Obama: Elitist or just intelligent and curious?

Barack Obama is catching some flack from the media for his so-called "elitist" view expressed in San Francisco that small town Americans feel left behind by the economy and are bitter, have no hope that the government will do anything about that, and so they vote on the basis of guns, religion and opposition to "outsiders" (illegal immigrants, gays, etc.)

Rasmussen reports a poll which he says shows that "56% disagree with Obama's comments on small town America." Here is the specific wording of key questions:

2* Obama said that in small towns in Pennsylvania, people “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Do you agree or disagree?

25% Agree
56% Disagree
19% Not sure

3* Senators Clinton and McCain said Obama’s comments showed he was out of touch with hardworking Americans. Do Obama’s comments reflect an elitist view of small-town America?

45% Yes
37% No
18% Not sure

4* In response, Obama said, “No, I'm in touch. I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania, I know what's going in Indiana, I know what's going in Illinois. People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington.” Do you agree or disagree?

56% Agree
32% Disagree
12% Not sure

When reading Rasmussen's interpretation of the results, you have to remember that Rasmussen is a Republican pollster. He shades his comments to make Republicans look better and Democrats look worse. Also, look at question #3. It literally creates the impression of elitism by the way it is written. This is not a poll intended to determine what the voters believe. It is a poll intended to direct the voters towards what the pollster wants them to believe, and as such reinforces the similar message that the media, Hillary Clinton and John McCain all want the voters to believe. Notice how the voters change in question #4 so that 56% agree with Obama and only 32% disagree about whether small town voters feel bitter.

Consider the issue in two parts. First, Obama described how small town voters feel angry, frustrated and bitter, and they want change in Washington. There is strong agreement there, and this is not something that no other Democrat has stated. Here is a very similar statement that Senator Webb made in 2006. It is the second part that has upset a more people. That is the part in which Obama stated people “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Question #2 was clearly designed by Rasmussen to conceal that there really is a class-related bitterness that Obama is tapping into, as was Sen. Jim Webb before him. As you watch the various proposals from the administration, McCain and the Republicans for dealing with the current economic crisis, look at who they are helping - it's all money for the banks and investors, while (as Atrios points out:

No mercy shown for those who flee mortgage loans

KENNETH R. HARNEY | Washington Post Writers Group
April 13, 2008


WASHINGTON—The country's two largest sources of mortgage money have a blunt warning for anyone thinking about joining the "walkaway" trend, where homeowners stop making payments and months later send the house keys to their lender: You will feel the pain.

On March 31, Fannie Mae sent out new guidelines to lenders aimed at walkaways and other foreclosure situations. Fannie will prohibit foreclosed borrowers from getting another mortgage through it for five years, unless there are "documented extenuating circumstances." In those cases, the prohibition is three years.

This is designed to protect the lenders from those disrespectful homeowners who have just learned that they are stuck in mortgages that are much higher than the property is actually worth and refuse to pay and bail out the lenders who stupidly overvalued the property to make the high fees for originating a mortgage they then resold and stuck investors with.

The homeowners who were handed an overpriced home are going to be penalized if they don't bail out the lenders holding the fraudulently established mortgage contract. Fraudulently established? What else can you call a mortgage based on inflated valuations and issued just to make the excessive fees mortgage brokers get? They didn't need to worry because they immediately resold the mortgage to investors around the world (because the rating agencies gave the packages of mortgages AAA ratings. If they didn't, the seller with to a rating agency who would give that AAA rating and the first rating agency lost the business and the fees.) and got out from under any loss.

That's protecting the wealthy and their bankers from their own stupidity and greed, sticking the individual homeowner with paying the inflated costs. That's class warfare from the top down.

That's also the same people who are trying to paint Barack Obama as some kind of elitist because he is bright, well-educated and curious. They're also the same very wealthy upper classes trying to sell McCain as a war hero and as a maverick "everyman." That's John McCain, the guy who was sixth from the bottom in his class at Annapolis and whose only post-graduate education was 2 1/2 years technical training in how to fly Navy jets and 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton nearly four decades ago. The John McCain who can't remember that there is a difference between Sunni's and Shiites in Iraq, whose foreign affairs advisers are the same Neocons who got American into the occupation of Iraq, and who frankly admits that he knows little or nothing about economics (and so he depends on the advice of ex-Senator Phil Gramm who was one of the major persons who deregulated investment banks causing first Enron and now the credit melt-down.)

So the media/Republican spin is that we don't want a candidate who is bright, well-educated and curious. We want another (fake) "everyman" like George W. Bush who certainly fails in the well-educated and curious categories.

And the Republicans have just the guy for us. John McCain. Not too smart, a well-deserved reputation for an explosive temper, but carefully branded as a maverick. (See the video.) Another fake "John Wayne" cowboy. The Republicans gave us "cowboy" Reagan from California, "cowboy" Bush from Texas and now they want to hand us "cowboy" McCain from Arizona.

Keep watching the spin from the media and from Rasmussen. They are practicing class warfare on the rest of us.

Rasmussen poll - Bush at lowest reading ever.

Contrary to the hopes, prayers and predictions of David Broder, Bush continues to fall in the polls. His approval of only 34 in the Rasmussen poll is the lowest that poll has ever recorded for him. But I am less interested in gloating at the public recognition of what I have known since before 2000 than I am in reading the analysis of why he is so low. Iraq and his poor performance in the War on Terror have brought him down, but immigration is what is currently dragging him even lower.

The President’s ratings have tumbled each time immigration reform dominates the news. While the President advocates a “comprehensive” reform focused primarily on legalizing the status of illegal aliens, our most recent survey shows that most voters favor an enforcement first policy. Last year, following a nationally televised Presidential Address on immigration, just 39% of Americans agreed with the President’s position.

Most politicians and DC pundits continue to misunderstand the immigration issue. One article today suggests that Republicans oppose “an open, immigrant-friendly society.” In fact, polling consistently shows that most Republicans favor an open and welcoming immigration policy that welcomes all except national security threats, criminals, and those coming to live off the US welfare system. The last time we polled on that question, Republicans favored such a policy by a 56% to 30%. Numbers for Democrats were essentially the same (54% to 29%).

While favoring an immigrant-friendly society, most Americans also favor a society in which the laws are observed by everyone. By a 3-to-1 margin, voters say it doesn’t make sense to consider additional laws until the government first gains control of the borders and enforces existing laws.

Earlier surveys on immigration have found support for building a barrier along the Mexican border and positive attitudes towards citizen patrols along the border. Another survey found that most Americans consider current immigration laws a threat to both national security and the economy. Three-fourths of all Americans believe it is too easy for people from other countries to enter the United States.

Of course, the President’s Job Approval was already low before the immigration issue hit the news. Confidence is also low when it comes to the overall War on Terror. Most Americans believe that history will judge the U.S. mission in Iraq a failure.

What can I say? Bush is getting justice for his incompetence and failed policies, but more than that, the voters are being shown what happens when they make a really bad decision. Those still capable of thinking are moving away from Bush.

I made my big mistake as a voter when I voted for Nixon in 1968. [Excuse - I was an Army Captain on active duty in Germany with no information other than the Stars and Stripes official Army newspaper and the International Herald Tribune. Nixon appeared to be able to stop the Viet Nam War. I was young, ignorant, and uninformed. I voted absentee. Of course today I am older.] Except for crossing over in the Texas open primaries in 1980 to vote in the Republican Primary for Bush against Reagan, I have never since seen a Republican on an election ballot in Texas worth voting for.

With luck, the average American voter will follow a path similar to the one I did after Viet Nam and Nixon. Conservatives have proven that they are bad news every time they have ever been given power. Never as bad as this time, though.