Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 8 years ago

Are the cons up to their old con pandering again?

Addressing a crowd of the faithful , Romney said he would close down funding for PBS again . What does it say about a tribe that spends billions upon billions for war and tax loopholes for the rich and cut a few bucks for the preschool age kids ? Is this how liberal Romney makes his way into the hearts of the conservatives ? Will Kermit the Frog be sacrificed to save the economy ?


@ Corrine : Wow ! Romney just wants to cut their allowance ( which is actually 2 % of the PBS budget ) and you want to fry them and eat them ??? Have a heart , eat a CEO .

Update 2:

@ Reasonin : Once I got past the opening statement I enjoyed the answer . Thanks for the Thomas Edsall piece . Very true . Evidently Obama plans on the bankers buying the airwaves and the poor voting for him in numbers . All the while extending the Bush tax cuts to the rich and the best they can come up with for jobs is to underfund s.s. and Medicare while business sets on trillions in cash . He certainly has done nothing for the middle class except to borrow some money to pay the government workers when state budgets couldn't . My work boots are shovel ready except for the 3 years of dust since the program began ... I read and reread and can say , well said . I'm a few years behind you but smart enough to see through the fog at the war on the middle class . I just thought Romney sounded petty . I'm more concerned about talking the war mongers back off the ledge before an invasion of Iran than funding for Sesame Street .

10 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    You want pandering clown ? Have at it ! Obama Pursues Rich and Poor, Not White Working Class

    Dec 08, 2011

    Has Barack Obama's Democratic Party given up on winning the votes of the white working class? Thomas Edsall, the longtime Washington Post reporter now with The Huffington Post, thinks so.

    Surveying the plans of Democratic strategists, Edsall wrote in The New York Times on Nov. 28 that "all pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned."

    Of course, an Obama campaign spokesman issued a prompt denial. No campaign wants any groups of voters to know that it has written them off.

    But Edsall is plainly on to something. Obama campaign strategists have made it known that they are concentrating on states like Colorado and Virginia -- states with high percentages of college educated voters, young voters and minorities.

    Obama carried both these states in 2008, even though Republican presidential candidates had carried Virginia in every election and Colorado in all but one election between 1964 and 2004.

    Not all Democrats accept the Colorado/Virginia strategy. William Galston, a top domestic aide in the Clinton White House, has argued that the Obama campaign should concentrate on states like Ohio, with an older and more blue-collar population.

    Only one Democrat in the last century has won the presidency without carrying Ohio, Galston points out. If John Kerry had run just 2 points stronger there in 2004, he would have been elected president.

    And Ohio's demographics look a lot like those in Pennsylvania, which Obama carried by 10 points in 2004 but where he is now running behind in the polls by 12 points.

    But Galston's advice has been spurned, and perhaps that just reflects an acceptance of a longstanding reality.

    For the Democratic Party has not been the party of the white working class for a very long time. Democrats lost the support of white non-college voters starting in the late 1960s, as rioters burned city ghettoes and college campuses were beset by student rebellions.

    Democratic politicians responded by seeking to assuage what they considered to be righteous grievances.

    For 50 years, from 1917 to 1968, the Democrats were the more hawkish of the two major parties, more likely than Republicans to support military intervention. Since 1968, they have been the more dovish party.

    For 30 years, from 1933 to 1964, the Democrats pushed programs designed to help the working class: Social Security and Medicare, FHA home mortgage loans, support for labor unions. But since the middle 1960s, when antipoverty programs took center stage, Democrats in Washington and big cities have pushed welfare programs for the poor and lenient measures against crime.

    The Democrats' shift produced vote gains in some segments of the electorate. Blacks, who voted 62% percent for John Kennedy, have voted about 90% percent Democratic starting in 1964.

    Democrats' dovishness and liberal stands on cultural issues won them support from the growing percentage of college-educated voters. But those same stands cost them support among those who came to be called "Reagan Democrats."

    Talented Democratic strategists like pollster Stanley Greenberg and elections analyst Ruy Teixeira struggled for decades to come up with strategies to bring the white working class back to what they considered their natural political home. But even Bill Clinton was unable to get them back.

    You can see the results in the 2008 exit poll. Barack Obama got a higher percentage of the total vote than any other Democratic nominee in history except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

    But he did it without capturing the vast middle of the electorate. He won with a top-and-bottom coalition, carrying voters with incomes over $200,000 and under $50,000, and losing those in between. He carried voters with graduate-school degrees and those with no high school diplomas, and ran only even with the others.

    Obama lost among non college whites by a 58% percent to 40% percent margin. And in the 2010 House elections, non-college whites went Republican by 63% percent to 33% percent.

    So maybe it makes sense for Obama to write off the white working class. Yet he is doing it in an odd way, by enacting New Deal-like programs and expending great energy on raising taxes on high earners.

    Historically, that was the way to win working class votes. But it plainly isn't doing so now, and it seems poorly calculated to enthuse the top half of the top-and-bottom coalition. Class warfare is a dubious strategy when you've written off the working class.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    The cons elect to maintain the Iraq mess going constantly.They understand that a pullout of troops will translate right into a lost conflict.A lost conflict on Bush's watch isn't tolerated as long as there is any Republican left. i do no longer think of the country has confronted a worst concern.Bush can pull it out if he transformations his advisors and gets some genuine management.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    How could you possible get a spin like this. PBS is a Government controlled Liberal network that needs to be shut down. The kids and Kermit are better off.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Romney should be careful.. he could lose the Lefts favor... LOLOLOLOL the Left is Begging for Romney to win for even if by some Miracle he won the left would still have a socialist in the WH....


    Truth is a guiding light only the truly dark of heart cannot see this...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Frog legs are delicious with butter and garlic.

    'Sides, Sesame Street would do a lot better in the public sector when Hooper's Store can finally use marketing to compete.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I watched an underground porn vid of Obama sodomizing Kermit the Frog.

    So, Romeny is hardly harmful to the Muppets.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Yes,,,last I heard Kermit and the muppets went gay anyway.

    Attempt to get past your bias and explain when cons had a super majority in DC and didn't require the dems to vote for the wars or taxes kiddo.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    To whom are right-wing extremists going to pander, if not to other right-wing extremists?

    The state of political discourse in the U.S. has reached a new low in my lifetime.

    "Born again" crazies by the tens of millions find themselves being taken seriously, and having their support pursued.

    Several of the candidates for the Republican nomination appear to be seriously mentally unbalanced.

    Politics has become synonymous with $$$$, and it is difficult to find elected officials who are not in the pockets of the corporations and the wealthy families.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Karasu
    Lv 4
    8 years ago

    He told a crowd at the VFW Hall that privatizing the VA was a great plan...

    We aren't talking about a very smart person.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    dammit! we just refuse to lie down and die for you, don't we?! BTW, the talking points language is "millions and billions"

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.