Reply With Quote
That was eight months after Bush took office, dumbass.
The mantra of the butthurt.He is the new Messiah. He is King. All hail KIng Obama.
What cir stances under which he took office?
He was pre-ordained to be president by the real first lady, the all-knowing, all-seeing, cult leader that is Oprah Winfrey. He was and is loved by a media who loves him just as much as they hate Bush. His questionable associations mean nothing to people because he is a "cool" presidential candidate.
You want to talk about cir stances. Try entering the office of president as two huge planes crash into the WTC and another one crashes into the Pentagon. Those are real cir stances.
Obama is handled with kid gloves. He is the new Messiah. He is King. All hail KIng Obama.
That was eight months after Bush took office, dumbass.
The mantra of the butthurt.He is the new Messiah. He is King. All hail KIng Obama.
Wow, a whole freaking 8 months! I guess that isn't considered to be early in the presidency.
dumbass.
so you blame unity because the leader was a moron and abused it?
nice logic.
That's a heck of a lot longer than it took the conservatives to decide that Obama is the worst person in the world who's going to lead America to certain doom.
well, well, well, are the resident forum republicans impressed with their new addition?
8 months was enough time to ignore the warning signs of 9/11. - it was 9 days short of 9 months. How many times did they blow off the warnings in that time?
It's considered eight months after he entered office.
If you need help next time, call this guy.
that's quite dishonest of you, i didn't know bush's term began in sept 0f 01.
until obama has had anything like 911 happened to him, then your point is moot.
That's pre-9/11
Bush has the interesting distinction of uniting America for and against him.
Just like his inbred father united americans against muslims and muslims against americans
He got elected because he's a ######. And guy with the stupid sunglasses avatar, you're so pretentious and defensive it's not even funny. I registered to say that, see ya.
You mean you created a sock puppet to say that. See ya next screen name.
ROFLROFLROFL
can i quote this and not get into trouble? i don't want to get delcidkellered again.
chumpdumper has been DUMPED. Time to move from bill gates to steve jobs avatar
Well you got your one post worth. I have a feeling you were at one of the tea bag parties. Just a hunch..
We allowed him to abuse it, so yes.
this thread is all over the place.
are Obama haters dividing this board even more?
Don't say that; you'll make them happy.
So Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are really dark skinned Puerto Ricans?
Where others see evidence of race, this man sees a suntan:So Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are really dark skinned Puerto Ricans?
Obama derangement syndrome
The president is driving some people mad. That may be to his advantage in the short term
Illustration by KAL
BY MOST people’s standards Barack Obama has had an excellent week. He enjoyed a counter-Carter moment when navy commandos rescued an American hostage, leaving three kidnappers dead. He gave a measured speech on the economy. And, to cap it all, he gave his daughters a Portuguese water dog named “Bo”. What’s not to like?
Plenty, according to some people. Mr Obama may be widely admired both at home and abroad. But there are millions of Americans who do not like the cut of his jib—and a few whose dislike boils over into white-hot hatred. The American Spectator, which came of age demonising the Clintons, has run an article on its website on Mr Obama en led “Il Duce, Redux?” The internet crackles with comparisons between Mr Obama and various dictators (Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini) or assorted psychotics (Charles Manson and David Koresh). When Jonah Goldberg, a conservative pundit, praised Mr Obama over the dispatching of the Somali pirates, his e-mail inbox immediately overflowed, he said, with “snark and bile”.
A recent Pew poll showed that public opinion about Mr Obama is sharply divided along party lines. Some 88% of Democrats approve of the job that he is doing compared with only 27% of Republicans. The approval gap between the two parties is actually bigger than it was for George Bush in April 2001. Bush loyalists, led by Karl Rove, have duly over-interpreted this poll in order to soften their former boss’s reputation as America’s most divisive president. Today’s Republican base is significantly smaller than the Democratic base was in 2001, so surviving Republicans are more likely to have hard-core views. But there are nevertheless enough people out there who dislike the president to cons ute a significant force in political life.
As The Economist went to press, the bestselling book in the United States was Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny”. Mr Levin frequently denounces Mr Obama on his radio show as an exponent of the second of those two qualities. The new sensation in the world of cable is Fox News’s Glenn Beck, who has already attracted 2.2m regular viewers since his show was launched in January. Mr Beck recently apologised to his viewers for saying that Mr Obama’s America is on the path to “socialism” when it is really on the march to fascism. Media Matters, a left-wing organisation that monitors the media, reports that, since the inauguration, “there have been over 3,000 references to socialism, fascism or communism” in describing the president.
Rush Limbaugh claims that he has seen an uptick in his audience since he announced that he hopes that Mr Obama fails. He has no time for the idea that all Americans should wish their president well (“We are being told that we have to hope Obama succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles…because his father was black”). Mr Limbaugh is not the ankle-grabbing type. He has also added Robert Mugabe to the list of people to whom Mr Obama can be likened.
Why are some people so angry? For all his emollient manner and talk of “post partisanship”, Mr Obama is just as much an embodiment of liberal America as Mr Bush was of conservative America—an Ivy League-educated lawyer who became a community organiser before launching a political career in one of America’s most cosmopolitan and corrupt big cities, Chicago. Mr Obama almost lost the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton because of his lack of rapport with white working-class voters. In the general election he did worse than Michael Dukakis in the Appalachian states of Kentucky and West Virginia.
Tough times make for tougher talk
The economic crisis has transformed this cultural su ion into a much more potent political force. It is true that Mr Obama’s solution to the recession—spending public money in order to stimulate demand and trying to prevent a run on the banks—is supported by most economists. Mr Bush would have done much the same thing. But it is nevertheless driving many Americans crazy. April 15th—the last day on which Americans can perform the melancholy duty of filing their tax returns—saw rallies (dubbed “tea parties” after the Boston one) in every state, 500 or so in all. The protesters, some of whom dressed in three-cornered hats and waved “Don’t tread on me” flags, repeated a litany of criticisms that has been mounting since Mr Obama won the election—that he is a big government socialist (or fascist) who wants to take people’s money away and crush their freedoms.
It is hard to judge so early in the game what the rise of anti-Obama sentiment means for the Obama presidency. Bush-hatred eventually spread from a molten core of leftists to set the cultural tone of the country. But Obama-hatred could just as easily do the opposite and brand all conservatives as a bunch of Obama-hating cranks.
What is clear is that the rapid replacement of Bush-hatred with Obama-hatred is not healthy for American politics, particularly given the president’s dual role as leader of his party and head of state. A majority of Republicans (56%) approved of Jimmy Carter’s job performance in late March 1977. A majority of Democrats (55%) approved of Richard Nixon’s job performance at a comparable point in his first term. But today polarisation is almost instant, thanks in part to the growing role of non-negotiable issues such as abortion in American politics, in part to the rise of a media industry based on outrage, and in part to a cycle of -for-tat demonisation. This is not only poisoning American political life. It is making it ever harder to solve problems that require cross-party collaboration such as reforming America’s health-care system or its pensions. Unfortunately, the Glenn Becks of this world are more than just a joke.
http://www.economist.com/displayStor...ry_id=13496418
We can only hope.
Certainly the spittle-flecked invectives I have seen here qualify for that.
Seems to me like what passes for "conservative" is coming to mean "cranky hack".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
