Decision ‘08

Obama - “Hey, Hayseed! Vote For Me!”

Okay, that headline’s really me just having a bit of fun. But Barack Obama has stirred quite a controversy over remarks that appeared to demean the values of small town Pennsylvanians. Read all about here, here, and here…more than a fleeting bit of trouble? We’ll see if the story has legs next week…

UPDATE 10:35 a.m.: More - much more - from the Minuteman…

32 Responses to “Obama - “Hey, Hayseed! Vote For Me!””

1 Fargus Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
So, what you would describe as you “having a bit of fun” I’d describe as incredibly unfair and dismissive, and not what I’d expect from you, since you’re usually more thoughtful than this.
2 Neocon News » Saturday Obama Bitter Comments Round Up (and more t-shirts) Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
[…] Decision ‘08 » Obama - “Hey, Hayseed! Vote For Me!” […]
3 Fred Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Politicians always consider it unfair when their contempt for the electorate is made known
4 Fred Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Obama’s problem is best described by what Democratic super-delegate Rahm Emmanuel said in 2004: “people aren’t going to hear what we say until they know that we don’t approach them as Margaret Mead would an anthropological experiment.”
5 Ryan Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Yeah, this was… unfortunate. Not the slightest bit false, really, but one of those things you just don’t say.
6 Aaron Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Ryan, I hope that by “not the slightest bit false” you mean that this nonsense is what Obama truly believes, not that you think Obama’s condescending fantasies with regard to people who work for a living are actually true.

Then again, knowing how rarely you and reality have encountered each other, I have a feeling that it’s the latter.
7 Jacques Distler Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Oh please.

It’s simply a fact that, except for a tiny elite, people who vote their pocketbooks never vote Republican. If they do vote Republican, it’s on the basis of other issues (guns, gays, GWOT) than economic ones.

I hardly think it’s ‘elistist’ to make this observation. Nor is it particularly novel. And it’s a mark of deperation for Hillary (of all people) to harp on this a some sort of gaffe.
8 Fred Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
It was an unforced error. In the US, politicians can talk about their religion all they want, but they should never take a position that can be interrupted as criticism of someone else’s religion:

“It comes off very badly,” Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said of Obama’s small-town America remarks. “They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist, and it sounds like he’s looking down on people.”
9 Ryan Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
You know what, Aaron? I think it’s perfectly true. I believe the following:

1. Jacques is right. Anyone whose sole concern is the economy would vote for Democrats. The evidence is in and the Party of Fiscal Conservatism is completely and utterly full of crap. If you vote for Republicans, it’s either because you buy a narrative that isn’t true or because you have non-economic concerns. I have absolutely no problem with people voting against their pocketbooks if they care about other things.

2. Anyone who would vote for a politician who scapegoats gays and immigrants - and does so precisely because that politician scapegoats gays and immigrants - deserves nothing but contempt. If I am un-American or opposed to people who work for a living (as if Obama and I don’t have jobs) because I have no respect for homophobia, xenophobia, and preening Christian moralism, I can live with that.
10 Fred Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
The first paragraph should have been “It was an unforced error. In the US, politicians can talk about their religion all they want, but they should never be in a position that can be interpreted as criticism of someone else’s religion”

Sorry about that,
indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus
11 Ryan Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Unless that person is a Muslim, Fred.
12 Jacques Distler Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Anyone who would vote for a politician who scapegoats gays and immigrants - and does so precisely because that politician scapegoats gays and immigrants - deserves nothing but contempt.

You’re perfectly welcome to take that stance, Ryan. But, just to be clear, that’s not what Obama said. He was addressing the

unwillingness of working class voters to trust government … and about their unfortunate … proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues.

(I am quoting Theda Skocpol from the second link in my previous comment). And I think he was suggesting that, by overcoming their cynicism, such voters might be drawn back to voting their pocketbooks (that is, to voting Democratic).
13 Ryan Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 5:17 am
The quote: “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

You’re correct that he holds these people in far less contempt than I do, but I believe he has exactly the same amount of patience for the views I hold in contempt. For him not to do so would be morally unacceptable to me. That he can separate sin and sinner certainly makes him a better Christian than I am, but I haven’t ever really pretended to be a Christian.
14 too many steves Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 5:36 am
The issue is the condescension and disdain exhibited by his connection of their bitterness over their personal economic situation and support for guns, religion, antipathy for those who are different, anti-immigrant sentiments, and anti-trade sentiments.

Why do we let these rubes vote in the first place?

Obama is a liberal, or progressive if you prefer, so he knows what is best for us, and that is that the government needs to take control of everything, it must prevent us from doing bad things to ourselves, it must ensure that we vote the right way; in other words, he is like all good progressives: a totalitarian wolf in liberal sheep’s clothing.
15 Aaron Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Obama said that people started to cling to religion, guns, etc., after losing their jobs for the last 25 years. That would mean he thinks that before 1983 working class people didn’t care about the Second Amendment, were atheists, loved diversity and wholeheartedly supported free trade.

He also thinks that they believe the things they do now because they are bitter. Did it ever occur to you that some people might enjoy hunting or that they might not be able to afford to live in gated communities and hire private security firms to protect them, thus causing them to feel they need fire-arms to protect themselves from criminals (who, by the way, Democrats mostly consider to be the “real” victims). But NOOOOOO, Obama, who lives in a Harvard fairytale world doesn’t think that anyone might have a reason to want or even need a gun other than bitterness.

This man, as we can see from his association with Trinity Church and Jeremiah Wright views religion only as a tool to gain access to political machines and electoral clout. He can’t understand how anyone could sincerely believe in God unless they were just embittered by their own misfortune.

I will concede that it is reasonable to expect that anti-trade sentiments are brought on by economic hardships. However, this comes from a lack of understanding of economics, perhaps combined with the bitterness of job loss. But, with Obama’s repeated repudiation of NAFTA and the Democrats’ opposition to the Colombia FTA (which, BTW, contains all of the environmental and labor standards that the Democrats complain they want to add to NAFTA), who is responsible for proliferating that lack of understanding. Obama needs to look no further than a mirror.
16 Ryan Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 7:53 am
That’s true, Aaron. Liberals do tend to live in gated communities and have private security firms. Since about 30% of the country self-identifies as liberal, that certainly explains why there are just so damn many gated communities all over the place. And that rockin’ private security firm business is something I just have to get myself into. Too bad I’m so busy living out my Harvard fairy tale of keeping rapists on the streets.

Okay, I have to go. My sheep suit needs dry-cleaning so I can get back to the totalitarian project of not hating gay people, Mexicans, and Muslims. I also have to not torture some people and not start an idiotic foreign war that results in death, destruction, and the further destabilization of an entire region. Life as a liberal fascist is really hard work.
17 Ryan Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Hm, actually, I do need to disagree with Obama. It seems fair to say that people don’t cling to “religion” and “antipathy” (nice words - I would have just said “moralism” and “hate”) because they’re frustrated with their economic situation. Obama’s sin here is giving bigots far too much credit.
18 Fargus Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Aaron, your post is nonsense. Obama never said that people made these beliefs up because of frustration with economic policies. He said they clung to them because of economic policies. As in, they already believed in the church and the Second Amendment and that gay people are the devil, but that those issues took on a greater political salience in their minds because economic concerns seemed like a lost cause.

Disagree with the guy all you like, but try at least to maintain a modicum of honesty, k?
19 Aaron Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 8:21 am
So they didn’t cling to them in 1982?

Know that, after two or three years you have, for the first time proven that you are actually literate, maybe you could try to maintain a minimum level of logic.
20 mikebdot Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Aaron: Well, at least now you’re actually arguing the point at hand rather than putting words in Obama’s mouth. At this point, I think a logical argument can now begin with you. Care to actually make a logical point, now?

For the record, I disagree with Obama. People have always clung to their beliefs regarding these issues (along with many others). Now, it’s just way more out in the open with the overused invention of bumper stickers and Christian stores selling “WWJD” paraphernalia. Not to mention the huge mega churches being constructed all over the place. Or the 3000 crosses placed at various places along the interstate. As for the gun nuts, they have always been around, now they just have one of the most vocal lobbying firms in the nation and have been popularized to a great extent via Mr. Heston and other such PR genius.

It’s all about the PR.
21 Jacques Distler Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 9:42 am
The debate, here, is about whether you pitch a big tent — make common cause with those with whom you agree on some (e.g economic) issues, while disagreeing on others — or try to maintain ideological purity.

If there’s one thing to be said about Obama, it’s that he’s a “big tent” kinda guy. And this scares the bejeesus out of conservatives. Which is why they’re so desperate to paint him as a hard-core ideologue.

This would have zero chance of succeeding, were Hillary not actively playing along. But, then, aside from praising McCain’s fitness to be CiC, what else does she have?
22 Chris J. Breisch Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Shock poll of the week:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/padem8-705.html

This is completely out of line with other recent polls, but does include time for his “gaffe” to have impacted the numbers. I doubt that even with that and with Rush’s Operation CHAOS that the margin will really be that big, but anything in double digits is good for Hillary. Anything over 15 points is HUGE for Hillary.
23 too many steves Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I guess I’d need to understand your definition of “hard core ideologue”. Has he ever voted against his party? Has he sponsored “big tent” or moderate legislation? Has he argued against any hard core leftist policy proscriptions and legislation?

He wants you to believe he’s a big tent sort of guy, and he’s fond of using soft and engaging, rather than confrontational, language, but I think an examination of his political record tells a different story: that he is as reliable a liberal/progressive as there is in the party. I don’t have a problem with that, I have a problem with the lie that is his claim to a politics that transcends partisanship.

Even the word “cling” belies the notion that he is happy to make common cause with those with whom he disagrees by implying their beliefs are illegitimate. He misspoke only in the sense that he said publicly what he privately believes.
24 peter Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I wouldn’t assume that Obama “said publicly what he privately believes.” Anybody who is followed by reporters every waking hour is bound to say dumb things from time to time. The question is whether this is a Macaca moment – a candid remark which revealed the real person underneath – or simply a misfortunate choice of words. The Confederate flag in Allen’s office leads one to think that his Macaca moment was genuine; given Obama’s background and experiences, I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I really don’t think that someone who grew up in modest circumstances and worked as a community organizer is a closet elitist.
25 Jacques Distler Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Has he sponsored “big tent” or moderate legislation?

The Obama-Lugar Bill, to name one piece of important bipartisan legislation.

In fact, almost every piece of legislation he’s worked on (both in the US Senate and in Illinois) has been with a Republican co-sponsor.

But, really, if you want to paint Obama as a hard-core leftist, no amount of actual evidence is likely to sway you.
26 peter Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Something wrong with being a hard-core leftist?
27 too many steves Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Fair enough, he has sponsored legislation, twice (Non-proliferation funding and The American Fuels Act), both times the GOP Senator from Indiana.

Also, it appears that in the last six months or so he did vote in opposition to the Democrats (and Republicans) once - counting “Not Voting” as being neither for nor against.

I stand corrected.
28 Jacques Distler Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Something wrong with being a hard-core leftist?

Nothing.

But one would be surprised to find Tom Coburn (R-OK, and somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun) cosponsoring legislation with one.

Accuracy in labeling is all I’m after here.
29 too many steves Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“Something wrong with being a hard-core leftist?”

Not to me. Some of my best friends, and family, are hard-core leftists.

So, does sponsoring legislation with a Republican (who is somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun) make you a moderate? Is this the yin and yang approach to moderation? A negative plus an equivalent positive makes a neutral?

The one time in the last six months (maybe more but that’s as far back in the record as I can research at the moment) when Obama didn’t vote with the Democrats was on the proposal to establish an earmark moratorium (S Amdt 4347 to S Con Res 70: To establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal year 2009). How ironic that on this particular issue I agree with him.
30 blaze Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Okay… Let’s cut to the chase. These are the exact words that came out of Obama’s mouth. Conservative or liberal let’s analyze what was said here and stop making assumptions and putting words into Obama’s mouth. I’m sick of everyone trying to get into the mind and thoughts of Barak. Everyone is over analyzing his statement. He is clearly stating that as a result of lost jobs and economic struggles small town America turns to or strengthens their bond between them and church and/or firearms. Is it true? For some people, absolutely, for most absolutely not.

My grandfather, from a small town in West Texas called Dumas was a devout Christian and a proud member of the NRA and did not cling to these values as a result of economic demise. He did it because of the values instilled in him by his father and his father before him.

The mistake that everyone is making is the assumption that small town Americans turn to religion as a result of politics and economy. When a person like my grandfather went to vote it was because he was driven by his Christian values, not the economy.

The assumption that “they” (a.k.a. small town America) are running to the church and a rifle as a result of the economy is ludicrous.. I had a 12 gauge shotgun before I even knew what the economy is. I myself have never been a devout Christian, but if someday I am saved it will not be because I lost my job. Shame on Barak Obama and anyone else who think the my grandfathers conviction and anyone else like him is that way because of the economy.
31 blaze Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
correction.. 5th paragraph line 3.. “economy was” My apologies for the grammatical error
32 blaze Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
P.S. I just caught wind that a few miles south in Slaton, TX over half the town has been laid off. I have been informed that as a result of their bitterness this small Texas town has begun clinging to BBQ. Damn the economy!