Barack Obama's approval rating among self-identified liberal Democrats consistently hovers in the 90-percent range, but those numbers conceal reservations that bode poorly for his 2012 reelection campaign's ability to raise small-dollar donations and marshal the type of grassroots army that helped carry him to victory in 2008.
[. . .]
Gallup doesn't break the support down by intensity, but the Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps last month found that of the 92 percent of liberal Democrats who back Obama, 64 percent strongly approve and 28 percent are only somewhat supportive.
[. . .]
At Netroots Nation last week, a gathering of progressive bloggers and activists, a similar survey found strong support for Obama -- 80 percent -- but with 53 percent only "somewhat" backing the president.
As someone who was frequently disappointed in Presiden Bush's departure from conservative/libertarian principles, I was mildly surprised at the visceral hatred of him by a lot of liberals. This was the guy who crossed the aisle to work with Teddy Kennedy on further federalizing education. This was the guy who gave us the Medicare prescription program. This was the guy who wanted a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Hell, until Barack Obama came along and made his contribution look like small potatoes, Bush was the "compassionate conservative" who beat liberals by growing government more than they did. He was practically one of them, so what was their problem?
So now let the liberals say the same sorts of things about people like me. I am mildly surprised now at the disdain of many liberals for President Obama. I just can't see how someone whose extreme politics scare me to death can possibly be not progressive enough for some people.
Comments
It's because you and the progressives are working off of different sets of facts. The extreme politics and massive growth of government you see are based on reporting that the progressives don't read and/or don't recognize as valid. And, I presume, the liberals are basing their opinions on reporting that you either don't read or don't recognize as valid.
If I follow Doug, I agree. The media have become very weird. Conservatives, as a rule, get all their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh, both of which are simply house organs of the Republican Party.
Liberals avoid those sources, preferring more centrist, or even liberal - MSNBC and NPR - sources.
Go to Huffington Post and look at the editing Fox News did to their interview with Jon Stewart. The editing wasn't simply misleading, it amounted to lying.
If folks on the left and right are operating with entirely different sets of "facts," of course they can't agree - or even compromise.
I wish we could go back to the day when we all got our news from Walter Cronkite, who generally kept his own views out of it.
For whatever it's worth, I'm a liberal who is very disappointed with Obama. He hasn't fought for what he wants - G.W. Bush was much better at that. But worse, he won't get us out of the three Mideast wars. Simply pulling out would not only save American lives, but it would free up such an enormous amount of money our current economic troubles would seem trivial.
Littlejohn sez: "Conservatives, as a rule, get all their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh, both of which are simply house organs of the Republican Party."
That may very well be the stupidist comment you have made here, and that's saying a lot because (insert diety of choice here) knows you've made a bunch.
So your theory is, AM radio (yes AM) and one (yes 1) cable news channel provide all the news for roughly 50,000,000 (that's fifty million) registered republicans?
Simple math eludes you once again, eh College grad?
You should always check the expiration dates on your progressive talking points memo's. You gotta remember it's always one week Fox & Rush are super powerful and then the next week Fox and Rush are insignificant. You probably just had your weeks mixed up.