People that get paid to analyze politics have fancy titles for these types of things. I am a simple man with a but a bachelors in political science (and masters in counseling). So, I'm not as adept at talking about these things. However, it has occurred to me that Obama (and Democratic Congress) have an uphill battle to clime. I call it proving a negative, but those that are more learned than me can call it what they like.
Essentially, what proving a negative means is that we know things are bad at the moment. Democrats have a two-headed problem. First, they have to prove that they didn't cause it. With 24 hour news media and the internet, you have people spewing all kinds of nonsense, so that kind of case is hard to make. Rational people can come to that conclusion, but as we have seen from some our letter writers, not everyone is rational. The second head is the the key head. How can we show that things would be worse with John McCain as president? This is what I call proving the negative. Yes, we are hovering between 9 and 10 percent unemployment. Could we imagine a world between 10 and 12 percent? Could we imagine a world where those 12 percent don't get unemployment benefits? It's hard for even us to imagine. Imagine making that argument to those already inclined to hate Obama.
An academic mind can easily distinguish between bad conditions and what people are trying to do to alleviate bad conditions. Obama and Congress have taken numerous measures to help those that are struggling. It is a struggle for the simple mind to separate those efforts from the struggles themselves. How much can you hold someone responsible for a bad economy when the causes of that bad economy took place before he took office. Furthermore, the economy itself went south before he took office. Of course, people easily forget that.
This is where that proving a negative comes in again. The economy has improved some, but most of those that were suffering in 2008 are still suffering now. They are being sold a bill of goods. They are being told that it is Obama's fault they are still suffering. It is that big bad deficit. It is those taxes that have been mythically raised. It is him that is propping up those businesses like the auto industry. Without that we would be just fine. The anti-Obama argument is easy. He took office and things were bad, Things are still bad, so he has been ineffective. The proving of the negative is much harder. Things would be worse with a Republican administration. How can we prove this? Well, we could base it on past administrations and smart people would. Yet, in this instance it is difficult to prove. Still, this is the task we have in 2010 and 2012.
No problem Bubba. It just reinforces the point I was making. Thanks to you and freeport for chiming in.
Clean up on aisle 3!
Bart, did you forget you were amongst “superior intellects” (as you have openly acknowledged here) who are not as easily lied to and misled like your ignorant right wing brethren? Well, you asked for it.
I noticed you have posted distortions and lies about me yet again but without any links to the original source data for anyone to verify for themselves. Like ANYONE would take your word at face value Mr. “Eric Cantor’s office was shot AT by a bullet fired INTO THE SKY”?
Well could it be because you have LIED YET AGAIN bart?
Here is your original hilariously ignorant and INCORRECT asinine comment on Desperado’s Houston Chronicle blog:
seriouscynic wrote: "Glenn, while I realize Obama only voted for the invasion of Afghanistan and for most of the economic policy spending decisions in his short Senatorial tenure, the promises he made regarding both were central to his being elected."
2/15/2010 4:34 PM CST
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=desperado&plckPostId=Blog%3adesperadoPost%3ae127385a-fdb4-468d-9488-52063923d5ff&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:aab8648a-d495-41e7-bfd2-38f597002023#CommentKey:aab8648a-d495-41e7-bfd2-38f597002023
Now bart, where in this post, in this blog, or any blog or anywhere on the Chronicle did you "already have explained how many times that it was his accusation that Hillary voted for the Sfghan [sic] War."? NOWHERE do I see mention of Hillary Clinton whatsoever, much less “many times” you bald faced lying piece of day old dog turd. It is quite unequivocally clear that you were WRONG in stating that “Obama voted for the invasion of Afghanistan…in his short Senatorial tenure”. Yes, he was a US Senator…in 2004, THREE YEARS AFTER the start of the war in Afghanistan you doofus.
And of course in addition to his aversion to facts and reality, bart has to always finish off his deluded diatribes with his requisite simpering faux victimization whine. Bart, who jumped on this blog unprompted and initiated this verbal diarrhea barrage: “I'm sure that with the superior intellects here if that were the case they could provide it for me.(without the usual vitriole [sic]). It would seem that your equation of simplistic thinking is exactly what many think with on this site but in reverse.” So you spew YOUR vitriol first (and can’t even spell the word correctly) and then whine about ANTICIPATED retribution? Qitcherbitching, you duplicitous, lying, mealy mouthed crybaby.
And to shed further light on bart’s own foot in the mouth idiocy, yes bart, let’s “bring up your [my] post in the Chron claiming that there was “NO section 324 [sic] to the Dodd Frank Fiancial [sic] Bill on mantis's [sic] blog”. Let’s get the easy stuff out of the way first. Bart, the section in question was 342 NOT 324 you dyslexic imbecile and the official bill ID is “HR 4173” which neither mantisman81 nor his “illustrious” source link and of course nor YOU posted a link to the bill. As a matter of fact I am still the only person on that blog who has posted a link to the bill with and without the section 342 addendum in question attached. And need I remind you that you foolishly attempted to post a second link corroborating mantisman81’s source author, only to be uncovered by none other than moi that your source link was THE VERY SAME AUTHOR hiding anonymously under a generic sockpuppet title with the same identical article in VERBATIM! Which apparently went way over your head.
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=mantisman81&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=mantisman81&plckPostId=Blog%3amantisman81Post%3a01a8ce84-e779-4ac5-9bb9-356da8123ede&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest
Liars, frauds, and charlatans tend to congregate and find each don’t you bart?
By the way bart, your crappy link to the bill you posted twice here on the Hurricane as if it were some new revelation are both broken. Not only can you not read for comprehension, you can’t even source a link properly for facts or facilitation. Just like when you provided a dozen links “proving” that stagflation occurred under the Nixon administration and most of the links were broken, two actually disputed your contention and supported my point and the only link agreeing with your view was a one page outline of a high school book report.
And speaking of bart being a lying piece of crap hanging around with fellow liars and frauds, here is bart talking to himself with his sockpuppet ID usincrisis pretending to be two different people in a highly pathetic and FAILED attempt to double team bully me on Desperado’s chron blog:
seriouscynic wrote: "Thanks USincrisis, Bubba's obviously got some anger issues. Did you notice his comment about not having anything relevant to add?"
2/11/2010 9:42 PM CST
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=desperado&plckPostId=Blog%3adesperadoPost%3ae0623fb0-d3a3-4510-b464-f35ef401477d&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:7cc7a1a9-0b44-4d51-a6fd-f145c0ede98a#CommentKey:7cc7a1a9-0b44-4d51-a6fd-f145c0ede98a
And how do I know bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis are one and the same? Bart is so stupid he lost track of his schizophrenic identities and inadvertently outed himself and was caught red handed pretending to be two different people to jack around and lie on the blogs using two SIMULTANEOUS ID’s and posted responses from the wrong ID on Turtles’ chron blog:
seriouscynic wrote:"use this for those lines."
5/1/2010 8:12 AM CDT
Followed by this smoking gun cryptic diatribe:
"USincrisis wrote: Did you in your usual hostile way look at the link I provided and the lines I indicated so that you could see them for yourself? It is on PAGE 1! I thought I made it simple enough for you but you somehow managed to ignore the lines. Wonder why?"
5/2/2010 6:33 PM CDT
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=turtles-run&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=turtles-run&plckPostId=Blog%3aturtles-runPost%3a7321ccca-f5b9-4d02-84e3-bed43829c7a4&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:710f690f-355c-4864-b47c-f3caa5edebb7#CommentKey:710f690f-355c-4864-b47c-f3caa5edebb7
And here is bart talking to himself yet again on Des’ chron blog pretending to be two different people to jack around and lie on the blogs in another failed attempt at a bullying double team:
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=desperado&plckPostId=Blog%3adesperadoPost%3a5cde979b-c285-433e-9fd4-14c4d5be79d2&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:9b9ffb8b-3198-4ee1-acbb-48a36866fb4f#CommentKey:9b9ffb8b-3198-4ee1-acbb-48a36866fb4f
This is where Bart slinks away with his tail between his legs for another few days before he obliviously reappears to throw another factually and logically challenged firebomb diatribe. Decry it as “name calling” all you want bart; you have proven you deserve and own all those “nasty descriptors” over and over and over again.
Sorry for the tangential diversion Scott, this flaming lying wingnut idiot needed that smackdown.
Bobcat: thanks for the tag team effort!
BTW, it was indeed an incredible stretch of logic, but it's not like those haven't been common since Jan 2009...
Bart-1 wrote "Freeport guy wrote: 'Had McCain (and Tweety Bird) been elected, 10-12% unemployment would have been blamed on...Obama!' (Has anyone ever blamed the nation's economy on a candidate who never was president?) That seems an incredible stretch of logic."
Ding! Ding! Ding! Bart gets a lollipop for managing to (somewhat) keep up with what he derisively (with no sense of irony) refers to as the "superior intellects" here.
Bart, that "incredible stretch of logic" was the gist of freeport's point and is known as "sarcasm".
To further spell it out plainly for you Bart, he was satirizing the irrationality and insanity of blindly hateful right wingers as yourself blaming Obama for everything and anything irrespective of simple facts and general reality.
You know, like YOUR claim on the Houston Chronicle that Barack Obama voted for the war in Afghanistan in 2001...as a mere STATE Senator out of Illinois. He wasn't even elected to the US Senate until 2004. But thank you Bart for stopping by and offering yourself up as Exhibit A of both Scott and freeport's points.
"How much can you hold someone responsible for a bad economy when the causes of that bad economy took place before he took office"
We can’t reasonably hold someone in that position accountable at all. Unfortunately, the loudest shouts we hear are from those who don’t use reason to draw their conclusions. People don’t forget, Scott, they opt not to hear. Paul Simon even said that “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”. I read an interesting piece in Psychology Today recently that talked about the human need to blame and how that need stems from a low sense of self worth.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/work-matters/201003/blame-is-contagious-except-when-people-have-high-self-worth
Separate the efforts from the struggles? Who needs to do that? Give us a name, we hang the dude (or party, or group), problem solved. But we all know that it can't be the folks we voted for that are to blame. That's just a ridiculous notion altogether.
"Could we imagine a world between 10 and 12 percent?"
Oh, easy: had McCain (and Tweety Bird) been elected, 10-12% unemployment would have been blamed on...Obama!
They would have claimed that Obama campaining would have caused too much undertainty in the business world...
"It is a struggle for the simple mind to separate those efforts from the struggles themselves". Struggle? No struggle at all:
Good = Republican = Good
Bad = Democrat = Bad
Remember: Bush inherited 9/11 from Clinton, and Omaba created the mess! Ta-dam!!