“BITTER” DOUBLE STANDARDS: WHAT’S the Matter with PENNSYLVANIA?

FrenchieCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-13-08 05:38 AM
Original message

“BITTER” DOUBLE STANDARDS: WHAT’S the Matter with PENNSYLVANIA?

Edited on Sun Apr-13-08 06:18 AM by FrenchieCat

is the same thing as “WHAT’S the Matter with KANSAS”

When Senator Obama was speaking in San Francisco about folks in small town Pennsylvania, he wasn't saying anything new nor anything unheard of. He was talking about some of the same issues raised in the best selling Book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas”, by Thomas Frank. http://www.tcfrank.com/wmk.html

In fact, Barack Obama discussed that very book with Charlie Rose back in 2004.
Here’s the portion when he specifically addresses the topic at hand and the book;
What’s the matter with Kansas?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88wMPAWc90

For quite some time, Democratic politicians have attempted to understand why voters who don’t have health coverage and might wish to have it, would not vote for the candidate offering it as part of his campaign pledge, but would vote a the congressional candidate promoting tax cuts for the rich simply because he/she was pro-life. Or why they might vote for a Free Trade candidate because the candidate was pro second amendment or supported an amendment prohibiting the burning of the American flag.

Sen. Obama was simply explaining why the financially hard pressed often time vote on their wedge issues (and yes, that would be God, Guns, and Gays....doh!), instead of their best own economic interest. Barack, a candidate for President, may not have stated his thoughts in the most artful way possible, which he conceded, but it does appear that a wave of epic proportion involving those who would want to be offended have quickly made their voices heard. Obvious to any political observer, The Clinton and McCain Campaigns and the so ever willing media started fanning the flames of objection of Barack Obama’s utterances sooner than immediate, in quick accord.

The serious concern that I have with this intensely focused over-the-top “outrage” on this subject, is that, in essence, Obama is being judged as not worthy enough to speak on the state of our politics as it specifically relates to that group of voters, even though, he just happens to be running for President. Perhaps he should have gotten permission first--But more disturbing still, is that perhaps Barack’s real problem in reference to talking honestly about this often time discussed political subject is that some do not see him as being of the “ilk” of those he is talking about. It is possible that some do not consider him to have enough in common with that part of America, although his mother hailed from rural Kansas, and hence, half of his gene pool is of that “ilk”? Possibly. Could it be that because Sen. Obama is ½ Black, he is not afforded the ability to comment on those he might lead under an Obama administration according to those who set the rules; the true elitists?

Ironically, White politicians, pollsters, pundits and anyone and his/her mother have been seen commenting on the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Gay vote, the educated vote, the youth vote, the male and female vote for the last 3 months, in a manner that has not always been preapproved. At such times, the voters are efficiently segmented, dissected and analyzed, and long and short hypothesis are clinically formulated as to why those folks might have voted as they did. In some rare instance, campaign pollsters are given microphones in order to announce to the entire world ahead of time who will be voting for whom.

It is sad to say, that it appears that when it comes to a Black man, no matter that he could claim some of the same roots as those of whom he speaks of, he is simply not allowed that luxury, in particular if his chosen words appear unartful on their face.

But the fact that some would go as far as to say that this “endangers” his candidacy, and attempt to call this (another media produced) “challenge” for Candidate Obama, I must call them on that notion.

These people making such claims are in fact, the elitist playing Molehill politics with our nation. In their eagerness to shape our public opinion on these elections, they are the most obnoctious as they bring us their pile-on high drama manufactured political episodes. They are the reason that Wedge politics is alive and well and striving in America today. They are the reasons that we, the people, have become the cynics that result in only 55% of Americans participating in our political process. Are the “Rural Small town Voters” really “code” for White moderate swing voters that no-one except for White people can discuss? Emoting political correctness does serve a noble purpose at times, but after all that has been said about race, sex and creed in this election, I find this to be happening now most ridiculous!

What's The Matter With Kansas?

What's the matter with America? What explains the dysfunction at the dark heart of our politics?
Over the last thirty-five years the Republicans have transformed themselves from an aristocratic minority into the nation's dominant political party, a brawling, beer-drinking buddy of the working man. The strategy by which they have won this triumph is instantly familiar and yet so bizarre it's sometimes hard to believe it's actually happened
<>
for the last three decades seems more like a panorama of madness and delusion worthy of Hieronymous Bosch: of sturdy patriots reciting the Pledge while they resolutely strangle their own life chances; of small farmers proudly voting themselves off the land; of devoted family men carefully seeing to it that their children will never be able to afford college or proper health care; of hardened blue-collar workers in midwestern burgs cheering as they deliver up a landslide for a candidate whose policies will end their way of life, will transform their region into a "rust belt," will strike people like them blows from which they will never recover.

http://www.tcfrank.com/wmk.html

Meaning of Wedge Issue-
A wedge issue is a social or political issue, often of a divisive or otherwise controversial nature, which splits apart or creates a "wedge" in the support base of one political group. Wedge issues can be advertised, publicly aired, and otherwise emphasized by an opposing political group, in an attempt to weaken the unity of the divided group, or to entice voters in the divided group to give their support to the opposing group. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics.

1. Political parties are usually fairly diverse groups though they will always try to project a united front.
A wedge issue may often be a point of internal dissent within the opposing party, which that party tries to suppress or ignore talking about because it divides "the base." Such issues are typically a cultural or populist issue, relating to matters such as crime, national security, sexuality (e.g. gay marriage), or race.

Another party may exploit this dissent by publicly supporting the issue, and in effect align itself with the dissenting faction of the opposing party.

A wedge issue, when wielded against another party, is intended to bring about such things as:
A debate, often vitriolic, within the opposing party, giving the public a perception of disarray.
The defection of supporters of the opposing party's minority faction to the other party (or independent parties) if they lose the debate.
The legitimising of sentiment which, while perhaps popularly held, is usually considered inappropriate or politically incorrect; criticisms from the opposition then make it appear beholden to special interests or fringe ideology.
In an extreme case, a wedge issue might contribute to the actual fracture of the opposing party as another party spins off, taking voters with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue

Further recommended reading:
Ex-Clinton advisor: Bill and Co. have said the same things as Obama
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188673.php

Immigration Shaping Up as Wedge Issue
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=4808c9d5b7ddf55c8de0f1f116993647&from=rss

The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~hillygus/HillygusShields8-20.pdf

Remember when *all* of us hated the use of wedge issues in elections?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5476242&mesg_id=5476242

and for your viewing pleasure:

Video of What Obama Really Said on April 6 in SF
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x117848

What Consistent Obama said 4 years ago on the Charlie Rose show; the same thing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88wMPAWc90