Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[J. J.]

Obama seems to be talking about an economy as it was 35 years ago.  That is called being out of touch.

Or maybe you are trying to defend your own credibility as it is the generals and you are trying to solidify your case for Micky C.

No, there are enough links on this tread, and enough reporting, to show that Obama was wrong even on the econimic aspect of the statement.  Obamality, not reality.

Oh great. In McWorld, Pennsylvania is this vibrant, fast-growth economically strong state. I think the fact that it is not keeping up with the rest of the country and is losing seats fast is case enough.

No, but it has been shown that PA has grown and that unemployment is lower.  Not perfect, but not "bitter" either.

It's on the news again, with Obama's Annie Oakley comment.  Retro again.  More Obamality.

Unemployment is low, but where is it compared to the national average and what is the median wage?

Prittsburgh is 0.5% higher than Phila and 0.6% above the national average, but it is lower than NC, SC, GA, IL, and CA. 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/

You can look up the median income yourself, because this shows that this is a case of Obamity.

[Person Man]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but it seems the author of this agrees with Senator Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone know who wrote it?

So, the conservative goal is to eliminate "waste", not do anything about taxes, campaign on do-nothing taxes and then promise to solve economic problems by blaming them on scape goats and putting them in jail. Deficits will go up and they will be forced to cut benefit further and the cycle begins anew until the government has to rely on profits to function and doesn't do anything but put those who can't fit in into jail.

Obama seems to be talking about an economy as it was 35 years ago.  That is called being out of touch.

Or maybe you are trying to defend your own credibility as it is the generals and you are trying to solidify your case for Micky C.

No, there are enough links on this tread, and enough reporting, to show that Obama was wrong even on the econimic aspect of the statement.  Obamality, not reality.

Oh great. In McWorld, Pennsylvania is this vibrant, fast-growth economically strong state. I think the fact that it is not keeping up with the rest of the country and is losing seats fast is case enough.

No, but it has been shown that PA has grown and that unemployment is lower.  Not perfect, but not "bitter" either.

It's on the news again, with Obama's Annie Oakley comment.  Retro again.  More Obamality.

Unemployment is low, but where is it compared to the national average and what is the median wage?

Prittsburgh is 0.5% higher than Phila and 0.6% above the national average, but it is lower than NC, SC, GA, IL, and CA. 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/

You can look up the median income yourself, because this shows that this is a case of Obamity.

No, it doesn't. The cities do very well....but they are off-set by lower wages in the country-side. Obama was appealling to rural people. He will win the urban vote, so he wasn't talking about those affluent areas.

[HardRCafé]

As an atheist, I'm pretty sure that Obama isn't one. We can smell our own.

I want to know more about how that works.

[exopolitician]

As an atheist, I'm pretty sure that Obama isn't one. We can smell our own.

I want to know more about how that works.

We dont reveal out secrets to.....other NORMAL...people like yourself...

[HardRCafé]

I'm no idiot.  You've told me nothing I don't know here.  It's just that I have a concern for social justice and human rights.

Thank you for distinguishing yourself from everyone else in this thread.  You are an inspiration to us all.

[Michael Z]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not only is the issue relevant anymore, but Obama isnt an elitist anymore but she still went on saying that "many good men running for president before were viewed as being elitist and out of touch..." aka....her husband. He made pretty much the same comments while campaigning in '92.....interesting.

Indeed. This is Bill Clinton in 1992:

"You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

[specific_name]

posting in epic thread.

[classical liberal]

People don't respond to social populism (e.g., religious fundamentalism, ethnonationalism, English as official language policies, anti-gay sentiment, and racial xenophobia) over economic populism (e.g. anti-trade, anti-market, anti-job and wage competition, anti-foreign investment, anti-outsourcing, and generally anti-economic freedom sentiments) because they are economically insecure.  In fact, just the opposite is true; people who made more than ~$30,000/yr were the ones in the 2004 election more likely than not to be swayed by social populism (such as the traditional marriage amendment issue), whereas those who made less were more likely than not to be swayed by economic populism (such as Kerry's shtick about "opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in America").  It is the people who feel insecure in their economic situation who vote based on their populist views on economic issues while putting aside their populist views on social issues, whereas those who feel economically secure are able to put aside their populist economic views and vote based on their populist views on social issues.  People are not populist because they are poor, they are both poor and populist because they are uneducated (there is a difference between populist positions on issues, such as those both for and against gun control, and reasoned positions on such that lead one to similar policy proscriptions on both sides of the issue).

Also, the irony of Obama complaining about populism, even as he ramps up the populist rhetoric in PA himself, does seem to justify criticism.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not only is the issue relevant anymore, but Obama isnt an elitist anymore but she still went on saying that "many good men running for president before were viewed as being elitist and out of touch..." aka....her husband. He made pretty much the same comments while campaigning in '92.....interesting.

Indeed. This is Bill Clinton in 1992:

"You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

I would say there is a huge difference there. Bill Clinton, coming from the backwaters of Arkansas, is talking about HIMSELF and his people. He's saying "if they can keep US looking at each other..." etc. Obama on the other hand was talking about OTHER people, supposedly beneath him.

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama talks with people not to them or at them. There is some irony that he stands charged with being elitist; yet he, of the three prospective presidents, may well be the one who serves, or is beholden to, the interests of the elite least

Still, he could have explained the point he was trying to make much better than he did. He could have done so without even bringing guns and religion into it

Dave

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

people cling to guns and religion because they are bitter? 

dumb

[Wiz in Wis]

As an atheist, I'm pretty sure that Obama isn't one. We can smell our own.

I want to know more about how that works.

I'll send you our pamphlet

[Person Man]

What's funny is that if Obama is elitist, what does that make McCain, who believes that the elite matter the most and all off everyone else's problems will just go away and Clinton, who thinks that compassion for average people can simply be faked?

I mean if these liberals are so far to the left that they are to the right (elitism, eugenics, social engineering), what does that make real conservatives?

people cling to guns and religion because they are bitter? 

dumb

This spin is giving me a headache. The point is that if people thought they had no hope on economic issues, other issues would come and take their place. Not that people never had them before, but that these are the only important issues that someone will try to emphasize with them on.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

General point here... why should the leaders of the country be in touch with small town America?  It's really such a cute statement. 

Shouldn't the leaders' job to be to protect their jobs and way of life that they like to live?  But to be IN TOUCH with them?  I guess we should now use half the country's budget to go after gays, pay for ads supporting the flag burning amendments, overturn Roe v. Wade, give people their guns back....etc etc etc.  Time and time again they've shown that this is what they care about!  Why not!?  .... screw the failing economy...let's get IN TOUCH with small-town America and really make a difference by passing that gay marriage Amendment!  Then we can be in touch with middle America and they can finally stop bitching at liberals for being so elitist and uppity, 'cause that is the goal of government right? 

Give me a break... the elite is the elite for a reason and working class is called working class for a reason.  I'll quote Bill Maher here.  We have ELITE task forces.  ELITE troops in the armed forces.  But when it comes to deciding POLICY FOR THE ENTIRE F'IN COUNTRY...WHY IS "ELITE" BAD!?  Why do you want the President to be one of you?  Would you want your neighbor to be President?  Shouldn't the top executive and the person who is the leader of the free world be an ELITE person?!  I'm sorry, it's mind-boggling. 

They both seem happy in their respective realms and the job of the government should be to allow both to continue and improve their ways of life.  But honestly... which realm of society should be deciding policy and leading us?  I'm sorry, but the answer is not Joe from small town America. 

[Person Man]

General point here... why should the leaders of the country be in touch with small town America.  It's really such a cute statement. 

Shouldn't the leaders' job to be to protect their jobs and way of life that they like to live?  But to be IN TOUCH with them?  I guess we should now use half the country's budget to go after gays, pay for ads supporting the flag burning amendment, overturn Roe v. Wade, give people their guns back....etc etc etc.   Time and time again they've shown that this is what they care about.... screw the failing economy...let's get IN TOUCH with small-town America and really make a difference by passing that gay marriage Amendment! 

Give me a break... the elite is called the elite for a reason and working class is called working class for a reason.  They both seem happy in their respective realms and the job of the government should be to allow both to continue and improve their ways of life.  But honestly... which realm of society should be deciding policy? 

Is giving people guns and then trying to put them in jail the best way we could move forward? I understand people should have guns, but in this context, it looks like we want inner city problems in the suburbs. Then again, maybe people wanna be gangstas.

This also hits on another battery of questions-

What is the role of government? Common Good vs. Address Grievances vs. Producing a "Vaccum Government"
How do you define that role? What is the common good? vs. What are our problems?
How do you acheive that role? Direct Democracy vs. Beureucratic Republicanism

[Filuwaúrdjan]

General point here... why should the leaders of the country be in touch with small town America.  It's really such a cute statement. 

Because, in a democracy, the leaders of a country should be in touch with all sections of society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The title and the status it implies is merely a reflection of their political and economic power. It has nothing to do with whether or not such power and status is deserved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I Know My Place. Would sir like me to doff my cap at sir, sir? Would sir like me to hew him some wood or draw him some water, sir, sir?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The whole of it.

D E M O C R A C Y. Ever heard of that concept before, your highness?

[Person Man]

General point here... why should the leaders of the country be in touch with small town America.  It's really such a cute statement. 

Because, in a democracy, the leaders of a country should be in touch with all sections of society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The title and the status it implies is merely a reflection of their political and economic power. It has nothing to do with whether or not such power and status is deserved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I Know My Place. Would sir like me to doff my cap at sir, sir? Would sir like me to hew him some wood or draw him some water, sir, sir?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The whole of it.

D E M O C R A C Y. Ever heard of that concept before, your highness?

This is what I was trying to allude to. We need a REAL DISCUSSION about who does what and what should be done. ...because people are making some pretty poor choices of late and what's ironic is that they both understand that they are making these choices and that these choices are poor and may or not continue to, make poor choices, understand that they are making them and understanding that they are poor. By any measure, this is unsustainable and unacceptable.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

General point here... why should the leaders of the country be in touch with small town America.  It's really such a cute statement. 

Shouldn't the leaders' job to be to protect their jobs and way of life that they like to live?  But to be IN TOUCH with them? I guess we should now use half the country's budget to go after gays, pay for ads supporting the flag burning amendment, overturn Roe v. Wade, give people their guns back....etc etc etc.   Time and time again they've shown that this is what they care about.... screw the failing economy...let's get IN TOUCH with small-town America and really make a difference by passing that gay marriage Amendment! 

Give me a break... the elite is called the elite for a reason and working class is called working class for a reason.  They both seem happy in their respective realms and the job of the government should be to allow both to continue and improve their ways of life.  But honestly... which realm of society should be deciding policy? 

Is giving people guns and then trying to put them in jail the best way we could move forward? I understand people should have guns, but in this context, it looks like we want inner city problems in the suburbs. Then again, maybe people wanna be gangstas.

This also hits on another battery of questions-

What is the role of government? Common Good vs. Address Grievances vs. Producing a "Vaccum Government"
How do you define that role? What is the common good? vs. What are our problems?
How do you acheive that role? Direct Democracy vs. Beureucratic Republicanism

The role of a good government in the modern world is addressing a healthy balance between personal freedom and the common good that allows growth of prosperity but never fails to realize the fundamental freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I also believe the philosophy of "do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt others" applies in not all, but an extraordinarily high majority of situations. 

Achieving that goal is a matter of economics and education...allowing the same resources that allow the most successful people to achieve that success to reach everybody equally.  We do not have that now. 

How do we achieve that?  Well, it's not the simplest answer.  I believe that sometimes... you have to achieve that by pissing some people off... namely, the vast lower-middle class, and not the lower class who are in such a desperate situation that they will ALWAYS vote their interests, that huge group of people who get by but struggle to do so and wish they had so much more.  They, quite literally, hate the elite, because they COULD have been one of them in many cases.  So much so, they even hate those who try to help them.  This is a largely bitter sect of society that does not want to hear what they need to hear to help them achieve the goals they want.  Direct democracy does not work here in America.  Look no further than the 2004 election, where the economy, war, and   terrorism where the biggest concerns facing this country... but 2004 basically came down to small town folk despising the Massachusetts liberal for... well, nothing really, just general dislike and their ability to be duped by those who are truly feeding off them (CORPORATE elites) into voting BS wedge issues. 

The country is best off realizing that whether you like it or not, intellectually elite people who display a general care for the middle and lower classes are the people best equipped to run this government because

a) they are educated, rational, and provide real solutions... not likable sound bites

b) they are annoyed by ignorance and stupidity and therefore want to eliminate it through economic equality and education.

the CORPORATE elites that currently run this country are not the right solution because. 

a) they say and do anything because, they are greedy

b) they have no reservations to spout BS to get elected because, they are greedy

and

c) the more they keep the middle class down the higher profit and slice of the pie will be reserved for them because, they are greedy

... and that's what it comes down to essentially.  I'm not talking parties here... I am talking liberal v. conservative in the upper realms of society.  Liberals are uppity but will help you.  Conservatives will paint a pretty picture...then f * ck you.   

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

General point here... why should the leaders of the country be in touch with small town America.  It's really such a cute statement. 

Because, in a democracy, the leaders of a country should be in touch with all sections of society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The title and the status it implies is merely a reflection of their political and economic power. It has nothing to do with whether or not such power and status is deserved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I Know My Place. Would sir like me to doff my cap at sir, sir? Would sir like me to hew him some wood or draw him some water, sir, sir?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The whole of it.

D E M O C R A C Y. Ever heard of that concept before, your highness?

What happens when democracy truly doesn't work.  It hasn't in this country for a long time.  You have to be assertive and say what needs to be said and do what needs to be in order in order to promote equality and freedom, the two principles on which we should be governing ourselves. 

[Joe Republic]

What happens when democracy truly doesn't work.  It hasn't in this country for a long time.  You have to be assertive and say what needs to be said and do what needs to be in order in order to promote equality and freedom, the two principles on which we should be governing ourselves. 

Eureka!  We don't need these silly elections after all!  I've always been fond of the idea of oligarchy anyway, because it'd be fine as long as the overlords don't abuse their power or anything...

[J. J.]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but it seems the author of this agrees with Senator Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone know who wrote it?

So, the conservative goal is to eliminate "waste", not do anything about taxes, campaign on do-nothing taxes and then promise to solve economic problems by blaming them on scape goats and putting them in jail. Deficits will go up and they will be forced to cut benefit further and the cycle begins anew until the government has to rely on profits to function and doesn't do anything but put those who can't fit in into jail.

Obama seems to be talking about an economy as it was 35 years ago.  That is called being out of touch.

Or maybe you are trying to defend your own credibility as it is the generals and you are trying to solidify your case for Micky C.

No, there are enough links on this tread, and enough reporting, to show that Obama was wrong even on the econimic aspect of the statement.  Obamality, not reality.

Oh great. In McWorld, Pennsylvania is this vibrant, fast-growth economically strong state. I think the fact that it is not keeping up with the rest of the country and is losing seats fast is case enough.

No, but it has been shown that PA has grown and that unemployment is lower.  Not perfect, but not "bitter" either.

It's on the news again, with Obama's Annie Oakley comment.  Retro again.  More Obamality.

Unemployment is low, but where is it compared to the national average and what is the median wage?

Prittsburgh is 0.5% higher than Phila and 0.6% above the national average, but it is lower than NC, SC, GA, IL, and CA. 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/

You can look up the median income yourself, because this shows that this is a case of Obamity.

No, it doesn't. The cities do very well....but they are off-set by lower wages in the country-side. Obama was appealling to rural people. He will win the urban vote, so he wasn't talking about those affluent areas.

The Pittsburgh SMA includes many of those small towns Obama is complaining about.  A fare share are in the Phila SMA.

[angus]

I don't agree, largely because, I've never bought the "They hate America because they hate freedom" argument.  (I would say that the want the power America has.)

The problem is that Obama's argument is a gigantic non sequitur, the "the economy has been for decades [a false premise in itself], so the locals cling to guns and religion."

you caught me a little off guard.  I don't buy into the "they hate freedom" argument either, but I can't see how that precludes the possibility that poverty, or at least lack of economic mobility, might be the source of the frustration which is exploited by terrorist recruiters.

Other than that I'll just admit that I'm apparently out of touch, like Obama.  I didn't initially find the statement Sam posted to be strange or offensive.  It wasn't till the next night when I saw CNN making a whole one-hour program about his statement that I even gave it a second thought.  Now that I do think about it, I understand Rendell's point.  But that doesn't mean the connection Obama was trying to make wasn't logical.  Taken in context, it says to me that lack of economic mobility is a major source of frustration, and folks like to project.  In this case, Obama merely notes that immigrants and liberal trade policies are easy targets for projections of fear, and spirituality is something many find appealing to when the chips are down.  The fact that he may have underestimated Pennsylvania's current economic condition needn't distract from the validity of the analysis.

Think they're still playing this?  I didn't watch any TV yesterday, nor this morning.  But it wouldn't surprise me if the talking heads are still trying to get some mileage out of this.

[HardRCafé]

I Know My Place. Would sir like me to doff my cap at sir, sir? Would sir like me to hew him some wood or draw him some water, sir, sir?

That made me proud to be sitting here with a cup of Glengettie.

[J. J.]

I don't agree, largely because, I've never bought the "They hate America because they hate freedom" argument.  (I would say that the want the power America has.)

The problem is that Obama's argument is a gigantic non sequitur, the "the economy has been for decades [a false premise in itself], so the locals cling to guns and religion."

you caught me a little off guard.  I don't buy into the "they hate freedom" argument either, but I can't see how that precludes the possibility that poverty, or at least lack of economic mobility, might be the source of the frustration which is exploited by terrorist recruiters.

Other than that I'll just admit that I'm apparently out of touch, like Obama.  I didn't initially find the statement Sam posted to be strange or offensive.  It wasn't till the next night when I saw CNN making a whole one-hour program about his statement that I even gave it a second thought.  Now that I do think about it, I understand Rendell's point.  But that doesn't mean the connection Obama was trying to make wasn't logical.  Taken in context, it says to me that lack of economic mobility is a major source of frustration, and folks like to project.  In this case, Obama merely notes that immigrants and liberal trade policies are easy targets for projections of fear, and spirituality is something many find appealing to when the chips are down.  The fact that he may have underestimated Pennsylvania's current economic condition needn't distract from the validity of the analysis.

Think they're still playing this?  I didn't watch any TV yesterday, nor this morning.  But it wouldn't surprise me if the talking heads are still trying to get some mileage out of this.

All the candidates are discussing it.

There is not, however, that "lack of economic mobility," at least that isn't common in prosperous small towns.  Someone living in Bolivar, PA may want to become a physicist or chemist (and I actually know one), and may be able to, but not in Bolivar.  The reason isn't because of poverty, but because there is no need for a professional chemist in that town; even in great economic times, there wasn't a need.  Likewise Bolivar is landlocked and not near a navigable body of water; someone wanting to be in the US Navy, a merchant seaman or longshoreman is out of luck, unless they move(and I know one there as well; he's now a Captain in the US Navy). This has to do with size, not poverty.

Just in terms of economics, Obama's wrong. 

It wrong in terms of Pennsylvania current situation, Obama's wrong, which raises the "out of touch" issue.

Now, Obama tries to tie this into a support for religion or gun ownership, the gigantic non sequitur.

[Person Man]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but it seems the author of this agrees with Senator Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone know who wrote it?

So, the conservative goal is to eliminate "waste", not do anything about taxes, campaign on do-nothing taxes and then promise to solve economic problems by blaming them on scape goats and putting them in jail. Deficits will go up and they will be forced to cut benefit further and the cycle begins anew until the government has to rely on profits to function and doesn't do anything but put those who can't fit in into jail.

Obama seems to be talking about an economy as it was 35 years ago.  That is called being out of touch.

Or maybe you are trying to defend your own credibility as it is the generals and you are trying to solidify your case for Micky C.

No, there are enough links on this tread, and enough reporting, to show that Obama was wrong even on the econimic aspect of the statement.  Obamality, not reality.

Oh great. In McWorld, Pennsylvania is this vibrant, fast-growth economically strong state. I think the fact that it is not keeping up with the rest of the country and is losing seats fast is case enough.

No, but it has been shown that PA has grown and that unemployment is lower.  Not perfect, but not "bitter" either.

It's on the news again, with Obama's Annie Oakley comment.  Retro again.  More Obamality.

Unemployment is low, but where is it compared to the national average and what is the median wage?

Prittsburgh is 0.5% higher than Phila and 0.6% above the national average, but it is lower than NC, SC, GA, IL, and CA. 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/

You can look up the median income yourself, because this shows that this is a case of Obamity.

No, it doesn't. The cities do very well....but they are off-set by lower wages in the country-side. Obama was appealling to rural people. He will win the urban vote, so he wasn't talking about those affluent areas.

The Pittsburgh SMA includes many of those small towns Obama is complaining about.  A fare share are in the Phila SMA.

...and where is the all the prosperity located? The city itself or the outer areas? .5% above unemployment seems pretty hight for a big city.