Obama gives birth to some genuine hatred

[jonathan7]

I was half asleep yesterday morning when some BBC voice from the ether declared that it had been discovered that some dogs were “as bright as children”. And my first addled thought was that the reverse implication — that some people were as dumb as animals — would come as little surprise to Barack Obama, as he attends to what a few impatient liberals obviously imagine is the easiest job in the world, the presidency of the United States. Over there, according to one American commentator writing at the weekend, “the stupid is accelerating”.

 

A bit of the stupid is made up of left-wing Democrats who search Mr Obama minutely — and almost hopefully — for signs of backsliding. But most of it comes from the Right; and what strange forms it takes. Such as the “birther” movement — the raft of websites, writers, fringe journalists and activists who have determined that President Obama is not the legal POTUS because, actually, far from having been born in the US state of Hawaii in August 1961, he was, in fact, given birth to in Kenya, Indonesia or anywhere else that today’s theory has a yen for.

 

So strange is this theory that it imagines the plot to falsify the President’s birth record was hatched before he was, thus explaining the otherwise terminally awkward placing in two Hawaii newspapers in 1961 of birth announcements of a son to the Obamas. Mr Obama is thus the foetal Manchurian candidate, although it might have been easier from the conspirators’ point of view, one imagines, to have allowed him actually to be born on US soil.

 

If only people were passionate in proportion to the plausibility of their opinions. Alas, not so. One recent viral YouTube video shows a town hall meeting on health in Delaware in which the veteran Republican Mike Castle is being yelled at by an apparently insane woman flourishing a birth certificate in a plastic bag, and demanding (1) that Mr Obama produce his, and (2) that everyone present recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Which, amazingly, instead of calling for an ambulance, they do.

 

The daftness gets dafter. The investigators are out there investigating and discovering that (under the headline “Obama ‘mama’: 15 days from birth to Seattle class”) Mr Obama’s mother may have enrolled in a course a fortnight after his birth. And you think, what are you saying here? That she’s not his mother? That his birthdate is different, for some unknown reason?

 

Or maybe that he wasn’t born at all, but left, like Moses, in a basket, on the waters of the Indian Ocean, before fetching up in Hawaii. One pompous ass, the CNN anchor and radio host Lou Dobbs, seems to buy this stuff and has called for Mr Obama to produce his original birth certificate, and a dozen Republican Congressman have lent legitimacy to “birtherism” by signing up to a Bill to require all future presidential candidates to produce the originals of their birth certificates.

 

This stuff is mad and bizarre, but there are other emanations that are scarier. Take what seems to be happening at many of the recent local town hall meetings called to discuss President Obama’s proposals on healthcare reform, which have attracted absurdly intemperate criticism from Republicans. I’ve watched a couple of these meetings online and seen, in both, organised attempts not to express an opinion forcefully but to barrack, to intimidate and to disrupt the discussion. From Austin, Texas, to Romulus, Michigan, speakers have been shouted down by people obviously there to prevent debate. Last Thursday in Tampa, Florida, there was violence when some protesters couldn’t get into the over-packed hall.

 

I don’t think I’m a sissy. I can take heckling and vituperation, and understand that sometimes people yell. Nor do I argue that the Left was always (or ever) fair to George W. Bush. Liberals invariably treat right-of-centre presidents as if they are morons. But looking at the early stages of the Obama presidency, and imagining what is to come, I think that I see the repeat of a pattern of how some on the American Right patently cannot bear the existence of a Democratic president.

 

The previous one, Bill Clinton, was enveloped — from before his first day in office — in a series of accusations of scandal that simply rose in volume: Whitewatergate, Troopergate, Travelgate, the accusation (made by supposedly serious journalists) that he had his friend Vince Foster, the White House counsel who committed suicide in July 1993, murdered. None of these accusations was substantiated, despite the £2.4 million spent on investigating and publishing them by the multimillionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, who told George magazine in 1999: “Listen, Clinton can order people done away with at his will ... God, there must be 60 people who have died mysteriously.”

 

All this eventually led to impeachment. But the Clintons had earlier faced a healthcare crisis too. In Carl Bernstein’s biography of Hillary Clinton, he describes her arrival in Seattle in 1994 to speak on health. There were more than 4,000 people present. “During her speech,” Bernstein recalls, “the catcalls, screaming and heckling drowned out much of her remarks. When she left the stage and got into a limouisine, hundreds of protesters surrounded the car. They were rabid with hatred.”

 

Why hatred? Why not “pregnant with disagreement”? Or “eloquent with dissent”? Why did — and does — a section of the American Right insist that its opponents are not just wrong, but actually illegitimate; not just mistaken, but anti-American? And why does this partisanship take such an unreasoning tone when their party is in opposition?

 

The right-wing writer David Brock, who later repented of his role as an anti-Clinton muckraker, wrote that Bill and Hillary “were made into a metaphor for all the social changes of the past 30 years that the right-wing base of the country hated”. And, of course, such resentment was easier to express when your own equivocating presidents (usually one of the Bushes) were not in power. Fear of any state encroachment is a big part of it, of course – and for some Obama represents a gallop in a socalist direction. But also there’s this: Republican administration or Democrat, American society has evolved and the country is now heading for a situation when non-whites will be in the majority in our life times.

 

It was an Obama conceit that his election had healed all divisions and that somehow Americans were more prepared for painless change. But all change is loss, and in the States the losers know how to hate.

 

From; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6790709.ece

 

It's rare that I read an article which I would say represents my opinion, but the above does a pretty good job of doing so.

 

So what do people think?

[jrrtoken]

It's not very surprising; I figured that there would be some conservative hate machine stirring in the background, much like when Clinton was in office. Of there's the fact that Obama is BLACK that does stir up some people.

 

Mainly, though, I feel it's just ultra-conservative commentators that are stirring the pot, with their listeners who are foolish enough to believe everything that they say is an honest-to-God fact.

[Jae Onasi]

I think it's a little simplistic--he's assuming, like too many more liberal writers, that the right wing has no reason to be angry, and therefore wht they''re doing is unreasonable. On top of that, he throws the race card into it, as if all ultra conservatives actually are hung up on that. They're not. In fact, the ultra-conservatives I talk to could care less about the color of his skin--they're highly concerned about what they see as a rush to socialism, however, and that has them spitting tacks.

 

Do some of the right wingers go overboard? Absolutely. Rush is ridiculous, and he loves stirring the pot. It gets him higher ratings. However, the Right has some legitimate concerns, and they feel like those concerns are getting swept under the rug by not only their elected officials, but also the 'mainstream' media. This is a big part of what's driving the anger, and a big reason why the ultra-conservatives like Rush and Ann Coulter are screaming.

 

Getting lost in that, however, are people who are more reasonable about expressing their concerns, like Charles Krauthammer and some of the other more moderate conservative writers and commentators. The Right feels right now like they're being completely ignored by their elected leaders--when you have Pelosi calling ultra conservative protesters at the town hall meetings 'Nazis'and Obama telling conservatives to 'be quiet' if they don''t like his health care plan, how should the Right feel? For the most part I agree with nationalizing health care, but I, especially as a doctor who will be working in the system, don't want to be told to 'shut up' if there are aspects of the plan with which I disagree, or worse, being told I'm somehow undemocratic. I helped elect Obama--and even if I didn't, as a citizan who will be living with whatever these few hundred people in Congress are going to be deciding for all of us, I DO want to express my opinion. It is my constitutional right as someone living in a democracy to express my opinion, and in the case of medical care, I feel like I have a responsibility to state my opinion not only for myself and family as a future user, but also for my profession and my patients. I do not want to be called a Nazi for dissenting or told to sit down and shut up.

 

The writer of the article is correctly identifying the anger, but I''d like to see him go more in depth to understand why these folks are so angry. The anger is just a symptom of a deeper problem, and the author missed that.

[Gurges-Ahter]

I agree 100% with Jae, and I feel that the author failed to expand on a good point he had about half-way through the article.

 

Nor do I argue that the Left was always (or ever) fair to George W. Bush. Liberals invariably treat right-of-centre presidents as if they are morons.

 

I think a lot of today's criticism on Obama has a lot to do with the previous 6 years (I think the first 2 were relatively benign) criticism of Bush. It's just a media frenzy, and it's not going to change no matter who the president is (left, right, whatever). Bush received more unfair criticism than perhaps any president ever, and Obama is just next in line.

 

The part that bothers me is related to what Jae pointed out. Bush received tons of criticism but didn't react to it negatively - he just kept pursuing his goals - right or wrong. Obama basically tells us to eff-off if we don't like it.

[Lord of Hunger]

To be frank Obama has made some huge mistakes so far:

 

1) His Cabinet - The fact that he hired so many members guilty of back taxes even got on my nerves.

 

2) Sotomayor - Her comment about a "wise" Latina being more capable than a white male should have forced Obama to drop her instantly. Whether it was racist or not (I personally don't care either way) doesn't matter, but it is so easy to put a spin on it.

 

3) Lack of Specifics on Health Care and Economic Policy - As inspiring as he is, he needs to stop selling us hope and give us actual price tags. How much is this going to cost exactly? How are you going to pay for it?

 

4) Having Congress write the Health Care bill - Biggest mistake of all. He should have designed his bill to begin with and submitted it through one of the Democrats in Congress rather than leave them to do something that they are bound to do poorly.

[Darth Avlectus]

4) Having Congress write the Health Care bill - Biggest mistake of all. He should have designed his bill to begin with and submitted it through one of the Democrats in Congress rather than leave them to do something that they are bound to do poorly.

 

QFT and if I may add, he's not having much influence over Reid and Pelosi like many of us hoped he would.

 

I'm of the mind that I really don't give a flip about Obama, personally (though I really wish he would quit trying to spin the opposition's arguments a certain way based on a few embarrassing racist idiots). However, his team is what I have gripes with. Plus it looks rather suspicious when you try to rush a 1018 page HR bill requiring lawyers to interpret rather quickly through the senate. I don't blame anyone for being at least suspicious about it.

[Jae Onasi]

To be frank Obama has made some huge mistakes so far:

 

 

4) Having Congress write the Health Care bill - Biggest mistake of all. He should have designed his bill to begin with and submitted it through one of the Democrats in Congress rather than leave them to do something that they are bound to do poorly.

He's doing it that way precisely because Bill and Hillary failed spectacularly when they tried to bypass Congress in the 90's in the way you're suggesting.

 

@GTA--I knew he wasn't going to have much if any influence over Pelosi, especially when he owes her for her work in delivering California to him in the election. Since Obama was only in the Senate for a few years, there was no way he could develop influence over Reid, either--he simply wasn't in the Senate long enough to create the kind of influence and connections that someone like LBJ had, and it's a bit of a disadvantage for Obama in that respect.

[Q]

While I may disagree with his socialist policies and wild spending, I most certainly do not hate the president. He's our first African-American president, and while ideally this should not be an issue at all, it's a huge milestone for the country, and one that was long overdue. He also seems to be a stand-up guy, whereas Clinton was a slimeball (though an undeniably likeable slimeball ).

 

As far as all of the protesting goes, I understand why people are doing it, but I'm quite content to sit back and let the stagflation speak for itself.

[Lord of Hunger]

Another interesting fact: What they (Congress and the Media) don't tell everyone is that it would be far preferable to create a series of smaller reform bills rather than one giant bill. Having individual bills that deal with the individual aspects of our system that are messed up (like prohibiting companies from deny health insurance due to a preexisting condition) would allow for these problems to be quickly solved and for the points of debate (such as instituting a public option) to not stall the solutions that everyone agrees on. Instead Pelosi and the lot want to create a huge bill for everything and hype about how absolutely necessary it is so they can shove it through the system into law. While my opinion of the Republicans (whom I used to have some measure of trust in at one point) is now lower than the Earth's Core, my opinion of the Democrats is even worse.

 

Hell, this is another example of how the Legislative Branch of our government is untrustworthy.

[True_Avery]

I've been trying my hardest to not post, but this post caught my eye too heavily so I have to respond.

 

that the right wing has no reason to be angry,

Well, first off I can only throw out the question of... what is the right wing in America?

 

Do they have a right to be angry? Sure...

 

and therefore what they're doing is unreasonable.

... but while I agree that instantly assuming it is unreasonable, I believe the article is pointing more towards the mass hatred than the facts behind them.

 

Maybe it is a "left" thing as you pointed out, but I've been seeing a hell of a lot of manipulation on the part of the "right wing" side of the news, like certain radio commentators and, in particular, Fox News.

 

The article is pointing less at good reasoning to be angry, and more at the fact that these events are happening under completely unreasonable circumstances.

 

So, is what they're doing unreasonable? I think so, yes. But only the ones this particular article is pointing out. Like, for example, the birther movement, and the current trouble with Health Care and these (dare I say it) idiots assuming that it is going to allow euthanasia, death panels, and so on and a bunch of other nonesense that is not even in the bill.

 

Information is, like it always has been, being manipulated by the 'media'. Who is the media? Lets just go with everyone, shall we? MSNBC to Fox News. Air America to Rush. Who is possibly the worst offender in this (in my opinion)?

 

Glenn Beck.

 

The article doesn't so much say that the entire right is wrong, but that the current state of the far right in American Politics is in the absurd, and gaining speed inter the territory of outright lies and manipulation in order to cause conflict, and possibly even entice riots at, say, the current townhall debates on Health Care.

 

Has the "left" done this? Sure. If it is a media outlet, it will damn well try to manipulate the watchers. But, as an independent, I take the stance that the "far right" media outlets are almost mad with the power they have over their viewers. I've seen MSNBC and CNN blatantly lie to me, but I see far more hatred and madness in the lies and commentary of the "right" outlet.

 

Does this mean I think everyone on the right is insane and unreasonable? No, but I agree with this article in saying that the right in the last few presidencies has gone too far. Rush, Glenn, Savage, O'Rielly, etc are dangerous to mindset of this country, and it is quite obvious that the manipulation of the truth has been leading to this outbreaks... not actual reasonable trouble with the issue. The reasonable ones aren't the ones making a scene at a debate and asking for Obama's birth certificate.

 

But, before I get called on it, I also think MSNBC commentators such as Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Chris Matthews are dangerous to the country as well, but I do not think they are as crazy, nor do I think their manipulation -as- dangerous as many of the paranoid "right" listed above.

 

If anything, they are just more GarfieldJL's. They poison the name of the party they try to represent, and make the honest ones look insane. Except, unlike Garfield, they have primetime shows with rabidly loyal listeners.

 

And, I agree with the article in pointing out that the "far right" media outlets in this country go to almost insane levels of hatred, paranoia, and manipulation when a demcratic is president. Not to say the left doesn't, but I just think the "right" media does it more. If anything, I almost applaud the "left" media for their subtlety in their manipulation a lot of the time, while the right just blatantly says "he is destroying your America" so many times it might as well replace their breathing.

 

Is it justified?

 

You know, I don't think so. Twisting the truth and outright telling people that your grandparents will be euthanize if this bill passes is outright disgusting, and is deserving of their entire network being shut down, regardless of if it is MSNBC or Fox.

 

 

On top of that, he throws the race card into it, as if all ultra conservatives actually are hung up on that. They're not. In fact, the ultra-conservatives I talk to could care less about the color of his skin--they're highly concerned about what they see as a rush to socialism, however, and that has them spitting tacks.

Yet the news outlets seem to be fine with bringing race up, "reverse racism" and so on. No, this isn't just an ultra-conservative thing, but it is still in the media. Do the individuals care? I cannot really comment on something on that much of a subjective, person-to-person level, but I can say that I still see the race card being played by everyone in the media.

 

Do some of the right wingers go overboard? Absolutely. Rush is ridiculous, and he loves stirring the pot. It gets him higher ratings.

Re-read the article, as this is what he was pointing out. The article is focused on the pot-stirring going on, and those that actually let themselves be spoonfed this soup. These people have hatred for the president and the left, and it is being done unreasonably. To be fair, these people are getting what they know in lie/skew form, but personally I have no patience for people that naive.

 

However, the Right has some legitimate concerns, and they feel like those concerns are getting swept under the rug by not only their elected officials, but also the 'mainstream' media. This is a big part of what's driving the anger, and a big reason why the ultra-conservatives like Rush and Ann Coulter are screaming.

I can hardly call it being "swept under the rug" as these townhall meetings and so on, and the events of such, have been talked about on all stations from what I can see.

 

No, Ann and Rush are screaming because a Democrat is in the President's office, and being they are just crazy. Whether or not they are idiots I will never know, but they do stir the pot and people like Rush and Glenn especially know they have a fanbase that will literally listening and believing anything they say.

 

No. Rush and Ann and the like have been screaming for as long as they had a mic in front of them. Legitimate, worried conservatives and so on do not let themselves be spoonfed.

 

Is the left pushing these legitimate, worried citizens under the rug?

 

Yes, but in my personal opinion, the absolutely bat******** insane route that Fox and many other "right" outlets have taken has just made the "right" into a freaking joke. Almost as if GarfieldJL was put in charge, and then cloned himself and put into every chair on Fox&Friends and so on.

 

The legitmate "right" are being discredit and pushed under the rug by their own extremist members, who are now in control of their media. If I were a right leaning person, even leaning at a 45 degree angle, I'd be P***ED at Fox and so on for making my party into a laughingstock by letting people like Rush and Glenn speak for the entire party.

 

Getting lost in that, however, are people who are more reasonable about expressing their concerns, like Charles Krauthammer and some of the other more moderate conservative writers and commentators.

Too bad the commentators and the one's whom the more talkative of their party has been worshipping the past months are driving their credibility into the dirt.

 

The Right feels right now like they're being completely ignored by their elected leaders--when you have Pelosi calling ultra conservative protesters at the town hall meetings 'Nazis'

And O'Rielly did the same with the Democrats. To be fair, he is not an elected official, just a commentator who is paid to say outlandish things. Pelosi, in her position, made a damn stupid move

 

and Obama telling conservatives to 'be quiet' if they don''t like his health care plan, how should the Right feel?

I assume you are referring to his remarks on those who drove our Health Care into the dirt to stop complaining about change. Or, you could be referring to his remarks at the beginning of his speeches trying to correct the **** the media outlets have been lieing to the people about on Health Care.

 

I'll let you confirm which one.

 

How should

 

somehow undemocratic.

Welcome to how the "left" has felt for the past 8 years. Is it fair? No, but in some ways it is. I almost want to believe that the "left" is just taking potshots at the "right" for revenge for commentary over the last 8 years, especially post 9/11 BS.

 

The fact that the "right" media seemed pretty insistant, especially after 9/11, that saying anything bad about the President was anti-american... yeah, they can go screw themselves.

 

I helped elect Obama--and even if I didn't, as a citizan who will be living with whatever these few hundred people in Congress are going to be deciding for all of us, I DO want to express my opinion. It is my constitutional right as someone living in a democracy to express my opinion, and in the case of medical care, I feel like I have a responsibility to state my opinion not only for myself and family as a future user, but also for my profession and my patients. I do not want to be called a Nazi for dissenting or told to sit down and shut up.

Again, not talking about you. Personally, I think the commentator's currently manipulating those on the far-right are Nazi-like in their tactics. If you don't like the word Nazi, then lets just stick with manipulative. But, frankly, the idiots that are "expressing" their opinions at these debates need to shut the hell up so people like you can get a word in, and get those words on the news instead of hours of talking about these far-rights standing up and reciting the American flag like a bunch of neo-nazi fools.

 

Don't put yourself over the same line as the idiots this article is talking about. You are a reasonable person capable of debating with someone while these people are just... well, even though I find the word appauling I might as well use it: sheep. They are sheep. Children being spoonfed what to believe.

 

These people who, instead of just being annoyed with them, go so far as to actually call their opponents unamerican and variants of just because they don't believe in the same thing. These idiots who say "get out of my country" like it somehow exists because of them.

 

You are not. Are you one of the people standing up, demanding his birth certificate? Are you standing up, literally yelling at the people on stage and not allowing them a word in edgewise?

 

No. You are a reasonable person. This article, Pelosi's remarks, nor even Obama's remarks are not aimed at you. Unfortunately, your party is currently digging its own grave and prepping the coffin.

 

The writer of the article is correctly identifying the anger, but I''d like to see him go more in depth to understand why these folks are so angry. The anger is just a symptom of a deeper problem, and the author missed that.

The reason you are angry is reason. The reason people mobbed clinton's limo, are yelling at the Democratic speeches as far back as the beginning of the election, and so on is because of pot stirring crazies.

 

The deeper problem is exactly what the article addressed. The "right" media has currently lost is freakin mind and has shot a massive hole into its own hull under the idea that it'll make the boat float better.

 

Again, to all of you on this board who identify yourself as "right", I have no quarrel with you. I have the same quarrel as the author of this article has: the current state of our media, both right and left, has been insane and, now that a Democrat has been elected... the "right" media outlets have gone over the line and are manipulating people with lies in order to make their waning, ever shrinking extremist part of the "party" look bigger.

 

Thats all it is. That is all any of this is. The "right" media, right now, is simply shaking the pot and trying to get protectors to do outlandish things in order to make the anti-obama movement look bigger than it actually is.

 

And its working.

 

If you want any sources out of me, all I ask if you find the Fox News video of a crowd at a debate yelling "we are afraid of obama, and you should be too".

 

To further my point, I'll just repost a piece from this article:

Why hatred? Why not “pregnant with disagreement”? Or “eloquent with dissent”? Why did — and does — a section of the American Right insist that its opponents are not just wrong, but actually illegitimate; not just mistaken, but anti-American? And why does this partisanship take such an unreasoning tone when their party is in opposition?

I rest my case.

 

Is Obama making mistakes? Is the right all crazy?

 

That isn't the point of the article, and this thread seems to have already gone off topic. The point of the article is that the media has gone insane, and that these people, regardless of party affilation or reason behind their arguments, are just fodder for a media that is spoonfeeding them lies to the point of riot.

 

So, I ask the same thing the article asks:

 

Is this only a right thing? Why, when a Democrat is in office, are they not only wrong, but illegitimate? Not just mistaken, but anti-american?

 

The part that bothers me is related to what Jae pointed out. Bush received tons of criticism but didn't react to it negatively - he just kept pursuing his goals - right or wrong. Obama basically tells us to eff-off if we don't like it.

Like with Jae, I'll have to ask exactly what quote you are pointing out because, frankly, when you are being called out for not being born in America and have people legitimately believing their grandparents will be killed by Obama... I think he has more than enough right to tell these people to shut the **** up. I'm actually impressed with a President who is willing to fight, to some extent, against the media as I think its been allowed to abuse its freedom for a little too long.

 

But, again, I recall the Bush administration and the "right" telling me to eff-off as well so, frankly, I say "welcome to the other side of the room" to the "right". Sorry if it is dusty after 8 years. Luckily, they'll be allowed to do the same in 4-8 years so, really, they can tough it out till then.

 

------------

 

I just needed to get all that off my chest, so I'll be disappearing again for awhile.

[Jae Onasi]

No offense taken at all. I don't disagree that Rush and Coulter have gone way overboard and the author has a right to call them on that. I don't watch Beck so I can't say much about him--I saw him once or twice and decided he wasn't my cup of tea. I wish I didn't have to hear Coulter, but she's on O'Reilly a lot, and I do watch him with some frequency, because I think he's tapped into what the ultra-right is feeling. Rush I listen to a few times a month just to see what he's up to this time, though I'm usually rolling my eyes after about 3 minutes. Calling out the right-wing media for going overboard is nothing new, however. That's been a liberal sport for some time, just like Hannity and Rush calling out Air America and NPR has been conservative sport for them.

 

I don't disagree with his analysis that the right is angry, I just don't think the author went deep enough to understand why they're angry, and I would have liked to see a little more of that analysis--that was my chief point. It read to me like it was another "oh, there's the crazy right-wingers, all up in arms again". He doesn't address their deep-seated fear of socialism to any significant degree, and they fear nationalized health care in particular as a huge sign of socialism, which is why I brought it up as an example. It's also one of the things the ultra-right is hammering hard right now.

 

The Obama comment I was referring to was when he told people opposed to health care to just shut up. I was actually surprised that he said it, since he's usually careful with how he words things. I _think_ he was meaning the far right shooting its mouth off without giving facts, but he didn't clarify it enough. My other thought was "You're President of a democracy, you're going to get criticism, deal with it." Pelosi obviously took that 'shut up' ball and ran too far with it, but I think she's just bat-crazy anyway. Unfortunately, the bat happens to be Speaker of the House at the same time so I have to pay attention to what she says.

 

My voice on health care may indeed be lost in all the noise, but I just write to my Congressman and Senators and hope they at least look at it. I'm very concerned at the speed with which they're trying to push legislation through--it's a huge bill and it's not getting much debate at all, but you're right--that's getting off topic and needs its own thread. If someone doesn't start a health care thread I'll start one later today.

[Q]

Yes, but in my personal opinion, the absolutely bat******** insane route that Fox and many other "right" outlets have taken has just made the "right" into a freaking joke.

Agreed.

These people who, instead of just being annoyed with them, go so far as to actually call their opponents unamerican and variants of just because they don't believe in the same thing. These idiots who say "get out of my country" like it somehow exists because of them.

I'm left wondering exactly what certain people expect when they repeatedly, in public and in private "mock patriots" and express a desire to see their own country fail.

 

At a loss, here.

[Gurges-Ahter]

But, again, I recall the Bush administration and the "right" telling me to eff-off as well so, frankly, I say "welcome to the other side of the room" to the "right". Sorry if it is dusty after 8 years. Luckily, they'll be allowed to do the same in 4-8 years so, really, they can tough it out till then.

 

Funny you say this - I say the exact same thing for Obama-apologists. Bush received as much (and probably more) unwarranted criticism during his presidency than Obama has endured thus far in his term, but it was more fashionable to hate Bush so most just accepted it as fact. Now it's the left's turn to take some abuse, and it's being chalked off as irrational, extremist right wingers taking pot-shots. While it might be just that, it was for Bush as well when he was in office. It's just the sad state that the media exists in, and I don't see it changing for any president any time soon, whether right or left.

 

The sad part is that I'm really a moderate for the most part - I've voted both Republican and Democratic in the past, based on the candidates - but the extreme (and mostly unwarranted) anti-Bush sentiment over the past 5 years in addition to the "whining" now demonstrated by the left-siders, now that it's their turn to take some abuse, has made me very standoffish to the left-wing. I'd rather stay neutral and only listen to issues and candidate worthiness, but I'm having a hard time doing it.

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!!!!!!!!! *cough cough*

thank you

[Hallucination]

[Litofsky]

IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!!!!!!!!! *cough cough*

thank you

 

...are you seriously saying that after some of the posts in this thread, or is my sarcasm detector failing?

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

it was joking but those are my actual thoughts on him

[jrrtoken]

it was joking but those are my actual thoughts on him

Cool, bro; I'd like to see your SUPRE SEKRIT socialist conspiracy evidence in the next session of Congress.

[Totenkopf]

I think that what he's noticed is how vituperatively partisan politics in America can be (nevermind other countries) at times. We all heard how Reagan was going to blow up the world and what a freakin idiot he was b/c the left didn't like where he was going. Bush, we were told, conspired to blow up the World Trade Centers and Pentagon b/c he wanted to start WW3 and then blew up the levies in NO b/c he didn't like black people. Naturally, Bush 41 started the Gulf War by suckering SH into invading Kuwait to give us a pretext to "steal" mideast oil. Only inevitable that Clinton and now Obama would be the targets of claims that their supporters felt were wildly unfounded.

 

Funny thing about the birther controversey is that it comes from w/in the Democratic party itself, specifically the primary season (much like the "Barack the magic negro" phrase). The fact that BO won't end the "foolishness" (and didn't) by giving permission to release his birth certificate only plays into the conspiracy. Frankly, it is likely he will refuse to b/c he'll see it as an angle from which to continue to try to deligitimize a faction of his detractors by marginalizing them as crazy.

 

Another problem with the people currently running the US govt is that we're told it's on the verge of being broke and these fools only want to spend more money and seize ever greater amounts of power in order to "breathe life" into the very economy they're actually choking to death with myriad restrictions and ever higher taxes. Many people fear that the govt has gone off the deep end into fantasy land and that they'll wreck the country with their reckless embrace of discredited Keynsian ideas that might lead to a serious economic crash/hyperinflation. The wearying parade of endless emergencies that the govt is using to transform society while stifling debate about the direction it's heading is yet another sourse of agitation.

 

I'd have to agree that the analysis is a bit lacking. It seems to paint most of the opposition (on either side depending on whose in power at the moment) as w/o merit or substance and overlooks the main reasons that people often differ with their leaders. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, why everyone usually knows about the conspiracy stuff, as the media is driven by an unhealthy appetite for sensationalism (a trait it shamelessly blames on the population at large).

[Tommycat]

...but the extreme (and mostly unwarranted) anti-Bush sentiment over the past 5 years...

 

You forgot "Selected not Elected" and "He's not MY president" for the entirety of his first term. The number of people blaming him for 9/11 (Conspiracy theorists) which still goes on. Hey, why didn't the article go into THAT looney leftist thing that occurred during the Bush presidency. That has to be about as silly as the birthers theories...

 

The Right in the US is angry. The reasons are as varied as the reasons the left is happy with Obama. Sure mouthpieces become nice caricatures to poke at and call us loons by, but many of us have our rational reasons.

 

Take healthcare for instance:

I like health care. BUT I feel that on a national level it is too much of a burden on the taxpayers. It also becomes a huge bureaucracy that once implimented will only balloon out of control making it an even greater burden on our country. I think it would be something better handled on a state by state basis. So Yeah I'm angry about that.

 

As for the whole race card stuff...

Which party had the first African American Secretary of State?...Joint Chiefs? Senator(actually the first TWO)? Representative?

As much as the Left likes to paint us as racists, it's just not true. It's not fair to keep painting us as such. Hell every Republican I know would have EASILY voted for Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice. So blaming our dislike of Obama on that is just completely off the mark. Heck Michael Steele is the current head of the Republican Party.

[mimartin]

Just how do you explain Bush's 90% approval rating during his first term?

 

Historical Bush Approval Ratings

 

Bush had the country and world support in his hands, but his policies are what made him unpopular. George W Bush did cure me of voting republican ever again.

 

Take healthcare for instance:

I like health care. BUT I feel that on a national level it is too much of a burden on the taxpayers.

As opposed to the burden now only being on those that pay insurance premiums.

 

 

@Gurges-Ahter - Not directed at you, but anyone that believes Bush was treated unfairly. With a 90% approval rating, there are more than a few lefties supporting him at that time. There was a time after 9/11 that even the media did not criticized the Administration for fear of being labeled un-American.

[Gurges-Ahter]

Just how do you explain Bush's 90% approval rating during his first term?

 

Not sure if this was directed at me - I stated that the last 5 years were the worst part of it for Bush, and that the first 2 years were relatively benign.

[Totenkopf]

Just how do you explain Bush's 90% approval rating during his first term?

 

"9-11". He didn't maintain 90% his whole first term anyway. No president does. Your graph clearly demonstrates that the 90% approval quickly dissipated.

 

Bush had the country and world support in his hands, but his policies are what made him unpopular. George W Bush did cure me of voting republican ever again.

 

Really? B/c Clinton/Gore, Carter and Obama (as well as the radical lefties controlling the modern dem party guarantee that I'll NEVER vote democrat barring major changes in that party. I do agree with you that Bush made some big mistakes during his tenure, though we may differ on what some of them were in the end.

 

@Gurges-Ahter - Not directed at you, but anyone that believes Bush was treated unfairly. With a 90% approval rating, there are more than a few lefties supporting him at that time. There was a time after 9/11 that even the media did not criticized the Administration for fear of being labeled un-American.

 

And now the media (or the "mainstream" portion of it) has come full circle and suggests that anyone not on board with BO is un-American. Funny, that.. or is it?

[Darth333]

Really? B/c Clinton/Gore, Carter and Obama (as well as the radical lefties controlling the modern dem party [...])

I don't personally agree with everything Obama does (auto bailout for example...and the Canadian gov is as guilty) but...Radical lefties? How so? (*spills coffee*) All of those who you just named are still considered quite in the center (if not slightly to the right) just here in several parts of Canada.

 

Higher taxes? As to what I've heard and read (correct me if I'm wrong) the initial intent was people making more than $250K would pay a small additional percentage on the excedent of $250k... (on the first 250K everyone pays the same according to salary level - I imagine the whole is subject to applicable deductions, right? ....an xtra 3% on the excedent of $250000k for someone who makes 255000k under that policy is what... $150? Peanuts if you ask me unless you make several billions. At that salary level, it won't stop me from buying "that" car and even less from eating...I won't even really see the *** difference...and if I do, it means I have far bigger problems...living in an organized society implies some concessions for the general interest). Now, it maybe a little higher for everyone too but someone's got to pay for that debt and inherited s*** too...

 

As for health care, funny, there was an article yesterday in the francophone papers saying that 85% Canadians were in favor of keeping a public funded health system (I'll try to check English language papers to link it here - even sexchange surgery is "free" ). I don't know whether to laugh or cry almost every time I see comments concerning the Canadian health care system in US media.

 

You don't want to see the caricatures I was getting in my e-mail from all around the world (including clients) when Bush was re-elected...he proved to be totally ignorant of foreign politics and mentality. The perfect example of US hegemony. Complete disregard towards any other system, culture, history, mentality or whatever.

[mimartin]

"9-11". He didn't maintain 90% his whole first term anyway. No president does. Your graph clearly demonstrates that the 90% approval quickly dissipated.

I find it funny that someone unjustly crucified could get a 90% approval ranking no matter the circumstance. People on the left did not root for Bush to fail. He did that on his own. I did not root for him to fail. I was stupid enough to vote for him. Compassionate conservative sounded good to me.

 

Yea, I really hated the Clinton years. A prosperous economy, low unemployment, and shrinking national debt really is a downer after awhile.