American Politics 16

[Maithanet]

Each President faces their own unique criticism. It is hard to say that Obama has come close, let alone surpassed, the level of vitriol that has been aimed at Clinton or Bush. Heck, most people on this board cannot even speak coherently about President Bush because of uncontrollable bush hate. The same can be said of republican's hatred for clinton in the 90s (and now).

When Obama's knee-jerk dissenters become more than a few whacko birthers, let me know.

I likewise think the Bush/Obama comparison is extremely weak. I was just finishing high school when Bush Jr. took over, and after the election, I didn't like him, but I didn't really care all that much. My extreme loathing for Bush only began to come out when his cabinet appointments, environmental policies, 9/11 politics, and finally Iraq made it clear what kind of president we really had.

Obama hasn't done all that much yet. He helped pass the stimulus. He continued some Bush policies I don't like. All in all, it's a mixed bag when I look at him eight months in. However, the people who are screaming about Obama seem to have the following list:

Deficit spending! (he's done nothing worse than Bush before him)

Muslim! (not true)

Socialist! (meaningless/not true)

Nazi! Communist! (excuse me?)

Abortion! Guns! Gaaaays!! (He's a democrat. And he's done absolutely nothing on these issues)

If Obama were actually doing what the Right claimed he was doing, then the comparison would be understandable. But the rhetoric aimed at him is typically a hyperbole of nothing.

[Shryke]

Well, Obama hasn't even had a year in office, yet. Even Clinton wasn't impeached over a blow job until he'd reached his second term, so there is ample time for the VARWICON to shift into full gear.

There's something about the anti-Obama sentiment on the right that is disturbing, particularly because it's disconnected from just about anything the president actually has done. The right hates him for death panels, which were never proposed, and his Guantanemo policy, which hasn't changed much from Bush's, and his appointment of activist Supreme Court justices, which Sonia Sotomayor wasn't. There's a sense that they think Obama is illegitimate, despite his solid popular vote victory and his overwhelming Electoral College victory, which far exceeded anything Bush attained in either of his elections put together. I don't know what accounts for this sentiment, but I can't help but wonder if there's not something to what Carter said.

I was reading an interesting article on the 912/teaparty idiocy, and came across this great summation of the issue your talking about:

This — more than anything else besides genuine ignorance of American history, law and economics — defines the teaparty and 9/12 Project phenomena: this presumption that any abridgment of their values is an explicit contravention of the Constitution and American destiny itself. To call these people sore losers misstates the point: they don't "lose" because there is not actually a viable alternative to what they represent. To suggest they lost implies that a government espousing different values could be lawful. There is only the acceptance of their program or the illegal and pernicious subversion of it.

"We the People" have been perverted by being represented by someone we didn't choose. It doesn't matter that he clobbered our ass with a decisive electoral mandate, because the results must be wrong. He's not voting with the majority, because I am the majority, irrespective of ivory tower "counting" math. He is ipso facto a tyrant because he wasn't what we wanted, even if the man hasn't achieved really anything.

Obama is illegitimate because he disagrees with them. THEY know what REAL America is. Anyone disagreeing with them is wrong and illegitimate.

[dalThor]

Not to belabor the point Terra but...

Each President faces their own unique criticism. It is hard to say that Obama has come close, let alone surpassed, the level of vitriol that has been aimed at Clinton or Bush.

Having begun voting GOP presidentially back in Reagan's day I loathed Clinton. Looking back I still don't like the man but I can admit he was a decent President. I voted for Bush the first time around but swiftly learned my lesson. It is possible to dislike both. In Clinton's case the right at least had some cause. As Tracker mentioned Obama's dissenters seem to have been focusing on things that have little basis in the truth.

As far as Carter is concerned I don't think it's 'playing the race card'. I didn't like him either but I respect his post-Presidential work and his intelligence. Please forgive the reference but for me he's calling a spade a spade. The dislike of Obama from many quarters seems to transcend the issues at hand for some reason.

[awesome possum]

Each President faces their own unique criticism. It is hard to say that Obama has come close, let alone surpassed, the level of vitriol that has been aimed at Clinton or Bush. Heck, most people on this board cannot even speak coherently about President Bush because of uncontrollable bush hate. The same can be said of republican's hatred for clinton in the 90s (and now).

Can you name any sources who said Bush should be murdered not even a year into his presidency? And what exactly has Obama done to cause the hatred? It could be argued that Bush stole the presidency. What has Obama done besides what just about any Democrat would have done thus far?

I totally disagree with you. I think they'd blame him for a lapse on his watch, demand his impeachment, and form more teabagging parties where maybe the weapons won't be holstered.

Without a doubt. Limbaugh, Beck, and the other empty-headed idiots who enjoy their status as shouting loudest but making littlest sense would be in a frenzy about how Obama caused this. How he weakened the US.

Dick Cheney would be falling over himself trying to get on as many news programs as possible to say he was right and the attack was strictly Obama's fault.

[Annelise]

I totally disagree with you. I think they'd blame him for a lapse on his watch, demand his impeachment, and form more teabagging parties where maybe the weapons won't be holstered.

I think Tempra's right, at least initially. Especially if there was to be a military response. But there would certainly be fallout at some point, just like with 9/11. How far it would go, dunno. I don't doubt that they would certainly like to impeach him, but I do agree that his adherence to some of the Bush policies would work in his favor, though to what extent is hard to say.

[Swordfish]

You met him...and that is sufficient to know a person at that level? You guys have a real heart to heart conversation that went long, long into the night?

As opposed to labeling him a racist based on a two word sentence that was not inherently racist you mean?

:lol:

[awesome possum]

As opposed to labeling him a racist based on a two word sentence that was not inherently racist you mean?

:lol:

How many white senators had screamed at white presidents during a congressional speech?

Oh, that's right.

It may not be directly attributed to racism, but you can bet your ass that older white people, especially from the south, may not respect the president as much because of the color of his skin. Not when they can remember basically being able to get away with almost everything, including murder, as long as it was done to a person of that skin color.

The country has come a long way since the Civil Rights era, but that doesn't mean all of its citizens have.

[Perin Stone]

It could be argued that Bush stole the presidency.

You could argue that the world is flat but it doesn't mean there's any validity to it.

[Swordfish]

How many white senators had screamed at white presidents during a congressional speech?

Oh, that's right.

:rolleyes:

Thank you for crystallizing my point so eloquently.

He may or may not be a racist, i don't know anything about him.

but your assertion that because he is white, and his comment was directed at Obama, that proves he is a racist, is utterly flawed.

Confirmation bias at it's ugliest.

[alguien]

:rolleyes:

Thank you for crystallizing my point so eloquently.

He may or may not be a racist, i don't know anything about him.

but your assertion that because he is white, and his comment was directed at Obama, that proves he is a racist, is utterly flawed.

Confirmation bias at it's ugliest.

God you're right, haven't the rich middle-aged white males been oppressed enough? :rolleyes:

[Annelise]

:rolleyes:

He may or may not be a racist, i don't know anything about him.

but your assertion that because he is white, and his comment was directed at Obama, that proves he is a racist, is utterly flawed.

I think the WH handled this well:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said neither he nor Obama agrees with Carter's belief that Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) outburst during a joint address was “based on racism.â€

[...]

While Gibbs said Obama disagrees with what Carter said, he does think that what the former president said “adds to our dialogue.â€

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Is everyone aware that Joe Wilson is a former intern of Strom Thurmond?

In 2003, Essie Mae Washington-Williams' revealed that she was the daughter of Wilson's former employer, the late Senator Strom Thurmond, and Thurmond's black maid. Wilson was among those who publicly doubted her claim that Thurmond had a child out of wedlock. Wilson said even if her story was true, she should not have revealed it because "it's a smear" on Thurmond's image and was a way to "diminish" Thurmond's legacy. After Thurmond's family acknowledged the truth of Washington-Williams' revelation, Wilson apologized but said that he still thought that she should not have revealed that Thurmond was her father.

And, of course, he voted against the removal of the battle flag of the confederacy.

[Swordfish]

God you're right, haven't the rich middle-aged white males been oppressed enough? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

I said absolutely nothing about anyone being oppressed.

Classic knee jerk, canned response.

The problem is, the argument that the response is appropriate for was not being made by me.

I think the WH handled this well:

Agreed.

[Shryke]

I think the WH handled this well:

While Gibbs said Obama disagrees with what Carter said, he does think that what the former president said “adds to our dialogue.â€

I think this is pretty much Obama's way of saying "Wilson wasn't necessarily a racist or anything, but this whole anti-Obama thing is fueled in alot of ways by racism".

Or, more succinty, Carter was 100% right when he said this:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told "NBC Nightly News.

[Ken Stone]

I went on Facebook today and noticed there is poll that says:

"Was Obama in the wrong for calling West a jackass?"

The hardcore Obama hater that took the pole of course voted "Yes".

Which made me wonder, what could Obama do that this person would approve of? 99.999987%+ of the people who watched that clip thought that Kayne behaved like a jackass. (Pretty much everyone but his relatives and entourage). How desperate to score political points do you have to be take Kayne's side in this?

[alguien]

:rolleyes:

I said absolutely nothing about anyone being oppressed.

Classic knee jerk, canned response.

The problem is, the argument that the response is appropriate for was not being made by me.

Its just that I'm always amused by the flaming rush on this board to defend inaccurate accusations of racism; as if this is the single greatest smear crime EVAR. (as opposed to calling the President a liar in the middle of a speech) (or actually, you know, being racist)

I don't know if Wilson is racist. I do think he's a rude moron. But he's also a white politician from the South who was an aide to Strom Thurmond. Using the information available to us, I don't think its unreasonable to wonder if his actions are, in part, motivated by racial prejudice.

But heaven forbid we talk about race in America and offend the sensibilities of Joe Wilson.

ETA: nor, of course, do I think that everyone opposing Obama's policies is racist. But I do believe that element is more prevalent in the Teabagging and other similar movements than most people are comfortable admitting.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ken,

I went on Facebook today and noticed there is poll that says:

"Was Obama in the wrong for calling West a jackass?"

The hardcore Obama hater that took the pole of course voted "Yes".

Which made me wonder, what could Obama do that this person would approve of? 99.999987%+ of the people who watched that clip thought that Kayne behaved like a jackass. (Pretty much everyone but his relatives and entourage). How desperate to score political points do you have to be take Kayne's side in this?

Is it not possible a hard core Kanye West fan may have voted the same way? I agree with Pres. Obama 100% that Kanye West was behaving like a Jackass. I don't think Pres. Obama is doing a bad job on foreign policy. I simply disagree with much of Pres. Obama's domestic agenda, that does not make me, or others who oppose Pres. Obama's agenda, a priori, racists as some are beginning to imply.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Starkimus

Again, if you oppose anything Obama says, you are obviously a racist.

And who, exactly, said this? You're just making shit up as you go now. For detail, see my response to Ser Scot below.

Nevermind that half of his speech to Congress was chop full of (at the very least misinformation) lies. So...Joe Wilson called his ass on it. I agree it was the wrong place to do so, but hey it sure got everyones attention.

Step away from the Fox channel, and try Fact Check.

I actually have met Mr. Wilson a few times, and if he is a racist..then over 95% of the people of this country are racists with him.

I suggest you read Max the Mediocre's post that followed yours, and re-evaluate.

Re: Ser Scot

I agree with Pres. Obama 100% that Kanye West was behaving like a Jackass. I don't think Pres. Obama is doing a bad job on foreign policy. I simply disagree with much of Pres. Obama's domestic agenda, that does not make me, or others who oppose Pres. Obama's agenda, a priori, racists as some are beginning to imply.

I think you're conflating the accusations here.

The racism issue is not about disagreeing with the Obama White House's policies. It's about the method of expression, as well as the intensity. Read Carter's quote more carefully:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told "NBC Nightly News.

Carter did not suggest that anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies is a racist. Rather, he suggested that the intensity and the expressed animosity go beyond what a regular disagreement on policy would warrant, and that excess is probably motivated by the people's reaction to Obama's ethnic background.

Nevertheless, I don't expect the right-wing sound machines will notice, or care much if they do, this distinction. It's far easier for FoxNews programs to fan the flame of anti-Obama sentiment by implying that the Obama supporters are unreasonably characterizing those who disagree with Obama's policies.

[TrackerNeil]

I'm not finding the Bush-Obama comparisons very compelling, and here's why. I'm pretty liberal, and my loathing for Bush cannot easily be measured, but I didn't start feeling that way until after the WTC was attacked. Up until then I thought he was fairly ineffective (boy, was that an understatement!), but I didn't have strong feelings one way or the other. It was only after the introduction and failure of his disastrous policies that my fiery purple hatred developed.

Obama, however, hasn't implemented many major policies, and certainly hasn't experienced any real failures, but the right wing is already preparing to storm the White House, with Limbaugh hoping for failure and preachers praying for God to kill him. This hatred is completely disconnected from anything Obama has done, so I am left to wonder if it's connected to something he is.

[DanteGabriel]

The attempts to suggest that liberals are calling all of Obama's critics racist is just another part of the right wing's fucked up siege mentality psychology of eternal victimization. I used to have the first sentence of this column in my sig:

The Right in this country -- meaning the faction that followed George Bush for the last eight years -- long ago ceased being a movement of political ideas and is driven by two, and only two, extreme emotions: (1) intense, aggressive rage towards their revolving door of enemies, and (2) bottomless self-pity over how unfairly they're being treated. As their imminent defeat looks increasingly likely (potentially on a humiliating scale), these two impulses are in maximum overdrive, feeding off one another in endless self-perpetuation (the more they lose, the more victimized they feel, the more they rage against their enemies who oppress them, etc.).

The Right's rejection by the public can't possibly be due to anything they have done. It can only be due to some extremely vicious enemy that oppresses them uniquely and so very unfairly...

Needless to say, whether the excuse-making is coherent or consistent matters not in the slightest. The objective, as always, is to believe that they are weak and hapless victims being stomped on by some Evil, Unfair Force, and that self-pitying worldview can then explain away every last one of their failings. That is the mentality that lies at the heart of today's right-wing ideologue; more or less, it's all there is (for a long time, it was also the media and the Left's fault -- but not theirs -- that things were going so poorly in Iraq, even though they controlled all the branches of the Government).

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...tion/index.html