…or at least that is what we are told. On the on-line forums of the local paper, the Panama City News Herald, conservatives get this all the time. It is a favorite of the farthest of the left. There is just no possibility that we could oppose any of his policies because that would be “voting against our interests”. In truth, it means that we are voting against their interests of funding more government out of our pockets.
Let’s have a look.
One of the opposition posted this:
“Obama? A President that came into office facing huge problems like very few have faced and facing opposition like none have ever faced.”
(Notice that this statement embodies my hypothesis of selective memory/political amnesia and cognitive/confirmation bias)
I wrote in response to the “huge problems like very few have faced” that he must have forgotten about 9/11, the Dot com crash and that Reagan was faced with stagflation and 21% interest rates from Carter. This is undoubtedly the worst economy since the Great Depression but what Reagan inherited from Carter was claimed to be at that time as well. It could be argued that the economy was made worse by Obama’s actions. The stimulus did not achieve what was claimed – and counting “saved” jobs is simply not possible.
I followed with this on the charge of “facing opposition like none have ever faced”:
Obama won the election with 53% of the vote, had an approval rating of over 65% and had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a 78 seat majority in the House on inauguration day. What he has done, he did to himself.
These are not opinions – they are all documented and provable facts.
The left will argue that some percentage of the electorate voted against him for racial motives, so I will stipulate to that; however, it is also clear that some voted FOR him specifically because of race (his vote tally was higher among black Americans than Clinton with basically the same policies, so that could legitimately account for a race based vote), so let’s call that one a draw (even though I think many white “moderates” voted for him because they thought having a black president would be cool and it would show how “evolved” they were).
It is a fact that Obama has always been black, right? He was black when he ran for the Senate, right? He campaigned for 2 years for the presidency and he was black then, right? He has been in office for 2 years and he is still black, right?
It is also a fact that Republicans traditionally oppose Democrats because we differ on policy, it has always been that way. Carter, Clinton, all – same deal and they were white dudes.
Another fact – 2 years later, Obama’s popularity is in the 40’s, the House just turned over by a 64 seat margin to the Republicans and the Senate narrowed in a Democrat friendly senatorial election environment.
If Obama is facing opposition like no other (per our liberal friends), would we not have to assume that some significant portion of those 53% who voted for him are not happy? With approvals in the 40’s, would that not mean that a significant number of his supporters have become racists over the past 2 years?
So did they have a negative reaction to his policies or did they just realize that he is black after roughly 6 years of national exposure to him?
I would have to go with policies.