can pass their bill anyway. But passing a massive and expensive health-care bill was going to be complicated enough without a fight with social conservatives. The president didn’t need to alienate a sizeable portion of the electorate with a controversial selection for HHS — but he did. He has made his choice, and I think he will come to regret it.
I really think that the president imagines that his political views are mainstream. That’s what happens when you live in a leftist cocoon your entire life. It’s a problem that many journalists have as well.
[Update Thursday evening]
Well, that expains it. I was wondering why I was getting so many moonbat comments on this post. Apparently, it was linked by Firedog Lake.
i doubt any social conservatives liked Obama anyways.
They seem to prefer alcoholics, divorcee’s, and such
things.
Jack, one more vile and moronic post like that (unfortunately, not untypical of you) and you will never post here again.
Can you explain why Social Conservatives were
so willing to give Reagan a pass on his divorce
if they are all about Family Values?
Why were Social Conservatives so willing to
give Bush a pass on his alcoholism when they
are all in favor of sobriety?
Is Abortion the only topic for Social Conservatives?
Can you explain why Social Conservatives were
so willing to give Reagan a pass on his divorce
if they are all about Family Values?
Are you such an abject imbecile to think that they were going to vote for Carter because Reagan had been divorced?
Do you ever think before you ask such idiotic questions?
Not to mention, why are you such an obvious moron as to be unable to post a comment without superfluous line breaks?
Are you ever embarrassed by things like this? Apparently you’re too stupid to be.
Are you even capable of thinking?
Bush’s so-called alcoholism and his admirable handling of it was a plus to his campaign, IMHO.
As for Obama’s views, I don’t think he considers himself mainstream. He just knows that he won (he said so himself).
Don’t get your hopes up, the whores of the hill are getting ready to do some shenanigans called “reconciliation” that will prevent discussion or filibuster on the proposal.
Mr. Simberg, in regards to Jack’s post, it’s not so stupid, it’s rather clever (mind, Jack did not come up with it!) and evil. I have been hit with this one before. Reagan got divorced so he cannot be for family values. But if Reagan had not gotten divorced, he wouldn’t know why people get divorced and so would not be able to talk about something he had never lived through. So Republicans are always hypocrites, for they have standards they try to live up to. Leftists aren’t, for they have no standards. Heads they win, Tails you lose…….
As a social conservative my enthusiasm for paying vast sums of money to subsidize government bureacrats meddling with hospitals, doctors, and nurses has always been pretty low. My enthusiasm for paying those sums to pro-choice ideologues to fund abortions is even lower.
Pres. Obama is missing one of the great truths of politics: you galvanize issues by making them person and visceral. Sebelius does both.
I find it interesting that liberals always demand that conservatives live up to the standards the liberals themselves have discarded. You would think that the fact that Reagan had gotten a divorce (being able to escape an unhappy marriage is a sacrament to liberals) and that Bush used to let his hair down and party with mind-altering substances (many liberals, especially the aging Baby Boomers who were young adults in the 60s, have fond memories of being wasted on pot and pills, which is hardly different from being smashed on tequila) would be a plus in their eyes. But they use this as an excuse to trot out their pronouncements on “hypocrisy.” However, isn’t demanding that other people adhere to standards of behavior your yourself have no intention of following (and in fact oppose), rather… hypocritical?
Adam,
I dont think that Obama missed the truth at all…he knows his Saul Alinsky. His mistake is forgetting that strategy of making issues personal and visceral is not limited to “social justice” causes and can be used against him as well as it has worked for him.
Rand is likely close to the mark in his assessment that Obama truly believes that his views are mainstream.
According to the latest AP/GfK survey, Americans who think we’re on the “right track” outnumber those who think we’re on the “wrong track” for the first time in five years.
For the moment at least, the mainstream is with Obama.
I wonder what the right/wrong track numbers would look like if people understood the ramifications of Obama’s policies.
If the media scrutinized him at Bush levels and were as adversarial that is…
Imagine if the MSM actually reported on the Tea Parties in the same manner as they reported on the AIG protest or the anti-war protests…
“However, isn’t demanding that other people adhere to standards of behavior your yourself have no intention of following (and in fact oppose), rather… hypocritical?”
by definition of “hypocrisy”, no.
hypocrisy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
pointing out someone else’s hypocrisy is not hypocrisy.
Mick:
If the media scrutinized him at Bush levels and were as adversarial that is…
That sort of thing is very subjective. My impression was that the media was very deferential to Bush, and did not ask hard questions about his policies until the country started turning against him. Bush got everything he wanted from Congress, even though he’d won the election by the slimmest of margins. In 2002 the media was almost universally pro-war, even supposedly liberal outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, and The New Republic.
I wonder what the right/wrong track numbers would look like if people understood the ramifications of Obama’s policies.
That’s a bit like saying “I wonder what public opinion would be like if everyone saw things the way I do.”
There have actually been studies of how people with different political views interpret the same information. For example, a large fraction of Democrats surveyed thought that inflation was higher in 1988 than in 1980, even though it’d been cut from 13% to 4%. Similarly, a majority of Republicans thought that the budget deficit had increased in 1996.
One interesting aspect of this research is that the bias effect is different for voters with different amounts of information. As you move from low-information to high-information voters the amount of bias initially decreases, presumably because the voters are exposed to more information that contradicts their biases. But as you get to the voters with the most information, the ones who care the most about politics and public policy questions, the bias rebounds — those voters know enough to interpret even information that contradicts their biases in a way that leaves those biases intact. People who write and comment on blogs tend to be in that last group.
Click on my name for a reference to the study.
First from Simberg:
“Jack, one more vile and moronic post like that (unfortunately, not untypical of you) and you will never post here again.”
Then:
“Are you such an abject imbecile…”
Hmm, who is “vile and moronic”?
I can’t believe you people still think you are the party of “family values” or anything close to it. Perhaps the party of Hypocrisy would be a better fit.
As far as Obama’s view being mainstream, well he did receive more votes than any other American in history for President. He enjoys an almost 70% approval rating. Oh, and the Republicans got their asses handed to them AGAIN.
So yeah, he is mainstream.
Other than handily winning a national election and having consistently high approval ratings – despite the shitstorm that he inherited – Obama is TOTALLY not mainstream. Totally.
I can’t believe you people still think you are the party of “family values” or anything close to it.
What are you talking about? What do you mean, “you people”? I’ve never made such a claim. Or are you moronically assuming that I’m a Republican?
As far as Obama’s view being mainstream, well he did receive more votes than any other American in history for President.
What does that have to do with his views?
Andrea Harris
“I find it interesting that liberals always demand that conservatives live up to the standards the liberals themselves have discarded.”
First, no liberals demand any such thing. We love pointing out the sheer hypocrisy from Republicans/Conservatives. Bill Clinton Impeachment being Exhibit #1.
Any reputable polling shows that MOST Americans are in favor of some kind of universal healthcare; favor increasing Social Security benefits; are against the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; for helping the poor.
I could go on. I like how you make the statement yet back it up with ZERO evidence. The best you have is that you imagine what he imagines.
Look, the latest polls show him with nearly 70% approval, ergo, MOST Americans agree with his views, ergo, his view are mainstream. It’s not that difficult.
Unless of course you live in a far-rightwing cocoon believing crap like cutting taxes for the rich will increase tax revenues or that deregulation of financial institutions is the way to go.
Well Randi, if Obama had been so far away from the “mainstream” than the majority of Americans would not have voted for him. Also he would not have the high approval ratings he now enjoys. In fact I would argue that you yourself are MUCH further from mainstream America than Obama
Well Randi, if Obama had been so far away from the “mainstream” than the majority of Americans would not have voted for him.
They weren’t paying much attention to his views. And my name is not “Randi.”
Also he would not have the high approval ratings he now enjoys.
He’s not popular because of his leftist views.
In fact I would argue that you yourself are MUCH further from mainstream America than Obama
Probably not very well. But even if so, so what? What’s your point? I’ve never claimed to be in the mainstream, and I’m not the president.
Look, the latest polls show him with nearly 70% approval, ergo, MOST Americans agree with his views, ergo, his view are mainstream. It’s not that difficult.
No, his approval is only fifty-five percent, with forty-four percent disapproving. And again, his approval rating is not because of his views. It’s mostly charisma.
No, his approval is only fifty-five percent, with forty-four percent disapproving.
Actually, Rand, the RCP averages today are 61.3/32.5. You’re citing Rasmussen’s number, which have been the outlier all year. But then you’d know that if you ever ventured outside of your wingnut cocoon.
The RealClearPolitics average of approval/disapproval polls has Obama at 61% approve, 33% disapprove.
It’s mostly charisma.
Is there evidence for this, or just wishful thinking?
I think the “mainstream” of American political views is fairly wide: we managed to elect both George Bush and Barack Obama. More than half of Americans think that some abortions should be legal. More than half of Americans think that some abortions should be illegal. Neither Bush nor Obama’s views on abortion are out of the mainstream, and if any thing I’d say that Obama is closer to the “center of gravity” of abortion public opinion.
For an example of “out of the mainstream” views, see Rand’s characterization (in the “An Upcoming Regulatory Disaster” thread) of the Clean Air Act as possibly “thuggery.”
This is the law that is projected to save 23,000 lives next year, along with nearly two million asthma attacks, four million lost work days, 60,000 hospital admissions. Its one-year economic benefits are estimated at $110 billion, four times the cost of implementation. Click my name for the reference.
Support for the Clean Air Act is practically the definition of a mainstream view in American politics.
Is there evidence for this, or just wishful thinking?
Yes, the polls that indicate that people disapprove of his policies while they approve of him personally.
Neither Bush nor Obama’s views on abortion are out of the mainstream, and if any thing I’d say that Obama is closer to the “center of gravity” of abortion public opinion.
I didn’t say anything about abortion, but I do think that refusing to vote for a bill that would require doctors not to abandon babies after birth is out of the mainstream.
Support for the Clean Air Act is practically the definition of a mainstream view in American politics.
Support for regulating every potential source of carbon dioxide is not.
Rand,
It is easy for el Tiburon to think that when AP and others skew their polling to get the data they desire.
Here is the latest fluff from AP on Obama’s approval and the “right track/wrong track” responses:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama100_days_ap_poll
“For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public’s mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future.”
Sounds wonderful until you see the breakdown of respondents and discover that “Of those who say the country is on the right track . . . 73 percent are Democrats, 17 percent are independents and 10 percent are Republicans.”
Would love to see what “reputable” polls show that a majority of Americans favor socialized medicine. Please provide links.
Also, I defy you to find anyone who is against “helping the poor” everyone is for helping those in need, its when the left demands that we treat the poor like infantilized victims that people begin to balk.
But you dont need to live in a right wing cocoon to believe these things, you only need to look at the devastating effects that Johnson’s “great society” had on african american families and continues to have to this day.
You dont have to live in a cocoon to understand and realize that it wasnt deregulation that harmed the economy but regulation. Look no further than the Community Reinvestment Act for a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are examples of “deregulated financial institiutions”? Government caused the problem but has conviently deflected blame to those evil “Wall Street” hacks.
Here is the fundamental problem. Obama and his ilk truly believe that my money is their’s and that if I earn more than an amount they deem to be appropriate that they are entitled to confiscate the “largess” and hand it to those they feel are more deserving.
In my tax bracket (top 5% of earners) 60% of all tax revenue is paid. 6 times higher than those in the bottom 50%. I can assure you that I dont get 6 votes in the booth…police and firemen wont arrive at my house 6 times faster if I need them…the bottom 50% pay 16.67% of what I do, yet enjoy all of the same benefits that I do. For the US to work for everyone there has to be an element of that and I understand and accept that. But to claim that I dont or the genuinely “rich” do not pay their fair share strains credulity. I pay 6 times my fair share and frankly would rather be appreciated and not vilified.
Obama believes that government needs to expand and control more elements of the economy. Not a recipe for growth or recovery.
Yes, the polls that indicate that people disapprove of his policies while they approve of him personally.
Some people, yes, but only because while most people approve of his policies, even more approve of him personally. Click on my name for today’s Pew poll, which shows:
Personal approval: 73%
Job approval: 63%
Foreign Policy: 61%
Economy: 60%
Terrorism: 57%
Health Care: 51%
Tax policy: 50%
Budget Deficit: 50%
Those are adults, which always skew Democrat. Rasmussen polls likely voters (who pay much more attention).
The point i was trying to make is that the social conservatives are not going to support any Obama proposals anyways, so, he should pick his lead staff on issues based upon their ability to execute his agenda, not on some outreach efforts to people who are never going to back him.
Obama is married to his first wife, has 2 nice little kids, and a dog. Do the Social Conservatives like him for that? Nope.
Obama is trying to increase tax deductions for married people with kids who work at low end jobs and to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit. Do Social Conservatives say “Hey this helps families, we should back this”? Not at all.
Obama is trying to get health Care for little kids who have parents who don’t have good jobs with benefits. Do Social Conservatives say “We are all about helping out little kids, we should help this”? No way Jose.
The Social Conservatives are still 80% behind George Bush
and Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh. Its okay, but, they aren’t going to cut deals with Obama.
So, Obama shouldn’t bother trying to reach out to the Social Conservatives. on Abortion. The Social Conservatives should be properly labeled “Abortion Conservatives” and Obama should accept they aren’t going to like him anyways, and he should govern from the middle.
“No, his approval is only fifty-five percent, with forty-four percent disapproving. And again, his approval rating is not because of his views. It’s mostly charisma.”
Simply saying it doesn’t make it so friend.
Jim,
To Rand’s original point, if Obama is at 51% on Health Care before controversy begins to swirl it shows some weakness.
Same for deficit and taxes…all are well within the margins for being against vs. for.
Simply saying it doesn’t make it so
And simply denying it doesn’t make it not so.
“Obama is married to his first wife, has 2 nice little kids, and a dog. Do the Social Conservatives like him for that? Nope.”
Good for him and good for his kids, so that should trump legitimate policy disagreements?
“Obama is trying to increase tax deductions for married people with kids who work at low end jobs and to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit. Do Social Conservatives say “Hey this helps families, we should back this”? Not at all. Obama is trying to get health Care for little kids who have parents who don’t have good jobs with benefits. Do Social Conservatives say “We are all about helping out little kids, we should help this”? No way Jose. ”
At what point can we take the position that people who cannot afford children should not expect others to fund their reproduction? Why do I have to pay the freight for these parents who cannot provide properly? It’s always “what about the children” from either side of the aisle..stop using children as a stalking horse and demand responsibility
Sir: If you think any significant number of Americans think Sebelius — two term governor of KANSAS — is some crazy leftist, it goes a long way towad explaining why the GOP has become a joke. And I love some of the comments: “shenanigans called ‘reconciliation'” — that Republicans have used many times in the past. The “hypocrisy” of liberals demanding that conservatives live up to social standards that they themselves do not adhere to. Yes … because all liberals or the 70 million Obama voters are crazed sluts, womanizers and drug abusers. Your party’s spokespeople are Cheney, Limbaugh, Rove and Glenn Freaking Beck … your “issues” are the right to avoid three cents more tax on each dollar over $250,000, and Obama”s birth certificate, and how he shook Chavez’s hand, yet still you must wonder why America laughs at you. Oh yeah — the people are just too dense to understand Obama’s “radicalism.” Please keep it up. It makes elections so much fun.
And to Mick Kraut: yes, kids are a nuisance. But of course, only after they are born. And what of conservatives’ worship of what they call ‘freedom’? You go first on telling people they have to pass a means test before procreating.
“Imagine if the MSM actually reported on the Tea Parties in the same manner as they reported on … the anti-war protests.”
Well, if that were the case, We’d never have known that they even existed, except for Fox calling them a bunch of traitors for not supporting the president.
If you think any significant number of Americans think Sebelius — two term governor of KANSAS — is some crazy leftist, it goes a long way towad explaining why the GOP has become a joke.
Another idiot who thinks I’m a Republican.
Correction, then:
If you think any significant number of Americans think Sebelius — two term governor of KANSAS — is some crazy leftist, it goes a long way towad explaining why the RIGHT has become a joke.
“And simply denying it doesn’t make it not so” And round and round we go. The evidence is on my side, but hey conservatives have never let pesky little things like “facts” get in the way. I would read this paper.:
http://www.ourfuture.org/files/z_historic/reports/20070612_theprogressivemajority_report.pdf
It came out in 2007 but everything in it applies even more so to today.
I’m not of the RIGHT, either. And I didn’t say that I thought she was a “crazy leftist.”
Straw man much?
“leftist cocoon”….
Interesting statement from someone who claims not to be right wing…
One doesn’t have to be “right wing” to recognize leftists.
‘Straw Man’? I’ve read your posts. You are garden-variety conservative/GOP/fake libertarian. Why deny it? ‘Not of the right.’ Sure.
Why deny it?
Because it’s not true?
Only political simpletons feel the need to put people into arbitrary boxes and labels.
There is no poll showing a majority of Americans favoring socialized medicine.
But NO ONE is advocating socialized medicine.
That’s another thing about you wingnuts: you don’t know what the hell you are talking about – every.
Simberg: “Oh, Obama’s popular because of his charisma”
Really? And how do you know this? I’ll answer for you: you don’t. You can’t know. All you know is how you wish things were.
Fact is Obama thumped McCain. Fact is the Democrats have utterly destroyed the Republicans in the last two elections. Why? Because a vast majority of Americans are sick of you neocon/theocratic/paleocons.
Like I said, it’s not that hard.
The only people left in the Republican party are the extremists, so that’s why about 100% of Republicans are against Obama.
Again: the Dems are within ONE Senator of a filibuster proof majority and have an overwhelming majority in the House.
This is a pure rejection of today’s Republican/conservative party.
It’s. Not. That. Hard.
El Tiburon:
In fact there are multiple polls that show the majority of Americans want universal health care. One example.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
Mick Kraut:
if Obama is at 51% on Health Care before controversy begins to swirl it shows some weakness
His negative number on Health Care is 26% — support outweighs opposition nearly 2-to-1.
“And to Mick Kraut: yes, kids are a nuisance. But of course, only after they are born. And what of conservatives’ worship of what they call ‘freedom’? You go first on telling people they have to pass a means test before procreating.”
Not advocating a means test at all…have as many kids as you want just dont ask me to pay for it, thats all I’m asking. I wish everyone would stop using “the children” as an excuse to advance a power grabs. The right to advocate FCC actions and the left to seize all manner of health care, education and parental rights.
Only political simpletons feel the need to put people into arbitrary boxes and labels.
Pot, meet kettle.
I really think that the president imagines that his political views are mainstream. That’s what happens when you live in a leftist cocoon your entire life. It’s a problem that many journalists have as well.
So tell us again how Obama’s views are somehow just those of the leftist cocoon? No, really, do go on. Pay no attention to facts, we all know that facts have a decided liberal bias …. oops, there I go putting facts into arbitrary boxes where the suddenly pop up after someone cranks the handle ….
This is fun …
“That’s what happens when you live in a leftist cocoon your entire life.”
“Only political simpletons feel the need to put people into arbitrary boxes and labels.”
DING-DING-DING! We have a winner!