Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Large Portion Of GOP Thinks Obama Is Racist, Socialist, Non-U.S. Citizen: Poll
A new poll of more than 2,000 self-identified Republican voters illustrates the incredible paranoia enveloping the party and the intense pressure drawing lawmakers further and further away from political moderation.
The numbers speak for themselves -- a large portion of GOP voters think that President Obama is racist, socialist or a non-US citizen -- though, when considering them, it is important to note that a disproportionate percentage of respondents are from GOP strongholds in the South (42 percent) as opposed to the Northeast (11 percent). Also note that this is a poll of self-identified Republicans, which means that independent Tea Party types are not included. The numbers speak for themselves -- a large portion of GOP voters
think that President Obama is racist, socialist or a non-US citizen --
though, when considering them, it is important to note that a
disproportionate percentage of respondents are from GOP strongholds in
the South (42 percent) as opposed to the Northeast (11 percent). Also
note that this is a poll of self-identified Republicans, which means
that independent Tea Party types are not included.
Nevertheless here are some of the standout figures as provided by Daily Kos/Research 2000:
- 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.
- 36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.
- 31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.
- 63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
- 24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
- 21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.
- 23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.
- 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
During his appearance at the House Republican retreat last Friday, Obama explained that it was hard to forge bipartisan consensus when lawmakers were trashing his health care bill as a "Bolshevik plot". These poll numbers show that the gulf preventing bipartisan consensus extends well beyond health care. How does a Republican lawmaker explain to his or her die-hard base that it is important to work on legislation with a racist, socialist president who is illegally holding office only because of the help of ACORN?
"This is why it's becoming impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country," said Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of Daily Kos. "They are a party beholden to conspiracy theorists who don't even believe Obama was born in the United States, and already want to impeach him despite a glaring lack of scandal or wrongdoing. They think Obama is racist against white people and the second coming of Lenin. And if any of them stray and decide to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Given what their base demands -- and this poll illustrates them perfectly -- it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no."
- Posted in
96 Comments so far
Show AllWhoa! If Republicans really are that stupid, it implies that all the meaningful/intelligent work done in the US is by non-Republicans. I suddenly feel very, very tired.
The 63% who believe a fascist like Obama is socialist confirm how effective the FOX myth machine is.
I wonder how they would respond if you advised them that former Republican Presidents Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower were as far to the left in the political spectrum as Obama ?
Sad thing is that every time FOX calls Obama a socialist he moves further to the right in an attempt to prove them wrong, even though the FOX listeners will never vote for him no matter how right wing he gets.
Ford, Nixon and Eisehhower were much further left. Who coined the phrase "military industrial complex" - a phrase now regarded as far out there as the lyrics of the Internationale?
We shouldn't be surprised about this at all. When even the "center" is hard-right, what do you expect the self-described "right" to sound like?
Sad, isn't it, that Nixon can be accurately considered to the left of the paranoid, homicidal lunatics now controlling the Republican party - or at least its Brown Shirt wing epitomized by Glenn Beck, its version of Heinrich Himmler.
The Republicans are the party of no and their only job is to force Obama to fail and then have a party on it. I have met more than enough racists in my own district and Bachmann's district which borders mine is worse. Obama should stop trying to play nice with the Republicans and go left or he loses any chance of winning a second term.
waaaah, you had 60 seats, you didn't get it done.
The one and only time you will probably ever see me agree with The Owl. The Dems had a filibuster proof majority and they screwed us by doing NOTHING! Well, they did make sure the truckloads of cash still went to Wall St. and the war machine with no pesky bi-partisan solutions slowing things down. No one deserves to be kicked out of office more than the cowardly Democrats. I will never vote for a Demorat again.
The Dems did not have a "filibuster proof majority (sic)."
q
That is entirely different from the race issue.
74% of Republicans also believe FOX 'News' is the most trustworthy of all.
A near equal number do not believe in the fact - er, I mean, theory - of evolution.
Somewhere between 10 and 25 million of them listen to Limbaugh every day.
And a growing number of them are joining a 'political party' named after an 18th century Englishwoman's favorite Saturday afternoon activity, so...
Evolution IS a "theory", not a "fact".
We don't benefit rational, scientific understanding by devolving it into irrational, Scientism beliefs.
Ironically, in order to confirm evolution as a "fact" one would have to be an immortal like the God of Abraham and be able to actually watch mutation beget speciation over the course of millions of years. ;)
My opinion is that a large part of rational scientific observation and testing's superior utility to society and individuals as opposed to irrational belief systems lies in just the sort of skepticism and caution that underlies us leaving even such an essential idea as evolution a "theory".
-matti.
Evolution is a fact; natural selection is a theory explaining that fact.
Really?
I had thought that if anything "evolution" was merely a common term to simplify the many theories that have to do with speciation, mutation, selection etc in the biosphere.
How is it a "fact" in scientific-materialist terms?
"Species evolve from other species" cannot be a "fact" in the sense that "bone fragment a12 was found in sediment layer 3 of excavation area 17-r" can it?
I'm sorry, but I am going to need a BIT more than a pithy throw-away line to prompt me to toss out the understanding of science and the scientific method that years of schooling and decades of conversing with professional and student scientists has engendered in me.
Keep in mind that I am not some anti-evolutionist troll, I am of the opinion that the ability to leave things such as evolution as "theories" and not succumb to making them dogmatic and unprovable "facts" is what makes science SUPERIOR to, not inferior to, religious belief systems.
-matti.
"bone fragment a12 was found in sediment layer 3 of excavation area 17-r" is a datum.
Evolution (organisms are not genetically identical to their parents) is a fact, scientific-materialist and otherwise.
matti February 2nd, 2010 6:41 pm -- I think your position is arguable. I haven't noticed a lot of this dogmatism you complain about among evolutionists. But I believe it's not dogmatic to say evolution is a fact.
To say you "know" an assertion about the world is true is saying it's a "fact." You can't say you know something if you're unwilling to even consider evidence that might contradict it; that's faith, not knowledge. I think we know evolution occurs, and has occurred since life first appeared on earth. I think it's fair, therefore, to say or claim that evolution is a fact. That isn't to say that every assertion about the world that claims to support belief in evolution is known to be true.
It seems you agree with me that the theory of evolution, as scientists generally understand it -- which is not as a dogma -- is a far better explanation of reality than the alternatives that have been put forward, such as Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc.
Perhaps we can agree that there is a preponderance of evidence supporting evolution. We do not yet understand all the variables well enough to make predictions about the future of species, and even if we could the time-line for testing such predictions is problematic. Obviously, life arose from the elements in the earth and abide by the known laws of chemistry and physics. No one has shown there to be a 'God factor' that defies scientific principles.
Within the physical world, form and energy are always in a state of movement and flux. For those who are interested, the general mechanism is known. All cause and effect, and change of form occur within triads (even if it is not always obvious). The triad is: active, passive, and modifying or neutralizing. Some examples are water eroding rock, heat and expansion, and the formation of ions. Even our solar system is a balance of gravity and centrifugal forces. Nature seeks a balance in all things, even when that 'balance' is not beneficial to a particular species or life in general. Some scientists admit that mass extinction was necessary to make way for the lifeforms we observe today.
Thus, change and transformation is always a constant.
Matti, your first line demonstrates your lack of understanding of the words 'science, theory, fact,and evolution.
Your ignorance of science is rather stunning, quite frankly. Gravity is a theory as well.
In science, EVERYTHING is theoretical that cannot be proven mathematically.. Science theories stand until disproved.
It's not what RepubLICKlans think of Obomba that's the problem. We already know they're tribal and idiotic.
The real problem is what the Democraps think of Obomba. Most are blissfully in love with him, no matter what monstrosities he has cooked up. They're just as tribal as the RepubLICKlans.
I mean, the media characterized the elections of 06 and 08 as a protest against the war. Yet the wars have proliferated under Obomba with nary a peep from the vast Decmocraptic party minions.
It's all a silly game of labels and lies.
What the real truth is is the American electorate suxxs big time. And fascism (soft though it may be) rules our lives.
Here we are in the land of the National Arian Corporatist Party (Nazional Arische Korporatistische Partei). Who said it couldn't happen here?
There really is no cure for stupid.
I think there is. It's just not what these guys are being told to drink (by Faux News). Seen that way, its less a farce, and more, really, a tragedy. Cry, the Beloved Country...
Looks like the GOP have to deal with it since it is a self inflicted wound.
I live in Stockton, California. A place that overwhelmingly supported Bush Jr. in his campaigns and policies. George W. Bush actually came to Stockton twice during his Presidency to speak at the Civic Auditorium (though you had to have tickets to get in, mostly awarded to Republicans). Media Benjiman of Code Pink made it in once and successfully disrupted the event, and was booted, with the whole media hype.
Now, Stockton has been at the top of the list of communities in foreclosure of their homes, and cuts to every social program thinkable, including a new announcement that 192 teachers will be laid off. Now how does one find sympathy for the people who live here?
I literally know a guy, who is almost 50 yrs. old, able bodied, who lives in his van (looks like a 1986 Dodge), receives food stamps amongst other 'welfare' assistance. He is openly a "Republican" who has nothing but hatred towards anybody who is not a "Republican". Let the lazy bastard die. People like this don't have the intelligence to live in our society, nor the social skills to advance. He refuses to work, and is basically a product of the petroleum golden age. So, who gives a fart if somebody like that is homeless, or dead for that matter. Let's focus on hard working people, not indigent know it alls, whom the Democrats love to give handouts to.
The city of Stockton, consistently makes the top of the list for crime, illiteracy, pollution, violence, theft, and general disease. The city is a major Republican strong hold in California's Central Valley. Even, our Democratic Congressman, Cardoza, is a Blue Dog.
I'm sorry, but there's no helping these folks. They have it all figured out according to them, but when you point out that their community has failed to create a quality of life that is desirable here, they react with emotionally based arguments and anger.
Somebody explain to me how to have sympathy of empathy towards these misguided idiots Please.
Not to worry.Guys who collect foodstamps and live in decomposing vans don't vote. And, as you point out, they won't be around that much longer anyway.On the other hand, there's the possibility that all of will end up living in vans. Then you'd have a problem.
It's easy actually.
In fact, you are halfway there in realizing that they are "misguided idiots".
If they are "misguided" then their problem is guidance, isn't it?
It is a normal Human Quality to be vulnerable to being lead astray by those we trust.
Any of us who deny that we have never been "misguided" to some extant are certainly lying.
So whatever bile they spout, whatever hinderance they are to your, society's, and their own betterment, they ARE HUMAN.
And since you are human as well, empathy should be a simple matter of holding this truth in your mind against the influx of stupid crap that comes out in their actions or words.
Now, what to do to help them free themselves of such mental hypocracies and contradictions is a much more difficult matter.
I can only suggest interacting with them as much and as little as is needed to prevent them from doing anyone any overt harm.
Hoping like hell that the Majority are not so encumbered and working to prove this and utilize this should also help.
-matti.
mojoray February 2nd, 2010 5:55 pm -- You sound like someone who's trying to make progressives look bad. I don't believe progressives would ever say something like:
"Let the lazy bastard die. People like this don't have the intelligence to live in our society, nor the social skills to advance. He refuses to work, and is basically a product of the petroleum golden age. So, who gives a fart if somebody like that is homeless, or dead for that matter. Let's focus on hard working people, not indigent know it alls, whom the Democrats love to give handouts to."
I'm not sure whether to consider myself progressive or just anti-conservatism, but I sure as hell don't think like that.
It's easy for me to have sympathy for such people. Pain, hunger, poverty, are not less painful because the one who suffers is stupid.
Animals--human or otherwise--deserve a measure of compassion because they can feel pain, not because they can think.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. It shows how successful the corporate ruling class has been in brainwashing the populace into believing things that are downright ludicrous, such as Obama being a socialist! As long as this charade continues, truth is something we can only dream about.
Yes pathetic. But the one that shows how easy it is to brainwash these dum dums is that Obama is not a U.S. citizen! In order to believe that you have to believe this: 1. His mother faked the birth notice in the Honolulu Bull. because she knew he would become President someday. His Republican, political opponents did not know it. 3. McCain, Palin and Hillary did not know it. 4. It is impossible to get a passport without an original birth certificate. But believe it or not, most Republican tea baggers believe it!
I would give almost anything if Obama WERE a Socialist.
Those who do not make over $250,000 a year and support Republicans are the biggest chumps. And the GOP leaders laugh at them and their pliability. They actually rely on the ignorance and stupidity of these types of people.
Think about it. The GOP represents the welfare and interests of the top 5% of the population, yet they are able to capture 48% - 52% of the vote nationwide. That's how easy these people are to manipulate.
Keep your government hands off my Medicare!
Oh, how right you are.
If people are pissed off enough, they will answer polls this honestly instead of answering how they think they "should" when they are not pissed off.
Let's help translate this post's info away from the Huff Post's and Daily Kos's desperate desire to turn everything into a "the nation consists of only Them (Repubs) and Us (Dems)" understanding shall we?
First we should keep in mind that such "scentific sampling" polls of 2,000 self-identified people are about as "scientific" as Astrology and even less effective, so, grain of salt, grain of salt.
The bullet points:
1. A slim plurality of self-identified Repubs would like to see a President who has skirted or outright violated the Constitution several times in just a year impeached? Yawn. This is typical of the "opposistion party" in the modern era of Constitution-shredding executives.
2. A surprisingly large minority doubt the President's native birth? His birth in Hawaii and childhood in a foreign country, his "foreign"-sounding name, his non-Citizen father, and a concerted campaign to aledge this, all combined with normal U.S. background levels of paranoia and ignorance account for this. Be worried when its 63%, not 36%.
3. Again a minority see Obama as a "racist", while a larger minority aren't sure (quite a rational answer regarding a question about the mind of someone you've never met, actually) and a plurality disbelieve this. This is down to Beck's high viewership more than anything else.
4. Large majority see Obama as "socialist"? This is the most troublesome one, since he is demonstrably anything but.
5. Minority say he "wants the terrorists to win"? Stupid questions invoke stupid answers, no big deal here.
6. Majority aren't sure if ACORN helped rig the election? Hell, I'M "not sure" about this either! The main reason I doubt it is because I think the (intentional) awfulness of the Repub ticket and the oceans of Corporatist loot on Obama's side negated the need for such shenannigans.
7. 28% want their State to secede, while a strong majority oppose? Big whoop! 28% for Secession is NORMAL for the South in my experience, and near-normal, also in my experience, for rural areas nationwide.
8. A majority of Repubs believe that their last Vice-Presidential candidate is more qualified than the President from the "opposite" party? SHOCKER!! You would almost have to guess that these people ALREADY VOTED FOR HER ONCE, and therefore wish her to hold Office. The 42% that didn't prefer Palin to Obama are the bigger surprise. Should we infer from the (unique to this list) failure of the Huff Post to show the numbers opposed to this that many Repubs think Palin is as much of an idiot as everyone else does?
So, from all of this, the only one that is really a concern to me is the large majority that agrees with the "socialist" label. This demonstrates clearly the significant misunderstanding Americans have of what "socialism" (or "social democracy" or even "social welfare" ) MEANS, which is really quite troubling.
The rest of this poll is mostly B.S. or expected.
The attempt to present the notion of "Bipartisanship" as somehow desirable and necessary by the author of this article bothers me far more than the ignorance and prejudices (to the surprisingly short extent that they reach) of 2,000 self-identified Repubs.
-matti.
A large portion of the GOP is also composed of mindless, low-IQ idiots who'd believe anything as long as it's said by a fat, loud rich man in a suit and red-and-blue tie. That doesn't mean they're right. Honestly, Abraham Lincoln would be ashamed.
kw
40 % of Republican voters means what? Maybe 20 % of citizens older than 18 ? I bet you can go to each and every country in the world and you will always find that 10-15% of the people have disgusting and outrageously stupid views. This is true even for liberal countries like Netherlands or France. The only problem is that these 20% Americans create an awful lot of noise.
Max Planck, who formulated quantum mechanics, once stated that believers of old ideas are not convinced, they die out.
I doubt that Netherlands or France have entire news networks, like Faux, dedicated to making the 'disgusting and outrageously stupid views' of their Republicans feel reassuringly mainstream to the sheep.
ubrew12, I think kw (February 2nd, 2010 6:21 pm) has a good point. From what I've seen, many countries don't have any free press whatsoever. In those places, their Fox News is the only news. But let's see data from the countries you mention before granting that they're that much more civilized than us (although I tend to agree with you on those two).
The article left out Obama is a "Chicago criminal".
Roger Ailes, Glenn beck and company are laughing their way to the bank right now, but sooner or later Fox News, Rush and the media "conservatives" will be exposed for what they are: Agents of global corporations the MIC, Wall Street and possibly foreign governments, employed to disinform and distract the American public as we become something akin to a Banana Republic.
'What is this your business', the Republican's make any Woody Allen film seem normal. Actually it is more like the Wizard of Oz - if they only had a brain, between them. Obama being a socialist is about the only chance he has of getting re-elected. But it is more of the Overseers wishes, Obama will be the US President during the 50th anniversaries of the major Civil Rights events. Sit-ins, Freedom Bus Riders, March on Washington and passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act what a coincidence.
Next time to get us to vote, so we will know we are free, they will use a Green Woman. So far Obama has Talked the Talk, and Bulked the Walk.
I'd love to know what these people are smoking. Anyone who believes Sarah Palin is qualified for a task other than dogcatcher, anyone dumb enough to believe Rush Limbaugh is anything other than an uneducated Oxycontin abuser, anyone who thinks Glenn Beck has a brain, is a complete idiot, and, sadly, it seems the country is full of them. These people don't want to think - they want to be told what they should believe in, so that their atrophied brains won't be stressed or challenged in any way. The dumbing down of America has been successful, God help us all, and we are worse off for it.
You hit the nail right on the head, I could not of said it any better. We are in big trouble
The republicans believe with all their heart that it is the left who are unable to think.
Are you implying that such a thing as objective reality exists, or that one opinion may more closely correspond to that reality than another?
Never trust intellect. Trust only the belief in doing to others as you would be done by.
"36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen."
It is always suspicious when a politician will not answer accusations with proof.
Remember the questions about John Edwards affair. He ignored it at first. Almost two years later he admits that the accusations are true.
Steve Jobs denied health problems. He had cancer.
And I remember Mr. Bush. There were so many accusations I needed a program to keep it straight. Nearly all the claims against Bush are true.
Likewise, with Mr. Obama. He will not prove the birth certificate accusations false with a long form birth certificate, nor release his school records, nor his medical records. All those are red flags.
Prove them wrong MR. Obama, don't hide.
DCH February 2nd, 2010 7:42 pm -- I think generally the burden of proof is on those who make claims that would be highly controversial if true, such as that Obama was born in Kenya or is a Muslim, etc.
Your theory would invite everyone to make any kind of accusation they can dream up, and then require that the person being attacked prove the accusation false.
And even if Obama did provide all the documentation to prove their claims false, they'd just come up with another truckload of crap to dump on him, just as they did with Clinton. I think he's right to ignore the whole thing, and if they believe those things about him, let them provide the proof because he's got more important matters to attend to.
But, if he did provide the documents to prove the accusations false, he would give himself credibility against all the right wing nuts.
Unless you have missed it, Mr. Obama has invited "truckloads of crap" to dump on him. It is known that he has lied, cheated, mislead, deceived and avoided answering for any of his manipulations.
Many people have asked for the documents to being released by Mr. Obama, but he will not to hide something.
In a court of law, requested documents must be produced. It is a matter of fairness, and to bring justice, and truth.
What is he hiding? This is not "transparency" as he promised.
DCH February 2nd, 2010 11:52 pm -- Conservatives have a problem thinking rationally. As others have said, they will just keep coming up with more allegations as fast as Obama can respond, if he does so. He has more important things to do.
Maybe it's best to talk about thresholds. Unless something very persuasive is presented by the critics (most often conservatives), I think Obama should ignore the charges or issue a brief denial if a reporter asks him about them. I like to think of questions that should be answered to reach the threshold. For example, regarding the birth certificate: Where are more than one persons testifying under oath that they personally witnessed a child clearly identified as Obama being born in Kenya on a certain date, and that someone having control over documentation forged one or more documents to indicate his birth was somewhere else? As to his Muslim religion, where are the photographs of him praying five times daily, and sworn accounts from witnesses that he won't eat pork, etc.? If those sorts of things came out, I think the burden could shift. A similar thing happened in the John Edwards situation. Andrew Young coming forward, even though he may not have been under oath in making his allegations, and shifted the burden to Edwards, who had issued strong but less than full denials of the rumors. We're a long way from the Edwards situation in the Obama case.
I also question the assertions that Obama "has lied, cheated, mislead, deceived and avoided answering for any of his manipulations." His deceptions have to do with his political views and accomplishments. But even if he lied about some things, that doesn't validate any and all charges against him.