WHY OBAMA'S CRITICS ARE STUPID AND EMOTIONAL

*
I missed the Radio 4 programme 'Turkeys Voting for Christmas', but the BBC News website writes it up, introducing it thus:

The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US. Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.

Dr David Runciman, who writes columns for the Guardian, argues that President Obama's healthcare reforms are sensible but that, paradoxically, those most enraged by his plans are those who would benefit from them most: "Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?"
*
Dr Runciman interviews two experts (and only two experts), and both are Democrat supporters. Why? Why no Republican experts? Why no thought of fairness or balance?
*
He begins with "psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat" who "tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side." An example from the Bush-Gore debates of 2000 is used, and this conclusion drawn: "Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off."
*
Dr Runciman's second expert is "Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas" who "is an even more exasperated Democrat". "He goes further than Mr Westen", says Runciman - and he's not kidding! "He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests. Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest."
*
The arrogance of the Left is breathtaking.
*
*
*******************UPDATE
*
Please check out Natalie's excellent fisking of this same article on the Biased BBC website:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/those-crazy-republicans-explained-bbc.html#comments
And the ever-alert (and often very funny) Martin has a comment that shows the sheer dishonesty of this article, which is worth quoting in full (and he reaches the same punch-line as me!!):
*
Martin
*
The article also has another distortion. Here's a quote he used. He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:

Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers."
LISTEN TO THE PROGRAMME Turkeys Voting for Christmas BBC Radio 4, Wednesday 27 January at 2045 GMT Or listen via the iPlayer

"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off."
*
However, the full comment given by Bush was not included (funny that).
*
GOV. BUSH: Look. This is a man who's got great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet but he invented the calculator. (Laughter.) It's fuzzy math. It's a scaring -- trying to scare people in the voting booth. Under my tax plan, that he continues to criticize, I said a third. The federal government should take no more than a third of anybody's check.
But I also drop the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, because by far the vast majority of that help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a family of four in Massachusetts making $50,000, you get a 50 percent cut in the federal income taxes you pay. It's from $4,000 to about $2,000. Now, the difference in our plans is I want that $2,000 to go to you.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/2000debates/1stdebate1.html
*
If you take a quote out of context or don't include it all no wonder it makes no sense. I just love liberals, they are SO arrogant.
*
No Beeboid (or BBC-sponsored academic) can escape Martin's eagle-eye for bias! He's caught Dr Runciman red-handed!
*