Just wait till the death panels kick in.

Oz

I frankly don’t give a hoot about public opinion either. I just felt an impulse to question the notion that these right-wing Tea-Party views (‘Radicals are taking our country away! Obama is a fascist! He’s a traitor!) represent widespread and popular perceptions, as some seem to imply with all this ‘sleeping giant’ revolutionary commentary.

Half the country or more voted for Obama, still approve of Obama, and vote with “the Democrat party”. Many millions want a significant overhaul of our health care system, (with a public option or other government involvement) and don’t view it as a radical socialist revolution.

Perhaps ‘half the country’ was insufficiently precise, but I think the point holds up pretty well.

Oz

I appreciate that you took the time to actually provide some data, but it doesn’t fully support all of the claims you’ve made. In fact it doesn’t even address most of them. Just by way of comparison though, I found some data that indicates that the proposed healthcare reform bill is marginally disfavored, that people who identify as “conservative” has actually increased quite substantially recently, and can’t find much of anything to support your claims about how people view Barack Obama, how they feel about the constitution, and how they feel about redistribution of property (the data just doesn’t seem to have ever been collected). I think the only thing you’ve really proved is that the public is fickle. At least we can agree on something.

This is all a fairly moot point anyway – I couldn’t give a fig about public opinion since we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy (or at least we’re supposed to), and consequently public opinion should have no more impact on the functional role of government as “compassion” should have on the interpretation of the law. I only asked because it seemed to be so important to you to substantiate the claims of others with well-sourced data.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/Special-Report-Ideologically-Moving.aspx?CSTS=alert

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/18/2009-06-18_president_obamas_still_popular_but_his_policies_are_not.html

I think you’d be pretty surprised how far I depart from your stereotype of a liberal, Norm.

Your examples of my supposed logical fallacies don’t seem very persuasive, but it doesn’t seem worth pursuing. I’ll let you have that one.

Think I’ll sail off into the sunset. (reserving the right to return, of course, if some subsequent post misrepresents me *too* much).

Peace be wit’ ya.

Oz

Very good. You can google “logical Fallacy.”

Red Herring: remember bringing up Peggy Noonan? completely irrelevant. Speech writing is a far cry from war and peace.

Dancing on the head of a pin: you mentioning there are lots of people who could have an opinion as to how many combat troops should be sent… I have an opinion, you have an opinion and I be the Taliban has an opinion on that topic too!… but none of them are as well informed as the man on the ground dealing with the problem directly.

Judging by the other postings you’ve made today since I’ve been out, I think you’ve lost control of your faculties for the day. Perhaps you should go brush your pony tail, readjust your glasses and earring, put some “Just for Men” in your beard, and get started on dinner for you and your mom.

Signing off for now.

In matters of constitutionality, there actually do exist “wholly right or wrong” positions, just as there exist such absolute positions in matters of any law – be it civil, religious, or social, regardless of how arbitrary the law itself may or may not be in any one person’s estimation. Rights are not subjective, and a document that secures them against government interference, despite not having perfect clarity, is not easily reducible to a subjective essay that is at the mercy of the whims of people with “different political philosophies”. If your political philosophy prescribes something not found in the constitution you may try to shoe-horn your philosophy into the constitution through legal, semantic, or philosophical contortions, but it is of no matter – the constitution still sits, either conforming to your political philosophy or not. I wouldn’t consider you a traitor without having some evidence to support the charge, but I am fully entitled to contend that your political philosophy fundamentally conflicts with the constitution of the United States. And I would.

That’s fine, Patrick. I disagree with most of it, but I’m winding down here. Look, there’s a reason that we have 9 supreme court members, indirectly elected by popular will, rather than a clerk who simply looks at the constitution and says yes or no.

It’s because the intent of the Framers is not always clear – particularly with regard to modern-day issues. Citizens and judges of good conscience and intention can disagree with how it should be interpreted.

I don’t know much about constitutional law. I can’t say much more about it, really.

I am fully entitled to contend that your political philosophy fundamentally conflicts with the constitution of the United States.

Agreed. Contend away, this is America. I contend differently.

Oz

That’s pretty typical. Half the vote, with minor variations, always seems to go to the more liberal candidate, and half seems to go to the more conservative candidate. Even our ‘landslides’ are not that far from evenly split.

Our houses of congress are usually pretty evenly split, frequently divided, and change hands with great regularity.

Obama still has the approval of half the country – 54% or so, last I checked.
Link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx
“Pretty evenly split” on Obama. Half the country.

His health-care program, though not widely understood, seems to receive approval ratings that are pretty evenly split (trending down, but the public option, the bugaboo of the right, is approved by the majority.) I said ‘massive swaths’ agree with the public option and other aspects. Supporting link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

“Pretty evenly split” as far as I can tell.

In the last election, it was pretty clear that the Republican ‘base’ shrunk.
Here’s a link from Pat Buchanan:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/is_gop_still_a_national_party.html

Here’s a taste:

What has been happening to the GOP? Three fatal contractions.

The Republican “lock” on the presidency, crafted by Nixon, and patented by Reagan, has been picked. The only lingering question is whether an era of inexorable Republican decline has set in.

Those red-state/blue-state maps seemed to indicate a small but decided contraction of red areas, moving somewhat southward, as opposed to the last elections. That is what I meant by geographically shrinking.

This is a typical map of the sort that was ubiquitous right after the election:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

As Buchanan said the Republicans lost the youth vote big time, as well as the Hispanic vote – these are obviously extremely important populations, figuring to be increasingly important in the future. That’s why I said ‘demographically shrinking’. Last I heard, Republican registration is down to 20%, which seems very low.

I know conservatism is not the same as the Republican party, but for better or worse, but conservatism is certainly well-associated with the Republican party.

With regard to redistributionist policies, and the Constitution as a living document, I’m not aware of any systematic polling done on those things. But they are both positions associated with the Democratic party, which fares very well in election after election, including the last one.

Obama told Joe the Plumber to ‘share the wealth’, that got played over and over, and still – HALF THE COUNTRY voted for him. Obama said he would put pro-choicers (who buy the ‘right to privacy’ found by some in the constitution) on the Supreme Court, and still – HALF THE COUNTRY voted for him.

Half the country (more or less) seems okay with Obama. I think my point holds pretty well.

There’s just no evidence that the views described above – that the president is a traitor and taking over the government – are widely shared.

Oz

they are anathema to the *right-wing conceptualization* of our fundamental character. America is diverse, with many competing perspectives…You and I simply disagree about the constitution and the appropriateness of some degree of redistribution. I don’t consider you a traitor because you adhere to a different political philosophy. There is truth on both sides of these questions. Neither are wholly right or wrong.

In matters of constitutionality, there actually do exist “wholly right or wrong” positions, just as there exist such absolute positions in matters of any law – be it civil, religious, or social, regardless of how arbitrary the law itself may or may not be in any one person’s estimation. Rights are not subjective, and a document that secures them against government interference, despite not having perfect clarity, is not easily reducible to a subjective essay that is at the mercy of the whims of people with “different political philosophies”. If your political philosophy prescribes something not found in the constitution you may try to shoe-horn your philosophy into the constitution through legal, semantic, or philosophical contortions, but it is of no matter – the constitution still sits, either conforming to your political philosophy or not. I wouldn’t consider you a traitor without having some evidence to support the charge, but I am fully entitled to contend that your political philosophy fundamentally conflicts with the constitution of the United States. And I would.