My goodness, the Democratic internal polls must really be terrible.
Barack Obama's reelection campaign started this April 4th with a video that reminds one of a infomercial for eating your vegetables. They may not be tasty, and they may be uninspiring, and they may even give you fits of prolonged flatuence, but they are good for you. Obama's good for you. The Democratic Party patronage machine is good for you. Trust us, it's for your own good.
Not exactly the hopeychangey thing from 2008.
Even the liberal, reliably Democratic Party boosters are grimacing and balking at swallowing this medicine, that comes without that spoonful of sugar.
The video, which is rather desperate in tone, has been reviewed by minds far more astute than mine. However, the Left's reaction to this rollout is even more indicative of the trouble Obama faces. His bobbleheaded followers are no longer just nodding to the music. His useful idiots in the lamebrained media are not chiming in the raise the roof on his narrative. His faithful aren't flocking and his supporters are not enthused. Rather, they all seem rather doped up though willing to swallow his Koolaid, though reluctantly.
From Michael O'Brien at TheHill.com, "As the song goes, it’s never as good as the first time,” said Democratic consultant Jamal Simmons of Obama’s effort Monday to fire up the grass roots. “But they’ve got a lot of people who are very fired up and excited and would walk on glass for Barack Obama.”
Perhaps his union thugs are scared of governmental cuts and his black constituency are eager for a subsequent Pigford payoff, but there is little evidence much glass-walking is out there. Paid volunteers are not the motivational tool they once were. The sentiment among Democrats isn't so much excitment as resignation. They are committed to The Won, and are 'in for a penny, in for a pound,' but the doldrums are descending on the Left's base. Other than hatred for Republicans and especially conservatives, the Party isn't feeling much love. They are facing a daunting electoral spectra and an annoyed population of independents that aren't buying the song and dance this time.
From the Politico, Glenn Thrush and MJ Lee write, "And the president himself is viewed with considerable ambivalence by voters who like him personally but question many of his policies," April, 4th, 2011. This is Leftist-speak for, 'the president isn't supported by the American people, but they think he wears nice ties and has a pleasant smile.' Not exactly a ringing endorsement for reelection or faith in his campaign plans. More than any other group, independents are furious with the spendaholic president and his seemingly capricious foriegn policy. They are deeply concerned with a president who is targeting them and their futures with hyperbolic rhetoric to rile his base. Class warfare arguments may excite the Michael-Moore-ons and the Bill Mahericans, but it further distances the president's draw among the middle class, especially the productive class. The Democratic Party strategists are putting on the bold face, but the voting public at large isn't buying this president's policies, not a single one. Polls continue to show the president and his Party are not gaining followers, but instead losing them in droves. Democratic apologists point to polls measuring the president's popularity as a kind of grasp on a safety rope.
From the most recent Real Clear Politics reports, Obama is underwater in the polls measuring registered voter and likely voter models. In the case of the Quinnapiac poll, he's dragging along at 42% approval. His only positive numbers are in the "All voters" category. Typically, these polls are worthless as they tend to measure the most uninformed and uninspired populations. The internals in these polls are equally as questionable. Democratic Party identifiers comprise 45% of the population while GOP identifiers make up 33% of the poll. This is a highly skewed number to the left, especially considering the identification polls over the past year. This also rings hollow when considering the trend for independents to report being against Obama's policies and his performance as president. This AP-Gfk poll finds 4% don't lean toward a party and 17% as unknown. Unknown is a recent incarnation that collectivists use to group populations they find inconvenient in polls. They artificially thrust independent voters to side with either Republicans or Democrats. Those who didn't side with either party either came out as 4% don't lean or this bizarre 17% don't know category. The only reason I bring up this strange configuration is because political scientists have been tinkering with these ideas from 2006. They are creating push/polls that are intended to marginalize the right and buttress the left in public perception.
That is exactly what the Obama reelection campaign is resorting to in the coming election cycle. This is for two very important reasons. First, they have to make Obama look unbeatable among Democratic voters. This clears the way for his seamless renomination. They are terrified that more liberal and more moderate candidates could enter the field making Obama's reelection more tricky. They are also convinced that if they can persuade the mushy middle that Obama is their only choice, he can skim off voters who are queasy about 'evil' Republicans and conservatives.
For collectivists, perception is reality. If they can frame the upcoming debate over the presidency between a radical extremist Republican and a moderate, above-the-fray Obama, they can win. If the narrative is between two qualified and sincere candidates, Obama loses. His track record, his positions on policy, and his overall performance have been dismal at best. We are stuck in worse economic times than ever, we are now in another military conflict, and Obama's initiatives that have passed 111th Congress seem to be worse than doing nothing would.
So, they've got to frame the scenario and make Obama look like the rational choice, when politically he's actually the radical compared to most Republicans and most independents and even a decent slice of Democrats.
They've got to persuade us to take our medicine, even though its actually arsenic mixed with strychnine laced with cyanide.
But, it's in a pretty bottle. Or, at least one that sells.
There are some intellectually honest liberals out there that are not buying it this time around. They embrace Obama's radicalism, but are uncomfortable with his need to constantly reframe and juxtapose narratives instead of actually governing or doing what he believes is right. Ruth Marcus recently started criticizing The Petulant One in columns that have given collectivists fits. Their blood runs cold when famously liberal Marcus starts ranting about Obama.
Screeing about Obama's rhetorical use of 'false choice' argument, Marcus railed against Obama comparing him to 'gulp' Nixon. "The first presidential false-choicer I have found was Richard Nixon, who used the phrase appropriately in a 1969 commencement address: “Let us not, then, pose a false choice between meeting our responsibilities abroad and meeting the needs of our people at home. We shall meet both or we shall meet neither.” Washington ComPost, March 31, 2011, "The trust about false choice."
That's gotta sting. When your Socialist Worker intellectual base starts comparing you to Richard Milhous Nixon, you must be in hot water. I seriously doubt Marcus would ever consider voting for a Republican, even if Joseph Stalin won the Democratic Party nomination. She, like most collectivists, would simply rationalize it by excusing his radicalism to a difficult childhood but once in office he'd moderate his positions.
That aside, rumblings are evident within the Democratic Party's shrinking base that this president is in trouble. Obama is starting his reelection campaign a record 19 months before the election, without any serious primary challengers as of yet. He is attempting to rake in over a billion dollars in campaign contributions and completely ignore the campaign reforms his Party once advocated.
"Some election observers said that unprecedented levels of influence for corporations and labor unions could drown out the voices of average Americans.
“We think that it’s a recipe for disaster,’’ said Mary Boyle, spokeswoman for Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog based in Washington" From the Boston Globe, Donovan Slack and Theo Emery, "Targets set high for Obama reelection."
This is the same 'nonpartisan' Common Cause that following a forum on "Uncloaking the Kochs" were taped expressing these highly tolerant and loving comments in regards to the Supreme Court.
From James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:
Hartsock: What do you say we do with Clarence Thomas after we impeach him?
Young woman with sunglasses and nose ring 2: Bad things.
Hartsock: Like what?
Nose ring 2: I dunno, 'cause I'm all about peace, but I would say torture.
Now that's the kind of calm, nonpartisan leadership we need. No wonder they are ginning up the base with this garbled nonsense. These people are nutjobs.
But, the lamebrained media have been careful to shield their 'nonpartisan' contributor Common Cause from any scrutiny.
That is what these narratives are based on. They are carefully constructed and parroted by the Democratic Party-run press to buttress the Democratic Party agenda.
We don't have to take their medicine, and neither do our friends in the middle.
We must continue to punch holes in the lies and expose them for what they really are
Snake, er Cod Liver Oil salesmen.