Krugman, in one phrase, nails it as to why Republican opposition to Obama is so fierce

They have 40 Senators, an unbeatable Democratic majority in the House they can't overcome, a popular,
intelligent President in the White House and a bare majority in the Supreme Court, which will get them
a few more executions of innocent people than are palatable (even one is unpalatable), and excuse some local
excesses by corrupt or incompetent cops, but that's about it. Not exactly the greatest bargaining position.
Granted that they own most of the electronic media and print press, but even so, why do they manage to
somehow portray Obama as such a polarizing figure? People only carried around portraits of Bush as Hitler
when he actually did things that resembled Hitler. The Republicans encourage their supporters to carry
around portraits of Obama as Hitler because they can't put "mother always liked you best" onto a poster
without being required to spell too many words correctly.

Paul Krugman, in a long interview in Rolling Stone (along with David Gergen and Michael Moore), nailed it
in one simple phrase:

"In fact he's a deeply polarizing figure because the opposing party has not accepted that Americans have
rejected their ideas - they think they're going to make a comeback."

In one respect, I find even this assessment optimistic. It assumes that Republicans accept Barbara Boxer's
famous "elections have consequences," and that Republicans are willing to live by those consequences. The
elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004 show clearly that if they are not forced to abide by popular will, they
are perfectly happy with making up their own election results.

But it also gets to what I think is indeed the core reason for the hysterical opposition to Obama, from
Fox on down to the "dining room tables." They simply haven't come to terms with the fact that the country
currently does NOT accept their ideas. We tried them for eight years. They sucked. That remains, apparently
an extremely bitter pill for many to swallow, sort of like the fervently religious person who rejects all
medical care, thinking God will save him, forgetting that maybe if God didn't want him saved, God wouldn't
have let there be hospitals (I'm revising the story of the drowning man on the rooftop in the flood, here).
But the story is the same. The guy on the rooftop drowned. The idiot who refused medical care died. The
tea-baggers and the dining room tables stayed stupid.

Like Krugman said, they think they're going to make a comeback.

In Hollywood, they say there's no business like show business.

Republicans say there's no business like NO business. Only if and when they figure out that most Americans
have figured out that their NO business and their failures of the past 8 years are not what we want will
they change their tune. Krugman is correct, in my opinion, in saying that they prefer their heads in the sand
(or sticking up somewhere else) to looking around them.

As long as that remains so, we will be hearing from a lot of dining room tables, I fear.

Is that we tried their way for 29 years, not 8. This shit took off with Raygun, it just took shrub to realize the full promise of what their dreams really meant in the real world.

Good post.

How is it they have brought Obama's approval ratings down?

I think the approval drop is a result of some of his supporters being disappointed in his
not moving fast enough on programs he advocated during his campaign. The nut case right
will always disapprove as long as he remains a Democrat and stays half black, neither of
which are likely to change any time soon.

That plus maybe some skewing on the part of some of the poll-takers.........

...thinking since Obama's election. It's how they ask tha question...it puts Obama supporters in a category they don't belong in:

"...the approval drop is a result of some of his supporters being disappointed in his
not moving fast enough on programs he advocated during his campaign."

Or that he is trying too hard to be bipartisan, when it's clear Republicans ARE the party of NO.

Obama has always polled well with dems and independents, however the GOP went from being neutral around the inauguration to about a -80 net point approval rating today. Obama's approval has been fairly steady with dems and independents for the last 6 months.

and is not helpful.

you nailed it. While I have no doubt there is tons of racism in this country, the venom was just as bad for Clinton and he was a bubba.

Palin is white trash, too, but she's THEIR white trash, and therefore perfectly OK in their eyes.

Check out Jon Stewart's segment on how Fox goes after people who criticized the president when his name
was Bush, and then used their exact same terms to criticize Obama. The best is when he shows O'Reilley
saying Fox wouldn't call people "loons," and then replays an O'Reilley segment calling Bush protesters
(3 guesses?) "loons."

They are in denial about what she really is which allows her to be perfectly OK in their eyes. a lot of this is because she "acts" like a bigot and is a fundamentalist. She continuously blew the racist and fundamentalist dog whistles with her little one liners during the campaign.

on some level that the american people have rejected their ideas. That's why they haven't offered any. All they have left is to try to convince the American people that they really don't want Obama's ideas afterall. They want to create a sense of 'buyer's remorse' in hopes that Americans will return to the old way of doing things - even if they rejected it in the last 2 elections.

I'm reminded of those silly ads where the salesman gives the kid a cool toy truck then takes it away and gives him a cardboard cutout instead. The GOP is trying to convince us that we didn't read the fine print on our shiny new truck. They will take it away from us and give us a piece of crap in return.

The reason the GOP is so fiercely opposed to today's political reality of having an intelligent President and Democrats in majorities in both houses is that the party has ALWAYS been about protecting the wealthy elite and their corporate sponsors. All the rest is just maneuvering, tactics and propaganda campaigns. Make no mistake about it, the GOP is run by a tiny, wealthy elite that uses the age old techniques of scapegoating, fear and racism to bring legions of ignorant, hateful, unstable Americans under their tent.

This opposition is about ideas only tangentially in that THE FIRST fundamental, bedrock ideal of the GOP is to work for and protect the wealthy elite that run the party and the wealthy corporations that fill it's coffers every election. EVERYTHING else is proposed solely to achieve the first goal.

Sure, there's the wealthy elite, but they are just that--a wealthy elite. How is it they get impoverished people
with no health insurance to run around with pictures of Obama as Hitler protesting universal health insurance?

They are not wealthy or elite, they are tools - but very willing and convinced tools. It's also about power, which
can only be maintained with the support of the tools. Once they lose them, it's France 1789 or Russia 1917, and we
are not Saudi Arabia.

Without the idiot mobs, the wealthy elite that control the GOP would have one less tool to use to protect their money and interests. Sadly, the fact of the matter is that they will never lose the mob. Motivatiing mobs is nothing new nor particularly difficult to achieve. Despots and despotic regimes since time began have learned that fear and scapegoating are their most effective weapons in ginning up the mobs. It works now just as it did in the past. Look for the intensity of opposition to rise on the right wing as the economy degrades for the average American. As sure as the sun rises in the East, the gargantuan right wing propaganda/hate machine will make a massive effort to BLAME Democrats, immigrants or some other group for the economic pain being experienced by your average American. It doesn't matter if it is true in the least. There is a certain percentage of humanity that cannot resist the clarion call of hate, bigotry and fear. They will always be with us.

In short, I agree that if the elite that control the Republican Party lose the ability get the enough people to vote against their interests by voting GOP, they simply steal elections. When that fails, they unleash the extremists and encourage violence. When that fails, it gets even worse. In the end, it is ALL about enlarging and protecting their vast oceans of wealth. Period!

ginning up the mobs is critically important.

IMHO

I would love to know when the corporatist wing started efforts to gain ownership? Hmm, would be interesting to see where and when the tie-ins with christofascism started too.......

That was when CBS was running The Smothers Brothers and Laugh-In, both of which were criticizing the
Vietnam war and quickly turned against Nixon and Agnew when they won the 1968 election. During the Watergate
hearings, Nixon was waging full-blown war aginst the press, and after Dan Rather took over the CBS anchor's
desk from Cronkite, there was a campaign to have rightists buy up a majority of CBS stock, using the slogan
"how would you like to be Dan Rather's boss?"

This is not a new phenomenon, but just the latest phase in a long-ongoing campaign to own all media that
disseminates any kind of news or information. In 1968, they didn't count on the internet, or they would
probably have started planning to take it over, too.

Obama's agenda has swung hard right, his favorability is heading South at a good clip, and Republicans are doing better in some important polling.

The Republicans are sucessfully advancing their evil cause.

it's not that they don't get it, it's that they can't sell it. True then, true now.

that sums the pukes up. They had a chance to prove their policies, and it caused a world wide economic meltdown that got us nearly into a depression, into 2 endless expensive wars, widespread war profiteering, a deficit larger than any in history, rampant corporate corruption and tax evasion, a divisive political climate, being viewed as international pariahs, the imperial presidency that ignored the constitution, "legal" torture as a method of interrogation, indefinite detention without legal representation, a right wing supreme court, an acceleration of environmental degradation, the wholesale privatization of public services for private profit... need i go on?

"In fact he's a deeply polarizing figure because the opposing party has not accepted that". Was that a paraphrase?, If so, where was the original located?

pnorman

The internet and google are not the sole source of all knowledge, you know.

On edit: for those who don't use print anymore, here is Krugman's entire comment:

"We already know that one part of the dream of Obama-ism is not going to happen. He sold himself as a great
unifying figure. They actually talked in the first week or so that the stimulus plan might 80 votes in the
Senate. It's clear that was a fundamental misread of American politics. In fact, he's a deeply polarizing
figure because the opposing party has not accepted that Americans have rejected their ideas - they think
they're going to make a comeback. So this is a very different ballgame from what he imagined he'd be playing."

I actually had a Rolling Stone subscription at one time, but it was a "freebie", probably in connection with my Salon.com subscription. But otherwise, it's not something I'd be likely to have ready at hand. (The "demographics" of a 79.5 year old. Ah, to be middle-aged once more!)

When I inquire about "source", it's almost always because I intend to use it in a venue where my bald assertion would NOT be taken without question. But you've provided me with all the info I'd need. Once again, thanks!

pnorman

Neither of my parents did, although one grandfather made it to 102.

When he was 99, he sent out a "Christmas" card with a photo of himself, looking very much his age,
with the caption "Compliments of the seasoned."

That in itself wouldn't have kept me out of that group. But from a fairly early age, my heart was of the "Old Left" (more Kropotkin than Lenin), so I "priggishly" kept my distance from their scene. It was only much later, that I began to realize that there was a lot more substance than froth to it.

pnorman

I remember feeling a tremendous sense of relief in Nov. '92 that our dark days were behind us ... Then look what happened. '94 "Angry White Man" election... The Lewinsky media clusterfuck... Stolen election -- nary a peep... 9-11/patriotic propaganda used to shove through illegal war, tax cuts for the mega wealthy, get the '04 election close enough to steal ... Sarah Palin/Joe the Plumber ... on and on...

But they were just side shows. As for the rest, you are, I'm sad to say, spot on.

The selection of Sarah Palin as the one to be a heartbeat from the presidency was one of the most cynical, evil
bits of fraud ever perpetrated on the American people, and yet because McCain fumbled, no one speaks of that any
more. To get really scary, consider that had McCain been elected and died in office, 40% of America would have
been glad she was president.

and I wonder every day how McCain could be the man some refer to him as being, man of 'honor". How could a man of honor have ever have done this???

and why hasn't he apologized yet?

The day I hear McCain, or any other major Republican apoligize to the American people for the selection
of Sarah Palin to be our Vice President will be the day I begin to see salvation for the Republican Party.
I don't expect it within my lifetime. They don't even think Nixon did anything wrong in 1972, and none of
them really have expressed that view aloud since Barry Goldwater.

moral authority whatsoever and no one with a brain can take them seriously.

never was. If it hadn't been for his family connections he would be selling used cars today

and the furtherance of that propaganda by corporate press.

Additionally, we probably had decades of election steals by electronic voting which

coincidentally began to come in about the time we passed The Voting Rights Act ...

late 1960's.

We also have to understand the complicity of the corporate press in 2000 ... many watched

as John Ellis/Fox did their dirty work. However, 2000 was an exceptionally noisy year for

a GOP steal to be pulled off. Fascist GOP sponsored rallies to stop the vote counts and

finally having to resort to a gang of 5 on the Supremes!

The large computers used by corporate press began to come in during the mid-1960's which

gave them the power to not only REPORT vote totals, but to PREDICT totals, to PREDICT and

CALL winners and losers -- to PREDICT and CALL states . . . Electoral Votes!

In the late 1960's two journalists began to investigate computer voting fraud . . .

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

That's all there is to their opposition.

:hi:

Check out this picture from our health care rally today.

The electronic media likes the economic agenda of the Republicans, tax breaks for the rich. They will keep Republicans in the game.

They have simply walked away from the African American and Latino communities.


That means of the remainnig population they would have to to get 70% of the white vote in order to TIE the national vote.

If the Democratic party gets simply 40% of the white vote and maintains its popularity in the minority communities it will have close to 60% of the popular vote.

Since the election the Repubican Party support in the Latino and Black community has eroded further to less than 5% - thought to have been an impossible feat.

Have you not being paying attention to American politics for the last 20 years?

8 years ago Bush and Rove had the intelligence to understand that they couldn't lose both the AA community and the Latino community to the Democrats and remain a viable national party.

Their effort to have a positive role in the immigration reform debate backfired and losses in the hispanic oommunity have increased.

McCain was able to modify that marginally because of his past openness to immigration reform.

Since the election the Republican Party has shown the Latino population exactly how much it is interested in it and there has been a falling off the cliff for Latino support of the Republican Party.

Remarkably Latino support of the Repubican Party is even lower than that of the African American community with only 3% (within the margin of error) of the Latino community having a favorable view of the party.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/7/763046/-The-cost-of-Sotomayor-opposition

With immigration reform coming up after the health care debate it is unlikely for this number to change, and when 5-10 million illegals gain the right to vote it will further marginalize the Republican Party.

The only Hispanic Republican Senator, Martinez has quit in disgust, so abruptly he said that he will not even return to the Senate after the August recess.

Having a viable national presence means being able to compete in the electoral college. Since the last election Republican support in various Red states has been further eroded (partly for reasons stated above).

No state has moved closer to the Republicans and a number have moved the other way.

Gallup now shows only 4 states ("Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah" ) solidly Republican, while showing 28 states 'solidly Democratic'.



Obama's efforts to come to the aid of rural farmers, after 8 years of neglect, is also likely to further erode traditional Republican support.

Finally Republicans do not do well with a divided leadership and internal struggles. Right now 3 Republicans Romney/Palin/Huckabee all show 21% support within the party and in such situations the Republican primaries are notoriously savage.


The Republican Party can have some strong local and regional presence but no party in the US can have a national party without some support among racial minorities. Right now they have none and have no strategy to increase it either.

Look at Obama's popularity.
The American public is fickle. And there are only two choices. If this economy is in the tank a year from now, I predict the Republicans make major gains in the midterms.

All one has to do is go back to 2000, and remember how, somehow, George Bush jr was able to beat Gore.
It should have never happened. There was no reasonable reason for it.
But it did.

If Obama blows the health care reform issue, 2010 is anyone's guess.

Yes Obama's popularity has declined - in relation to Obama of 11/08 but he isn't running against himself.


He will be running against a Republican nominee in 51 different contests and when put up Obama vs a Republican the number of states that Obama would take has increased not decreased.

Now even Arizona will be in play. Oh and Michigan - critical to any electoral college victory for Republicans (along with VA and NC) have gone deeper blue as the Republicans have abandoned the auto industry.

You have grasped on to the thinnest of MSM reeds but if you quickly turn to Fox you will find someone that agrees with yout.

And this state is so fuckin' desperate I am afraid to think of what people might support three years from now.

Anyone who thinks the Republicans are over as a legit party is fooling himself.

The republican party is going the way of the baby boomers. They realize this and I think this makes them more dangerous. As our country becomes more progressive they cling to Fox news and their guns. They cannot accept that their narrow minded, xenophobic, and racist views are not shared by the majority. Hence Obama's presidency. This is a very dangerous time for all. I hope I'm wrong, I fear I'm right.

for its truthiness.

make a comback . . .!!!

Imagine how many votes they've been stealing even now -- 1 out of 3 . . . more?

How many more voters have to be brought out by Democrats just to stay even?

FURTHER, we have to begin to understand not only the right wing propaganda of our "press"

but their complicity in cover ups -- their complicity in stole elections.

And, I'd add, their complicity in 9/11!!

If people think it's "the last eight years" and "we tried them for eight years" ain't NOTHIN' gonna change.

If folks don't wake up and smell the Reaganistic coffee grounds in the campfire. they'll just get duped by the next Big Liar.

The deficits he shepherded brought us to the brink. Clinton started us on the road back.

It was Cheneybush who said fuck it all, and pushed us over into the abyss.

http://www.thomhartmann.

and all the economic gurus writing books about it now.

It's 30 years of Reaganism. Continuous. Thinking it's isolated to 8 years or one administration is shortsighted.

http://www.thomhartmann.

...and all the economic gurus writing books about it now (and all along).

It has a link to the full article with Krugman's quote