Obama's low approval rating is misleading.

Obama is a racist
i mean, i figured he was, but to see it in print, very sad

Every president has had to deal with misleading propaganda from their opponents. Some are just much better at deflecting it than others. Some enjoy the aid and support from party elders and leaders in countering the propaganda more than others.

The Democratic party's current anti-propaganda machine is anemic and flabby. Tim Kaine is no Howard Dean. Obama and the Democrats need to revive the grassroots rapid response machine that was so effective during the 2008 campaign.

The problem is that rather than keeping the grassroots structure he built during the campaign an independent one, Obama gave it to the Democratic Party. Many who were very active supporters of Obama during the campaign want nothing to do with the Democratic Party and have refused to become involved in any effort by the party to regenerate the grassroots structure under their umbrella.

The media plays a great part in what people think.

His approvals are remarkably similar to what Clinton and Reagan had at this point in their terms.

Cycloptichorn

kicky, Good observation. All we hear about is Socialist Obama without the reader or media observer ever going into the detail of what that means. They're left with that mental picture, because it's repeated so often.

I'm critical of Obama too, but I try to explain why. Balanced against the fact that he has accomplished most of what he promised during his campaign is forgotten or never learned.

Fear and negativity repeated often enough becomes the truth for many people.

No. It's the economy, stupid.

It doesn't matter who is president and Obama isn't a special case, the approval ratings will reflect the economy for the most part and that his ratings aren't great should be no surprise, the economy isn't.

So you discount any other factors that weren't around for any other president? I'm not saying his low approval rating is ONLY because of the things I mentioned, but I believe that they have an affect.


Poll: Fox most trusted name in news
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

News Corp. Gives Republicans $1 Million
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/us/politics/18donate.html?_r=2&hp

No, I hear about the "unprecedented" disrespect of the opposition with nearly all presidents and how each one isn't getting a fair shake in the media. I don't think Obama is a special case at all in this regard.

Then we disagree. That's okay with me. As for all presidents not getting a fair shake in the media, I think Bush got more than a fair shake. I firmly believe that if it weren't for the rise of Fox News, he wouldn't have been elected to a second term, even with John Kerry being his opposition.

I agree completely. With the economy down, it is natural to blame the top guy. If the economy was flying, all but the extremes would say Obama is great.

I don't understand how you can believe that having a highly popular 24-hour propaganda factory that was not around before has no effect at all.

The same propaganda was around during Bush Jr.'s two terms. Don't you remember all the rumors and innuendo about Fox receiving White house talking points way before they were disseminated to the rest of the media and how they just repeated them word for word like stenographers?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/26/mcclellan-fox-talking-points/

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200511180007

Yeah, and that's why I said I think that Bush would not have been re-elected if it hadn't been for this new propaganda masquerading as media.

Because for the most part it is preaching to the choir. Those who are going to disapprove of because he supports abortion rights or public health care or because he is going to take their guns or because he is a socialist are going to disapprove regardless. Most of the rest of us think with our bank accounts.

I think you're right; the economy now stinks, and 9.5% are in the unemployment class. Those are a whole bunch of unhappy people. Somebody recently said, "it's the economy, stupid," and he's right.

I see what you're saying, and if Fox News were continuously spewing negative **** non-stop about Obama and the Democrats but weren't taken seriously as a news organization, then I'd agree. But this totally biased right-wing propaganda machine is considered not only a legitimate news organization, but the most trusted news organization we have, it allows they're phony stories to creep into the collective consciousness and we can't help but be affected by it.

The difference is that about ten years ago there might have been organizations like Fox, but they were marginalized and known to be biased. But these days their lies get accepted and even talked about by real news organizations, as if they are legitimate.

This isn't the way it was, nor the way it should be. All I'm saying is that all that anti-Obama stuff has an effect.

Are you actually saying that the news doesn't affect people's perspectives?

I notice CNN is doing it but much more subtlely. It is run by Warner controlled by the son of Bronfman, the scion of the Seagrams bootlegger.

Yeah, there was also something I saw recently about something about the economy in 1982 -- so two years after Reagan's election -- being similar to now (I just don't remember enough to track it down or be more specific, sorry).

Anyway, we know how that all ended up for Reagan.

If I remember correctly, inflation was in the double-digits during Reagan's presidency.