Stereotypical Liberals?

[J.Q. Citizen]

In light of the recent hatchet job perpetrated against conservatives, as a whole, in a recent blog by the resident liberal McKinneyNews.net blogger, I have come to a conclusion and a decision. Either by malicious intent, malignant ignorance or both, many on the left have bought into and perpetuated certain derogatory stereotypes of conservatives that just aren't accurate. The root causes underlying how this has come about are numerous and complex. I believe that the leaders of the Democratic party and some of their rabid supporters on the left have intentionally portrayed those of us on the right as uneducated, low brow, ultra-religious, heartless, selfish, backwards, unrealistic, unenlightened Neanderthals bent on preserving some set of principles and values from the past that aren't viable in today's modern world. I mean, basically, if you listen to them we conservatives actually desire to have our pregnant daughters breath dirty air and drink tainted water while taking potshots at every member of the Mexican "race" with their assault rifles while the earth around them burns up and melts just so long as they can do it while being taught Intelligent Design in school.

To their credit, the liberals have succeeded to a certain extent. And, to make matters worse, conservative leaders have failed to adequately and aggressively defend themselves against those claims and they have failed to adequately and aggressively attack back. Somehow, conservatives have allowed liberals to successfully perpetuate the myth that they are the party of enlightened, intellectually and morally superior Americans. Unlike our resident liberal blogger friend who, apparently, has bought into these stereotypes and thought it would be fair and accurate to portray conservatives as a group who prefers war, death and the maiming of children to world peace I would like to present the following empirical data that contradicts, at least, the notion of liberal intellectual superiority. This is the result of a Zogby poll. First is a summary of some of the result and then the link to the site itself with some revealing interviews. Respectfully submitted for your approval...the typical Obama voter? You decide.

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

http://howobamagotelected.com/

[chipper]

Before this debate escalades (if, in fact, it does) I'd just like to say that Ziegler makes it clear that the intent of this poll and subsequent analysis is to empirically prove the culpability of the media in purposefully forwarding their Obama agenda (and the subsequent effictiveness of the media's efforts).

The point of this poll was not to imply that Obama voters are less educated than McCain voters,

"The point of all this is to direct the finger at the news media, not so much at the voters. There are plenty of idiots on both sides of the political divide, but my concern here is that the news media coverage failed to make the electorate educated enough to produce a legitimately informed vote."

-John Ziegler
http://johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=176

Personally, I would take the second half of his statement even further. Not only did they fail to promote an educated electorate (an absolute necessity for an effective democracy and their sole job in the democratic process), the media encouraged an uneducated electorate by both emphasizing non-issues (i.e. Sarah Palin's clothes and John McCain's houses) and by pardoning other possible faults such as Weather Underground ties, ACORN, etc. I feel like the media made up their mind for the American public that these weren't important issues instead of encouraging and empowering the public to make up their mind for themselves.

With that said, I'd like to re-emphasize that this is a complaint against the media which I would like addressed in the future--not against the President-elect or the public. While we cannot change the outcome of the election, we can work to ensure that future elections are not carried out so irresponsibly.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Hey Chipper,

You're right about the intent of the poll and I firmly agree with you in believing the majority of the media is guilty of gross negligence if not outright fraud and malpractice.

The fact is, I deliberately left out that little detail. I left it out for two reasons. First, I honestly just didn't feel like the people who were likely to take offense at the implications, the people who were apologists for the blatant attack on the blog to which I referred, deserved the fairness that would have been inherent in the disclaimer. If they wanted to know the details they can go look them up for themselves. Second, regardless of the intent, I believe the implications of the results are a direct indictment of the people themselves. In this age of the internet and any number of various outlets by which people can obtain unbiased information and data by which to make an informed decision, there is NO excuse for the lack of knowledge they demonstrated. I believe that to a very great degree an otherwise unconcerned and apathetic electorate became caught up in a whirlwind "cult of personality" that resulted in what amounts to a gross dereliction of civic duty.

I just hope, based on the apparently meager knowledge of our "informed electorate", that the quote "we get the government we deserve" doesn't turn out to be a lamentation.

[JaneBlow]

So does this accurately summarize your point?

McCain lost in large part because Obama supporters are ignorant.
Obama supporters are ignorant because the media is biased.

Is this reason to replace or is it in addition to the previous reason explained on this forum -- that voters blamed the economic crisis on the current administration?

[kmcgraw5]

So does this accurately summarize your point?

McCain lost in large part because Obama supporters are ignorant.
Obama supporters are ignorant because the media is biased.

Is this reason to replace or is it in addition to the previous reason explained on this forum -- that voters blamed the economic crisis on the current administration?

Not intending to speak for JQ, but this would be as gross an oversimplification and stereotypification as "all poor children are without adequate healthcare and insurance because conservatives are incapable of empathy."

I'm sorry, but any voter who lays the blame for the current economic crisis solely at the feet of the current administration is ignorant. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, as well as the current Democrat-controlled Congress are as much to blame for the current economic crisis as George Bush, if not more so. Isn't it interesting to note that the Democrats were in full or effective control of Congress at least three years before the subprime bubble burst!?! 'nuff said...

[JaneBlow]

Kmcgraw5, I'm glad to see you didn't give up on us after all. :)

These are not my arguments:

McCain lost in large part because Obama supporters are ignorant (due to the biased media); and, voters blamed the economic crisis on the current administration.

These are arguments made by Chipper and J.Q. If you think they are a gross oversimplification -- that is fair enough. Can you summarize why you think McCain lost in a few sentences? I will gladly do the same, but I had hoped to confirm my understanding of J.Q. and Chipper's position first before I lead us down another path.

[J.Q. Citizen]

So does this accurately summarize your point?

McCain lost in large part because Obama supporters are ignorant.
Obama supporters are ignorant because the media is biased.

Is this reason to replace or is it in addition to the previous reason explained on this forum -- that voters blamed the economic crisis on the current administration?

My point was not directly related to the results of the election.

If you would actually read the text leading up the the presentation of the poll and take a moment to actually try to grasp the significance of the words that I used, you would understand that the underlying point to the post was fairly simple. There is a stereotype perpetrated by liberals that they are intellectually superior, more enlightened and more knowledgeable. I simply presented some evidence that perhaps that thinking wasn't completely accurate. No need to read between the lines here.

[chipper]

Kmcgraw5, I'm glad to see you didn't give up on us after all. :)

These are not my arguments:

McCain lost in large part because Obama supporters are ignorant (due to the biased media); and, voters blamed the economic crisis on the current administration.

These are arguments made by Chipper and J.Q. If you think they are a gross oversimplification -- that is fair enough. Can you summarize why you think McCain lost in a few sentences? I will gladly do the same, but I had hoped to confirm my understanding of J.Q. and Chipper's position first before I lead us down another path.


Jane,

I'm not really sure if/how you are going to argue against the economy being the biggest factor in this election--the exit polls clearly show that it was the main subject this election:

"Fully 62 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue, six times more than cited the war in Iraq (10 percent), health care (9 percent) or terrorism (9 percent). " http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15270.html

Nothing else was even close.

And you know it is bad when the media is running stories about the media being partial to then-Senator Obama.
Take, for instance, this columnist from philidelphia who unapologetically writes,

"...Gov. Rendell, when backing Hillary Clinton, telling me, "You're drinking Obama's Kool-Aid."

If so, I'm not alone."

That's right, he's not alone.

"Newspaper-industry magazine Editor & Publisher this week reports that 194 daily newspapers endorsed Obama, 82 endorsed McCain.

And the reach is greater than the numbers. Circulation of Obama-endorsers is more than 20 million; circulation of pro-McCain papers, six million."
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081029_John_Baer__Media_apologists_explain_Obama __bias_.html

Many of the articles I've read from media apologists regarding the Obama bias have employed logic along these lines:

Obama's campaign has been more successful, therefore more coverage.

Can anyone say circular logic? The media (which has the power to control public opinion and which makes a campaign successful) somehow seems to have convinced itself that Obama's campaign was first successful and then publicized. This fails to explain why, when McCain's campaign was either leading or making up ground, the media decided to focus its attention on attacking Palin's wardrobe investments and Joe-the-Plumber's certification as a licensed plumber. By all means, there should have been a recognizable shift in the tone and nature of media coverage as McCain was closing the gap in the polls, but what we saw was an intensification of the harassment of the McCain camp (including numerous stories on how McCain voters were defeated and downcast for weeks leading to the election. What is the point of such a story? To convince republicans that their side is throwing in the towell--so just don't bother voting.).

I cannot sympathize with the argument that the media's obvious bias did not affect voters.

The association of Senator McCain with President Bush obviously also played a role in the outcome of the election. It's hard to win an election when the current President has a 28% approval rating (one of the more generous statistics I've read) and he's of your own party.

[kmcgraw5]

Kmcgraw5, I'm glad to see you didn't give up on us after all. :)

These are not my arguments:

McCain lost in large part because Obama supporters are ignorant (due to the biased media); and, voters blamed the economic crisis on the current administration.

These are arguments made by Chipper and J.Q. If you think they are a gross oversimplification -- that is fair enough. Can you summarize why you think McCain lost in a few sentences? I will gladly do the same, but I had hoped to confirm my understanding of J.Q. and Chipper's position first before I lead us down another path.

Thanks Jane. I'm not saying that I don't think Chipper and JQ aren't right to a large degree; I just don't have any solid empirical data to back it up, beyond the Zeigler commissoned Zogby poll (although it is interesting to note that Zogby stands by his poll, even though he apparently doesn't agree with it from a philisophical standpoint). My point is that we all need to refrain from engaging in gross oversimplifications and stereotypes when trying to make our points, such as "all conservatives 'oppose' or lack empathy." Obama engaged in a little of that himself when he made these statements (which you quoted earlier):

"The welfare queen is taking our money." This is a gross oversimplification of which I do not believe any intelligent and rational conservative seriously believes. I think that most intelligent and right-thinking conservatives recognize that this is a very complex issue and that getting rid of welfare altogether is not the answer; rather, the answer is to reform welfare as was successfully done by conservative Republicans in Congress while Clinton was in office (against his and the Democrats wishes, BTW, altough they don't hesitate to take credit for it). The problem is that when conservatives say we want to reform welfare to make it more productive and less wasteful, we get painted with the broad brush of being racist, uncaring louts who want to do away with welfare altogether.

"The immigrant is taking our jobs." As JQ has so aptly pointed out, and which I don't need to regurgitate here, most Americans (let alone conservatives) are against illegal immigration and illegal immigrants taking jobs from American citizens (some of who admittedly are too lazy or think they are too good for such jobs). But again, when we object, we get painted as racists or uncaring elitists.

"The non believer is immoral." Again, a statement that would only be made by an ignorant redneck. But most conservatives, even religious conservatives, are not that ignorant, no matter how the liberal media portrays us.

"The believer is intolerant." I guess I'm biased and would like to think that, especially because I'm a believer, I'm as tolerant as the next guy, believer or not. Our mission as Christians is to "love the sinner, but hate the sin." I understand from your perspective, that gets into the whole debate of what constitutes sin; but we live by our Bible and we believe God and His Son Jesus Christ have clearly set forth what is sinful behavior. And because we may try to convince someone that they shouldn't engage in that behavior, does not make us hateful, intolerant, bigots. Where I believe many Christians go wrong and then make a bad name for the rest of us, is that they try to deliver the message of God and Christ with force, rather than just delivering the message and letting people decide for themselves. But that shouldn't mean that we should legitimately be castigated as intolerant bigots or kooks, just for trying to deliver the message.

Having said all this, I do believe that the majority of swing voters in this country either were to lazy to vet all of the very confusing campaign issues and rhetoric, or were swayed by very biased coverage by the MSM. But, I will also give Obama credit for running a brilliant (albeit disingenuous) campaign; while McCain ran a horribly disorganized one. That's why Obama won, not because liberal ideals and positions are better or more persuasive than conservative ones... :p;)

[JaneBlow]

There is a stereotype perpetrated by liberals that they are intellectually superior, more enlightened and more knowledgeable. I simply presented some evidence that perhaps that thinking wasn't completely accurate. No need to read between the lines here.

Perhaps I did read more into your point than was intended.

I assumed:

(1) You agree with John Zieglar's statement, "...my concern here is that the news media coverage failed to make the electorate educated enough to produce a legitimately informed vote."
(2) You believe that a legitimately informed electorate would have elected McCain. (or that McCain supporters would have scored higher on the test)

If those were wrong assumptions, I apologize. If they were correct assumptions, I think my summary was fair. Perhaps it would have bothered you less if I had used word "uinformed" rather than "ignorant". Is this summary better?

McCain lost in large part because Obama supporters are uninformed.
Obama supporters are uninformed because the media is biased.

[JaneBlow]

Jane,

I'm not really sure if/how you are going to argue against the economy being the biggest factor in this election--the exit polls clearly show that it was the main subject this election

I'm not and never said I was. I brought it up because on previous threads we seemed to all agree that the economy was the most important issue to voters. The idea presented here was that voters had not made an informed or knowledgeable vote. I was going to ask you which question on the poll do you think represents the knowledge (or lack of knowledge) voters had about the candidates economic policy.

[chipper]

I'm not and never said I was. I brought it up because on previous threads we seemed to all agree that the economy was the most important issue to voters. The idea presented here was that voters had not made an informed or knowledgeable vote. I was going to ask you which question on the poll do you think represents the knowledge (or lack of knowledge) voters had about the candidates economic policy.

Jane,

I apologize that I misunderstood the meaning in your last post.

And as for which question--I'd say the responses to "which party currently controls Congress" are rather disturbing. I can understand not recognizing the names of Reid, Barney Frank and Speaker Pelosi; but I'd say that knowing which party, at the very least, is setting the financial agenda for the United States is a pretty necessary foundation for having a basic grasp of the economic policies of the United States.

I'd be hesitant to believe that anyone who doesn't even know who controlls Congress (the group with the keys to the treasury) has a grasp on how Obama plans to approach the economy.

On a more positive note, from what I've read on Timothy Geithner, he looks like a solid appointee for Treasury Secretary. We'll see how this Hillary Clinton appointment (if, in fact, it does come to fruition) works out. After the ugly campaign those two ran against one another I'm pretty surprised that Obama is entrusting her with such an important position. If things go sour (or even if they just remain sort of status-quo) over the next four years, we could see an epic rematch in the Democratic primaries -- President vs. Secretary of State. Yummy!

[J.Q. Citizen]

Not intending to speak for JQ, but this would be as gross an oversimplification and stereotypification as "all poor children are without adequate healthcare and insurance because conservatives are incapable of empathy."

I'm sorry, but any voter who lays the blame for the current economic crisis solely at the feet of the current administration is ignorant. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, as well as the current Democrat-controlled Congress are as much to blame for the current economic crisis as George Bush, if not more so. Isn't it interesting to note that the Democrats were in full or effective control of Congress at least three years before the subprime bubble burst!?! 'nuff said...

KEVIN!!!!!
Great to see you around man. Your voice is always welcome. All the more because your points are so dead on. I can't believe Barney Frank even got re-elected. I wonder what a poll of those voters my show. And Dodd may very well wind up in jail.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Perhaps I did read more into your point than was intended.

I assumed:

(1) You agree with John Zieglar's statement, "...my concern here is that the news media coverage failed to make the electorate educated enough to produce a legitimately informed vote."
(2) You believe that a legitimately informed electorate would have elected McCain. (or that McCain supporters would have scored higher on the test)

If those were wrong assumptions, I apologize. If they were correct assumptions, I think my summary was fair. Perhaps it would have bothered you less if I had used word "uinformed" rather than "ignorant". Is this summary better?

McCain lost in large part because Obama supporters are uninformed.
Obama supporters are uninformed because the media is biased.

In this case Jane, I'm going to have to accept your apology. Whether by accident or design, the focus and intent of this thread has been hijacked. Quite frankly, your assumptions and questions, as interesting as they may be, are as relative to the points I raised as is the last time you mowed your lawn. I say that, not to be rude, but to emphasize how off-track the discussion has moved.

I am more interested in people's thoughts about the stereotyping of conservatives and liberals. I'm wondering how liberals can participate in or condone the generic stereotyping of conservatives with virtually no facts or merely anecdotal evidence while generally holding a superior view of themselves when the results of this poll are at least as incriminating as anything I've ever seen presented by them. If I remember correctly Jane, didn't you link to some videos that you felt were indicative of conservatives as a whole or a least McCain supporters as inciting hate and fear? I'm curious to see if those who have contributed to perpetuating the stereotyping of conservatives will acknowledge that maybe they haven't been completely fair or maybe...less than empathetic.

[chipper]

Whether by accident or design, the focus and intent of this thread has been hijacked.

Sorry J.Q.!!! I've got plenty to learn from the lively debates between you, Jane and Kevin (if, in fact, he is back :) ) and I hate to have adverted the course of your post--I'll try to sit on my hands in the future to see where you intelligent people take things ;) !

[J.Q. Citizen]

Sorry J.Q.!!! I've got plenty to learn from the lively debates between you, Jane and Kevin (if, in fact, he is back :) ) and I hate to have adverted the course of your post--I'll try to sit on my hands in the future to see where you intelligent people take things ;) !

Hey, absolutely no worries Chipper. You had some valid points and, actually, your clarification of the intent of the poll helped me to clarify my intent in making the post. And please don't sit on your hands. As far as I'm concerned, you're a major contributor to these discussions.

[JaneBlow]

I'd say the responses to "which party currently controls Congress" are rather disturbing...I'd say that knowing which party, at the very least, is setting the financial agenda for the United States is a pretty necessary foundation for having a basic grasp of the economic policies of the United States.


I will agree that most voters are not as informed as they should be and rely only on the media and a few speeches to make their decision. I think McCain's repeated statement that the fundamentals of the economy were strong as late as September made voters realize he wasn't the best man to handle the economic crisis.

I also think even uninformed voters realize that our government has been dominated by Republican ideology for the last decade and that the current problems weren't created since January 2007 when the Democrats won control of Congress. Some even realize that isn't enough to run the government.

[JaneBlow]

I am more interested in people's thoughts about the stereotyping of conservatives and liberals. I'm wondering how liberals can participate in or condone the generic stereotyping of conservatives with virtually no facts or merely anecdotal evidence while generally holding a superior view of themselves when the results of this poll are at least as incriminating as anything I've ever seen presented by them.

In order to make a case that liberals stereotype conservatives, you first need to stereotype liberals. I think we all (on both sides of the fence) get frustrated arguing and through out comments that insult the other side's intelligence from time to time. But I don't think liberals do it any more than conservatives. How many times have you told me I've been drinking the kool-aid again? I think both sides need to be more respectful.

If I remember correctly Jane, didn't you link to some videos that you felt were indicative of conservatives as a whole or a least McCain supporters as inciting hate and fear? I'm curious to see if those who have contributed to perpetuating the stereotyping of conservatives will acknowledge that maybe they haven't been completely fair or maybe...less than empathetic.

The videos I posted were of McCain supporters calling Obama a terrorist. I never said that all conservatives think Obama is a terrorist. My point was that kind of behavior should not be a surprise when the candidates are repeatedly saying he "pals around with terrorists" and we don't really know him. If those videos perpetuated stereotyping of conservatives, it was because of the actions of the people in the videos, not me for posting them.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I think McCain's repeated statement that the fundamentals of the economy were strong as late as September made voters realize he wasn't the best man to handle the economic crisis.

And I would submit that anyone who didn't understand that McCain was essentially correct in his assessment probably wasn't qualified to make an informed decision. I don't believe we have, as of yet, even met the criteria for a recession.

I would submit that anyone who bought into Obama's "worst economy since the Great Depression" probably wasn't qualified to make an informed decision. We're really not even that close to the economic situation of the Carter administration but that's a much more apt description.

Yeah, I know...Democrats love to sell the doom and gloom. They've been demeaning the economy for the duration of Bush's time in office and yet, despite inheriting a down-turning economy from Clinton and the bursting of the tech bubble followed by the economic devastation of 9/11 and 2 wars I don't believe we ever entered a recession. Inflation was kept low. Something like 4 million jobs were created. True, it wasn't an economic boom but relative to what it could have been, I would argue that it could be viewed as such. Selling the doom and gloom is what helped them to regain power. Think you have a problem? Not to worry...Super Government to the rescue.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I think both sides need to be more respectful.

And yet, you chose to attempt to explain, with virtually no empathy at all, why Kevin, others and I should not have taken any offense to Brett's blog about a conservative talking to his radio.

[J.Q. Citizen]

The videos I posted were of McCain supporters calling Obama a terrorist. I never said that all conservatives think Obama is a terrorist. My point was that kind of behavior should not be a surprise when the candidates are repeatedly saying he "pals around with terrorists" and we don't really know him. If those videos perpetuated stereotyping of conservatives, it was because of the actions of the people in the videos, not me for posting them.
No, basically, the videos portrayed conservatives as ignorant, uneducated and racist which I felt was an underlying theme. "Look at these people who are so ignorant and backwards that they'll get all worked up over inaccurate and misguided rhetoric."

The fact is, we don't know Obama...we still don't. I've even heard liberal commentators make that very point. As for "palling around with terrorists", if you can tolerate being around an unrepentant terrorist in any capacity where you're not condemning them or possibly interviewing them (just trying to think of every possibility I can imagine) then the two of you might as well head to California and hope that their Supreme Court overturns Prop 8.

[pfgosling]

There is a theory that dualistic thought as often demonstrated in the political discussions of our two-party state is a product of our failure to evolve beyond the simple fight or flight nature of our caveman ancestors.

[J.Q. Citizen]

There is a theory that dualistic thought as often demonstrated in the political discussions of our two-party state is a product of our failure to evolve beyond the simple fight or flight nature of our caveman ancestors.

That's an interesting theory. Based on my understanding of that response, I'm not sure I can see how it would really apply. I mean, I understand how it might influence our perceptions in some way but I thought that it also inherently tends to stifle rational thought. If you have a link that discusses this theory I'd be very interested in learning more.

[JaneBlow]

And yet, you chose to attempt to explain, with virtually no empathy at all, why Kevin, others and I should not have taken any offense to Brett's blog about a conservative talking to his radio.

I admitted that I need to be more respectful. Can you not admit the same thing?

For the record though, I did not try to explain why you shouldn't take offense to Brett's blog. I simply explained my response. I thought I did so in a polite way. Here's what I wrote:

Kevin and J.Q., I understand where your anger is coming from, but I saw a different message than you did. The message I got was not that Bush is a baby killer. To me, the message was that war is tragic and we should be reminded that there is a connection between our actions and the tragedies of war. Nothing more -- nothing less.

Are Bush's actions more closely connected to the deaths of innocent civilians than my actions? Yes (not because he is a hateful or violent person, but because he is the Commander in Chief). Bush's actions are also more connected to more widespread positive contributions in the world than mine (not because is a nicer person than me, but because he had the power to do more).

[JaneBlow]

And I would submit that anyone who didn't understand that McCain was essentially correct in his assessment probably wasn't qualified to make an informed decision. I don't believe we have, as of yet, even met the criteria for a recession.

I would submit that anyone who bought into Obama's "worst economy since the Great Depression" probably wasn't qualified to make an informed decision. We're really not even that close to the economic situation of the Carter administration but that's a much more apt description.

Yeah, I know...Democrats love to sell the doom and gloom. They've been demeaning the economy for the duration of Bush's time in office and yet, despite inheriting a down-turning economy from Clinton and the bursting of the tech bubble followed by the economic devastation of 9/11 and 2 wars I don't believe we ever entered a recession. Inflation was kept low. Something like 4 million jobs were created. True, it wasn't an economic boom but relative to what it could have been, I would argue that it could be viewed as such. Selling the doom and gloom is what helped them to regain power. Think you have a problem? Not to worry...Super Government to the rescue.

Hmmmm.....I know you do your homework, J.Q. Could you post the links to those economic experts that are saying the economy isn't really that bad right now? Thanks.

[JaneBlow]

The fact is, we don't know Obama...we still don't. I've even heard liberal commentators make that very point. As for "palling around with terrorists", if you can tolerate being around an unrepentant terrorist in any capacity where you're not condemning them or possibly interviewing them (just trying to think of every possibility I can imagine) then the two of you might as well head to California and hope that their Supreme Court overturns Prop 8.

Interesting choice of words, J.Q. Do you also hate gays?

[JaneBlow]

There is a theory that dualistic thought as often demonstrated in the political discussions of our two-party state is a product of our failure to evolve beyond the simple fight or flight nature of our caveman ancestors.

I'd like to hear more about that theory. I would agree that we tend to oversimplify; that neither party has it 100% right; and, that the perfect solution changes with the times.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Hmmmm.....I know you do your homework, J.Q. Could you post the links to those economic experts that are saying the economy isn't really that bad right now? Thanks.

A recession is typically defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. I could be wrong but I don't believe that has happened yet. I DO know that it had not happened at the time McCain made his comment. I am simply looking at the current numbers versus the last significant recession we had during the Carter administration. I'm not saying it can't get bad but since I strongly suspect that the majority of us having this conversation are currently employed then I don't think things are yet as bad as they clearly have been in the past and that while some things need to be turned around, that turnaround would not be as likely to happen if the fundamentals were not essentially sound.

I'm not saying that I don't understand the public response to McCain's comment. I do. In politics, perception is either everything or very close to it. McCain actually qualified his statement at a later point but that didn't get much coverage. My point is McCain was essentially right but in the face of the media coverage and the perceptions of the general public, he was perceived as being out of touch rather than as expressing optimism that, while we obviously have problems, the fundamentals of the economy were essentially sound.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Interesting choice of words, J.Q. Do you also hate gays?

When is the last time you mowed your lawn Jane?

I will not allow the intent of my words to be hijacked once again.

I was trying to make a point by creating an image. I'll spell it out.

If you are not sufficiently hostile to a terrorist then, in my opinion you're fairly intimate with them and you might as well get married to each other.
The two people concerned are male.
It is illegal for two males to get married in all but one state but that is less well known than the current controversy in CA.

I think Jane, that if I had sufficient animosity towards a certain group to qualify as or border on "hate" then the subject would have arisen before this. As evidence, I would point to my discussions of illegal aliens. While it does not qualify as hate, I believe I have made my opinion about illegal aliens pretty well known. I have to say that I think your question, if you genuinely had a question, could have been phrased differently. I find it fairly offensive as it's currently phrased.

[chipper]

pfgosling,

I think the logical next question is which side is fight and which side is flight?

:)