| Anger Replaces Hope; ............Uh-Oh | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 15 2010, 08:54 PM (279 Views) | |
| Mason | Feb 15 2010, 08:54 PM Post #1 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Anger is replacing hope By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer – Mon Feb 15, 10:16 am ET WASHINGTON – Thrust into office on the veracity of hope, President Barack Obama is trying to get himself on the right side of a remarkably different national sentiment these days: anger. Obama's expansive domestic goals are largely the same, but his message is changing, now constructed around a concession that the public is disillusioned and wanting results. If he cannot show people that he understands their frustration and is working to fix it, the risks are real. All that angst that Obama wants to harness as a force for change — as he did in his campaign — will turn against him. That means eroding public support for his agenda and potentially big losses for his party this year in congressional midterm elections. So it was telling when Obama offered this take on Republican Scott Brown's Senate win in Massachusetts last month, one that weakened the president's hand: "The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated." A new White House talking point was born, and it was hardly hope and change. On that same day of postelection analysis, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs used some description of anger, frustration or both 12 times to describe what people were feeling, including this one: "That anger is now pointed at us, because we're in charge. Rightly so." The Obama response has come in two parts. One is to try to get better about communicating to people that he is fighting to address exactly what angers them. The other is to put the onus on whomever he deems is getting in the way of progress, hoping to shift the heat onto them. "If you, as a member of the public, do not perceive that leaders understand that you are angry and frustrated, you're not going to listen to what they say next," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of political communication at the University of Pennsylvania. "Their credibility is gone. And once you've lost that, it's hard to regain it." And with people fed up about so many things at once — stubbornly high unemployment, partisanship, big government, banker bonuses — Obama's communications challenge is complex. He must connect to people's bitterness without becoming exactly the person he warns about, politicians who exploit anger. And he has to personally relate to people's wrenching financial losses when his natural style is to speak in a professorial, explanatory way. Even Obama has lamented a sense of public detachment from all his difficult first-year work, and has said he wants to do an improved job of communicating directly to people. Examples of the retooled effort abound. Obama gave a fiery pep talk during an Ohio town hall a few days after his party's big loss in Massachusetts. The next week he mocked news organizations for saying he had shifted to a more populist message."I've been fighting for working folks my entire adult life," he said. In his State of the Union speech, Obama was speaking to Democratic and Republican lawmakers, but also, really, to families watching at home, when he offered this I-hear-you-America line: "We all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it." And Obama has gotten more vocal in seeking Republican help — knowing the nation is angry about bickering — but he challenges the opposition party each time. "We'll call them out when they say they want to work with us, and we extend a hand and get a fist in return," he said. "Fat cat" bankers, lobbyists, insurance companies, the media, even the Supreme Court. Obama has targeted all of them in trying to show people that he is on the regular guy's side. "It's perhaps a winning strategy in the short term," said David Gergen, a political analyst and former adviser to four presidents. "It will help to align him with those who are frustrated. But it is not a winning strategy over the long haul. You can't run for re-election pointing to all the things that are wrong with the system." As Obama seeks to capture and channel the nation's frustration, he has plenty of tools in his favor. He is viewed as likable by the public, he is still in just his 13th month in office, his party controls both chambers of Congress and he is seeing the economy start to recover. Working against him: Expectations. People want improved lives faster. Hope gets harder to sustain for the jobless or for those ever exasperated by the Wall Street bailout. Obama tried to caution people even in the celebration of his election night in 2008. "Our climb will be steep," he said then. "We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there." The this-will-take-time part largely was lost among the throngs clamoring for change. Obama also has the tough task of relating to anger without showing much of it. Presidents are supposed to keep their cool. Obama tends to operate that way anyway, which sometimes is cast as advantage, and other times gets him depicted as seeming detached even if he isn't. "If my poll numbers are low, then I'm cool and cerebral and cold and detached," Obama said of the way people interpret his demeanor. "If my poll numbers are high, well, he's calm and reasoned. So that's the filter through which a lot of this stuff is interpreted." Don't expect the president to pound the podium just to make a point, Gibbs said. But do expect him to keep showing, in his own way, that he feels the public's pain. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that two-thirds of people are either dissatisfied by the way the federal government is working or outright angry about it. And that's a problem Obama now owns. "The public is not this highly rational, nuanced creature," Jamieson said. "When the public is unhappy, it blames the status quo. And when you're the establishment, the 'change' election moves to the other party." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_anger . |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Feb 15 2010, 08:55 PM Post #2 |
|
Parts unknown
|
"You can't run for re-election pointing to all the things that are wrong with the system." They just might try. Obama was one of only 100 U.S. Senators in the country and he ran like he dropped out the sky the month before the election. . Edited by Mason, Feb 15 2010, 08:56 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Feb 15 2010, 09:15 PM Post #3 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Somebody is several sammiches short of a picnic... What the heck is his way of showing this? Moweboma's $3K coats? Parties? |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Feb 15 2010, 09:16 PM Post #4 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
And left Illinois a smoking wreck... |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 15 2010, 10:21 PM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
Has anybody heard the opinion that somebody expressed that after he leaves office, investigations into BHO's connections could land him incarcerated? |
|
|
| Carolyn says | Feb 15 2010, 10:55 PM Post #6 |
|
Sweetheart, I and so many others were yelling that at the top of our lungs BEFORE he was elected! Hello, Rezko, anyone? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's the graft of his money getting into Harvard, the graft Michelle took for kicking out uninsured black children (face ripped by a pit bull, no less) from UCMC, the graft about their house 'loan', the graft about the boards Michelle worked out for humongous fees, etc. And let's not even talk of the graft of the slum properties Obama funded for Rezko. Yes, Obama and the missus stank of corruption from day one. But the media never said a thing because Obama was shielded by his race - and now he's shielded by his office. But trust me, that's all going to end. Once Obama no longer has the shield of the presidency to hide behind, he's going to be in serious incarceration trouble. And judging by the damage he's done to the 'race card' defense, that especially will no longer help him. (You know - as far as that race card is concerned, you have to savor the irony of Obama ripping to pieces the very green curtain he's hid behind all these years). Yeah - come January 2013, this dude is in for some rough times. He's worked for it, he's earned and I'm going to see to it that no one deprives him of it. Okay, rant off. Edited by Carolyn says, Feb 15 2010, 10:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 16 2010, 12:56 AM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
Rant on, Carolyn. It brings energy to this board! |
|
|
| Kerri P. | Feb 16 2010, 01:22 AM Post #8 |
|
Note to self: Stay off the wrong side of one Carolyn's rants.
|
![]() |
|
| comelately | Feb 16 2010, 02:05 AM Post #9 |
|
I hope you are right - and in any rational world order, you would be. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is not in prison - and in any rational world order, she would be there. So I dunno - but I hope you are right!
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Feb 16 2010, 11:02 AM Post #10 |
|
I can’t foresee Zero having much success with anything that will counter the public’s perception of what the solutions are before the mid-term elections, and the agenda he’s still pushing does not look like he’s trying. The move by Reid on the jobs bill leaves Zero’s bipartisan efforts looking like they’re trying to fool the public into believing the Republicans are the source of spending problems, maybe set up to do just that, but the end result makes it look like Reid wants to spend less on jobs and ignore input by Republicans. There has been written about former staffmembers of the Clinton years coming into help out, which looks more like Zero searching for help on himself being re-elected than pushing his agenda, though I’m sure they all have input on health care and taxing. The job / economy will not just instantly turn around for this coming election and I doubt it will get much better within the next few years (stays flat as I see it). Zero has 3 years to convince the public Bush created all the problems and he’s working FOR THE PEOPLE to correct them, while the Republicans have a little less time to find a candidate that looks better. The issues tied in with the economy that I notice most are energy, deficit/debt, health care and unions (which I have no problem with the idea why they were originally established). If Zero moves in the direction he has been pushing on green issues it will increase the cost of energy for not only all that consume it in their cars and homes, but also in businesses that have to compete in price with the rest of the world. Businesses can campaign all they want now, so we could anticipate the public being better informed on what those businesses say is the problem. The deficit/debt Zero is only making worse. The taxes have to increase revenue, as it is clear spending cuts are not a goal for him. I can’t see how the deficit will hold down interest rates to promote growth, as the debt is rolled over and increased the demand for funding has the USA competing for more of it. The health care solutions on the table have all been spend more, with no mention of how to cuts costs besides the the fed’s letting all they want to control the prices paid in Medicare/Medicaid, which has service providers dropping from the programs. As for unions and all similar problems associated with them, the states are going broke and the cost of operations can only go up if that is the direcrtion we’re heading. I’ll touch on this topic more in a separate post, as Zero is PUSHING this matter hard. Should Zero have taken office while the economy was growing, when the public had more food on the table to share, he might have been able to pass more of his agenda for us to pay for. The state of the economy and how slow it will recover should help prevent him from doing that in this term and hopefully it will keep him from being re-elected. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Feb 16 2010, 11:11 AM Post #11 |
|
This is rediculous, the contractor must meet the terms and conditions of the contract irregardlass of the method used to supply the workforces needed. Completion of the contract is the same for all bidders. The liquidated damages, and any related bonus pay for early completion, are set in the bidding documents, so how the projects are completed has nothing to do with whether or not the workforce used is union. The rate of pay, including any allowance for BENEFITS (health, pension, vacation…), is established in the contract documents used in preparing a bid and all contractors must pay the same. The Davis-Bacon Act sets the wage guidelines and ALL payroll for workers MUST be reported, so it’s monitored as the contracts are completed. The only people I can see this effecting, if it were to help them, would be production and office employees supplying some 'widget' products made in factories, products that would increase in price as a result of the changes and become less competitive in the world market after the unions step in. This is a BS move Zero has made evidently to please the unions and not a single reason given for the policy is true. It would ONLY increase union membership and put ALL funding for BENEFITS in accounts CONTROLLED by the UNIONS. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Feb 16 2010, 11:32 AM Post #12 |
|
The Republicans need to run on an honest platform of financial reform in 2010 then oppose Obama's wasteful spending at all opportunities. It must be an US vs expansion of Government. The ace in the hole is the redevelopment of our natural resoucres. The price of energy is the key to financial strength. The Republicans must counter the Greens and get that message across by encouraging development which will lower the cost. It's the economy, stupid. Obama's campaign was based on redistribution of Wealth. How's that working out for the private sector? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







9:27 AM Jul 11