Netroots Nation 2011 Attendees Support President Obama!

As many of you might have noticed, I haven’t been helping the firebagger organizers of Netroots Nation 2011 spread their anti-Obama bullshit. They purposely try to goad us real liberals into writing about them, they will take attention whether positive or negative. I’m sure you’ve read the many slanted stories from the compliant media about how NN11 has turned on the President. It’s funny how reality is so much different than what Jane Hamsher and John Aravosis would want you to believe. From Roll Call…

MINNEAPOLIS — Despite their grousing about the administration during the Netroots Nation conference, liberal activists and bloggers are relatively happy with President Barack Obama’s performance.

A straw poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research showed that 80 percent either approve or strongly approve of the president more than a year before voters head to the polls to decide whether he deserves a second term. The results broke down to 27 percent strongly approving of Obama and 53 percent approving “somewhat.” Thirteen percent said they “somewhat disapprove,” and 7 percent strongly disapprove of the president.

And I have to point out that the organizers of the conference are almost all anti-Obama in one way or another. Whether it’s about the wars the President was handed or the financial mess or the fact that Republicans are actually in our government and have the power to force the administration to compromise, these naive, petty folks are more concerned about their own egos than helping pass progressive legislation. Those approval numbers are even more impressive when you consider that this is supposed to be a disgruntled crowd. The President’s approval among Democrats nationwide goes into the high 80’s.

So I’m encouraged that the attendees of Netroots Nation 2011 support the President and progressive causes. I’ve thought for a long time that the haters like Hamsher, Greenwald and Aravosis do not represent a very large segment of the electorate. If you can stand to read the comments at their blogs, you’ll see a majority of Republican trolls, who seem to be their main readership these days. Is it any wonder they continue their trashing, they have to feed their right-wing readers. In case you were wondering what blogs tell it like it is, check out my “Blogs I love” to the right, those folks rock.


8 thoughts on “Netroots Nation 2011 Attendees Support President Obama!

  1. The flip side to the “encouraging” news is that a “somewhat” approval rating could be an “on the fence” response. These are the people that are most susceptible to the activist propaganda the likes of Hamsher and Greenwald like to sell. And I do mean SELL, let’s be clear about that. Lately I’m hearing more and more from the FDL crowd that the role of the activist is to “not be satisfied”. I understand the idea that a truly engaged activist is less effective if their goal is to achieve partial success. However, an activist that is in a constant state of dissatisfaction until their ideal is achieved is treading into extremist waters. A good example in the US is the anti-abortion activists (ironically naming themselves pro-life) that are “never satisfied”. They’ve frequently resorted to terrorism and their rhetoric has shifted to extremism regardless of the venue. They are considered by the majority to be defeating their stated goal of garnering support by shifting to a strategy of eliminating the opposition. A trend among the Progressives is to attempt to discredit Pres Obama supporters as mindless, robotic “worshipers”. First, that is a tactic taken straight from the PUMA playbook. Second, it only confirms the elitist nature of the Progressives from FDL. The arrogant view that only THEY are capable of critical thought and reasoned decision-making. So what does it really mean to be an “activist” at the netroots level? At what point do activists consider the reality of compromise, particularly with moderates and centrists? The 53% that somewhat approve have apparently recognized the value of compromise. Does that mean they aren’t worthy of acceptance as a true activist in the Hamwaldian Utopia of Progressive politics? Is it really a worthy goal to achieve acceptance by Hamsher or Greenwald in the first place? Will you have to “sell out” your common sense and willingness to compromise? My impression of the Netroots convention was a mixed bag as I followed different lines of communication. Some participants ratcheted up their anti-Obama rhetoric and others complained there was an effort to promote division and others felt they were being pressured to realign or abandon their principles. Overall, it seemed to be more of an effort at self-promotion than any attempt at attracting more citizens to become netroots activists or even be sympathetic to their efforts.

  2. Howard Dean (fresh from Netroots Nation where “progressives” polled 80% in supporting President Obama) took issue with Cenk Uygur today on his MSNBC show. Uygur said that Obama needs a primary election challenge to FORCE him to the left!. So I guess Cenk is among the 20% who dislikes our President because he has not supported EVERY ONE of Uygur’s pet issues. Cenk needs to gather up his dolls and go home because Obama is not playing nice with him.

  3. I attended Netroots Nation and was somewhat concerned that it would turn into an anti-Obama hatefest but came away pleasantly surprised. The criticism of President Obama that I heard was relatively mild (along the lines of “he could be doing better in some areas but he’s doing a good job overall and, if we want to bring about the momentum for change on certain policy issues, then it’s up to us to do it” and it was relatively constructive/proactive criticism rather than the nonsensical drivel we get from Hamsher and her felllow firebaggers. Most of the people I met I would classify as ranging from very enthusiastic to generally supportive of the Obama Administration. All the keynote speakers I heard refrained from the vitriolic and hateful Hamsher-bile and even Cenk seemed to behave himself when he spoke. I was actually heartened to see that most of the Netroots are not like their self-appointed, delusional “leaders”.

    I will add the important caveat that I did not attend any of the sessions by Hamsher and Aravosis -I was tempted to but decided I had more important things to do with my time rather than having to share a room with two bloviating egos. I did attend a session with Markos (the founder of Daily Kos) and I found him to be a lot more reasonable and rational in his critique of the issues than some of his counterparts

  4. Very good point, BlueTrooth. Also, if you’re always dissatisfied, it means you’re shooting for perfection, which makes it a lot harder to achieve any reasonable goal.

  5. Cenk is not a real progressive and I know this because I’ve listened to him enough to know that he is someone who only thinks he’s a progressive. I don’t proclaim myself a progressive in every way anymore and have infact been rather careful in describing myself as a progressive or liberal. I am a moderate but the political climate seems rather hostile towards moderates and not just among tea baggers either. It seems the fire bragging crowd is just as bad and aggressive.

  6. Since I cannot get Current TV on my Comcast cable here in Houston, I missed Keith Olbermann’s new Countdown show last night. Did read in the newspaper today that Keith chimed in with his first guest, Michael Moore, to criticize President Obama over being engaged in Libya without the blessings of the Republican Congress. Maybe it could be that Obama knows the GOP “hawks” will suddenly become “doves” only to oppose him.

    I was in Morocco in March when Libya started heating up and since some of the hotels I stayed in (Starwoods, Le Meridien) ONLY allowed us Fox News, I got to watch the REICH jump all over Obama for NOT going into Libya to prevent a massacre. Then when Obama did join NATO forces to go after Col. Gaddafi, the same Fox pundits did a 180° flip-flop and began to criticize Obama for going into Libya. They can never be satisfied. Time for Michael Moore to go on to Fox and sing in their chorus, maybe. BTW, just heard that CNN’s Ed Henry is moving on over to Fox News to join former CNN colleagues, Bill Hemmer, Greta Van Hustern who made the jump to Fox.

  7. Matt Taibbi writes about the sudden transformation of GOP “hawks” morphing into “doves” now.

    “It’s been interesting, watching the seamless transition many conservatives seem to be making now, from brainless war-drum-beating to Randian isolationism. Six or seven or eight years ago, I seem to remember, anyone who even hinted that not using military force to resolve any foreign policy dispute, no matter how trivial or how imaginary the justification, was to be considered a traitor.”

    A recent Pew poll found that the share of conservative Republicans agreeing that the U.S. should “pay less attention to problems overseas” has risen from 36 percent in 2004 under Bush to 55 percent today with Obama at the wheel. In the debate over Libya, Tea Party icons like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have sounded more like Sen. Rand Paul who doesn’t even support operations like the one that killed Osama bin Laden.

  8. I’m wondering, though, if there’s a difference between opposing the President on an issue like Libya and being a firebagger. I know that Keith and Michael Moore are not happy with the Libya decision, but I didn’t hear them make blanket statements about Obama like “he’s a Republican lite” or “he’s not a progressive”. I’m not entirely happy with our actions in Libya either, but will still support/vote for Obama :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s