kylesellers.com

There has been a topic being bounced around on BipartReport.com lately--mainly between @rblinne and myself. We both recognize that President is quite popular, but where @rblinne believes that Americans love what Obama is doing, I think President Obama is popular based on his persona, not on his policies. Poll after poll shows that while people believe that America is on the "Right Track" and "Moving in the Right Direction" and that they "Approve" of President Obama. When Obama's policies are are polled without reference to him, though, a very different story is told.

Right track/wrong track and approve/disapprove polls are meaningless when discussing the "cult of personality" phenomena. If you ask "Do you support Obama banning lollipops?", you will get a far higher positive response than if you say "Do you support the banning of lollipops?'. Polls have shown that when you separate policies from Obama, they are less popular. The exact opposite was true of Pesident Bush. If you asked "Do you support Bush's position on the waterboarding of detainees?", you got a far more negative response than if you asked "Do you support the waterboarding of detainees?".

CNN ran a poll indicating that 63% of Americans approve of Obama, but when asked if they agree with his policies, the number dropped to 57%. This shows that there is a gap between Obama as a person and his policy positions. I don't think this poll is truly accurate, though, becuase it still links Obama to his policies. If you look at how people view issues without Obama even being mentioned, you get a very different view.

Americans have two different assessments of President Obama. One, personal. The other, policy.

CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider

Americans still see Big Government as a larger threat than Big Busines
On April 20th, Gallup released a poll showing that the majority of Americans believe that Big Government is a greater concern than Big Business, 55% to 32% (with 10% being most concerned about Big Labor). Obama is pro-Big Government and Pro-Big Labor. If we break it down by party affiliation, Republicans are concerned about Big Government to Big Business by 80% to 10%, Independents 59% to 30%, with only Democrats favoring Big Government 52% to 32$.

Next policy, Obama is extremely pro-choice. He says he wants to reduce the number of abortions, but then in his first 100 days, he increases funding for abortions with federal dollars--with Obama it's important to see what he does, rather than what he says, since he will talk on both sides of many issues. According to the May 15th Gallup poll, more American consider themselves Pro-Life than Pro-Choice on the abortion issue, 51% to 42%. @karoli and a few others have indicated that this is probably skewed, so let's dissect it further. Only 23% believe that abortion should be "Legal Under Any" condition. Three quarters of the population believe that their should be limits on abortions--which is contrary to Obama's pledged support of the Freedom of Choice Act.

Again, CNN-Only 36% of Americans believe that bailing out the auto industry would be beneficial. 55% of Democrats and 62% of Independents oppose the bailouts.  The initial bailouts occurred under Bush, but no one argues that he was popular at the time.

According to an extensive Rasmussen survey, only 42% of Americans favor free health care for all, and that number drops to 32% if their own health care would be affected. By a two-to-one margin, people reject free healthcare for all if their 53% believe that their quality of health care will drop if it is run by the government. 54% would oppose the plan if it required slightly higher taxes.

In February with the passing of the "Stimulus" bill, only 51% percent supported the bill. While still a majority, it was significantly less than his personal support.

Again, according to Rasmussen, only 39% of Americans believe there is man made global warming, 44% believe that long term planetary trends are more to blame. Close to 80% of American oppose a tax to fight global warming. (It was not-polled, but I believe Cap and Trade and the new CAFE standards would qualify as a tax since it raises the cost of cars and energy. Another Rasmussen poll shows that only 24% know that Cap and Trade deals with global warming, 5% less than those who think it has to do with Wall Street!)  Over 58% of Americans want more nuclear power plants, Obama is a self described "non-proponent" of nuclear energy.

According to CNN, 76% believe that the automakers should have faced bankruptcy, and only 23% believed that the government should have more oversight. Curiously, when Obama is mentioned, 42% of approve of his handling on the situtation whih was just that--more government involvement. How can that be? Only 23% thing government should be more involved and then once Obama is MORE involved, suddenly people support it? It is because they like HIM personally--not his policies.

And to bring it to the homefront, us Californians overwhelmingly rejected a series of propositions that would have increased multiple taxes--knowing full well that the only alternative was cuts in spending and services.  Now, it's not directly parallel, but I can guarantee you that cutting spending is NOT an Obama policy position.  California, though a very blue state, rejected that position and told Sacramento to stop spending.

Of course California was home to another conundrum, Prop 8.  First, Obama opposed Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban, and yet it passed in one of the most pro-Obama states in the country.  Mother Jones suggest that President Obama intentionally stayed quiet on Prop 8 because of its popularity with African-American voters.  If I am right, then his coming out actually against Prop 8 would have actually made Prop 8 LESS popular, since people like Obama for who he is and not for his policies.  In fact people will switch their stance on issues in order to align them to Obama's.  *cough* CIA photos *cough* *cough* Prosecution of Bush officials *cough*

So what?

It remains to be seen if this is a good or bad thing for Obama.  If he is the influential leader that many suggest he is, he very well could sway people's opinions and change people's stances on these issues.  This is not going to be easy for him, though, since many of the breakdowns (such as Big Government vs Big Business) have remained somewhat constant over the past few decades.  If any President can accomplish this, it would be Barack Obama.  Reagan had a similar influence, though he stood with the popular sentiment on many of the issues.

If President Obama is unsuccessful in bringing people to change their views, though, it could spell trouble.  Sooner or later people will begin to wonder why Obama is doing things they don't agree with.  While many car purchasers may like the sound of a higher milage car, when they show up at the dealership and realize that it costs 2 grand more than it would have before Obama, they may begin to question their devotion to him.  This is what I forsee happening. 

When inflation hits, interest rates skyrocket and taxes go up, will President Obama be able to mainatin his populist appeal?  We will see in the next two years.

Isn't it amazing how hypocritical some so-called journalists can be? While I don't expect any person to be completely free of bias, I do expect for people proclaiming to be journalists to at least try to be even handed, and perhaps respectful.

In this clip, you will see Susan Roesgen covering a 2006 rally in New Orleans. Near the end of the clip, the camera cuts to an image of a man wearing a George W. Bush mask with devil horns and a Hitler-esque mustache and says "while a look-alike showed up, with a wad of cash, Mr. Bush did not."

So, let me get this straight, a bunch of everyday conservatives (oh wait, according to the Obama Administration, we are right-wing extremists who are likely terror threats) showing up to protest the racking up of trillion dollar deficits is not reasonable--it is offensive and unfit for children.  BUT, making President Bush look like the devil and Hitler is all in good fun.

Honestly, I don't expect CNN to bitch and moan that someone doesn't like Bush.  At the same time, though, I am a little surprised when CNN objects to claims that they are clearly suffering from liberal bias.  Just admit it, guys.  Hannity does not even pretend to be A) a journalist or B) unbiased.  And that's okay.  But to claim to be an unbiased source of news insults all of our intelligence.

So, in conclusions:  Being upset that America, under Obama, is on track to rack up trillions of dollars of debt is BAD AND OFFENSIVE.  Comparing a Republican president t Hitler/Sata is no big deal.

Update on Thursday, April 16, 2009 at 05:27PM by Kyle Sellers

Just one more though...

For those who despise Fox News (I don't watch it or any other television program that isn't on DVD from Netflix), do you think that maybe this sort of unabashed bias from CNN, MSNBC, etc. is at all responsible for the success of Fox News?  After all, if journalists had done their job and just reported, rather than chosen reports based on their own agendas, maybe there wouldn't have been a need for an alternative news source?

Yesterday, CNN "reporter" and Obam administration apologist Susan Roesgen was harassed by mean, ignorant, right-wing extremists at a Tea Party.  Luckily, she was there to remind them that they are eligible for a $400 tax credit (which she forgot to mention will count as income and be taxed on April 15, 2010), and that Obama hasn't raised taxes on 95% of Americans.  </sarcasm> To jog your memory, here is the clip in question:

Here is the problem with the Obama administration, and the news medias coverage of their fiscal policy.  President Obama says something, and very quickly it is repeated on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS, and appears with virtually no analysis or criticism in nearly every major newspaper.  Since Obama has not yet raised income taxes of the middle class, they say that he is a champion of the middle class and the poor.

But he IS raising and trying to raise taxes on the middle class and poor!  Okay, maybe not all of the middle class and the poor.  Just those who pay utilities.  And those who give to charity (coincidentally, this hits Republicans harder than Democrats).  And those who smoke (who, as we know are predominantly poor).  And those who returned from war injured.  And those whose health care is paid by their employers.  And those who have cell phones.  Or fly on airlines.  Or drive a car.  These have ALL been proposed since January.  Some were shot down, some received significant public backlash and were shelved, some are still in the works, and some have been passed.  The point, though, is that President Obama has EVERY intention of finding ways for government to take a cut of EVERYTHING you do.  But that is not the worst of it.

President Obama is hitting our checkbooks in many ways other than taxes!  Do you have a boss?  What happens when it comes time for your annual review, and you ask for a raise, but his taxes have been raised and he cannot afford it?  And who is hardest hit by this coming wave of inflation?  We're printing money that we don't have, which is going to drive the consumer price index through the roof very shortly, which means that the $13 extra that Obama is letting you keep is going to buy less and less.  Obama and every member of Congress will be able to deal with this, but the people having a hard time making ends meet, since they have to pay their neighbors mortgage as well as their own, are not going to have such an easy time with it.

We wouldn't object to the taxes if they were being used for legitimate purposes.  The US Constitution lists the purposes of government.  Nowhere in there can I find "Stimulate the economy," "Give people the money to keep houses the can't afford," "Make responsible and frugal homeowners pay for said houses," "Start a new global order," "Save failing companies," or even "Guarantee the warranties on GM cars."  I do see that the President is supposed to be the Commander in Chief... but that seems be pretty low on his list of priorities. 

These Tea Parties were not anti-Obama or anti-government.  They were anti-waste.  They were pro-Constitution.  Half these things that President Obama is wanting to accomplish are unconstitutional.  If he wants to use my money to keep UAW union workers working and my deadbeat neighbor in his house, then he needs to amend the Constitution.  There is a process for doing this.  Sadly, there has been a slow, creeping growth in the size and power of the federal government. 

This did not happen overnight, but trillion dollar "stimulus," multi-trillion dollar deficits, and what's looking to the government's nationalization of many private companies are the breaking point.  And that is what the Tea Parties of 2009 were about.