Illegitimate criticisms of President Obama preventing legitimate criticisms
 

He's not a terrorist. He was not born in Kenya. He is not a Muslim. He is not a socialist. He is not a far left ideologue. He is not a racist. He does not hate white people. He is not a Nazi. On and on and on....

Aside from having to state and restate these blatantly obvious answers to the anti-intellectuals, racists, xenophobes, and Tea Partiers, it seems an incredible distraction for those of us on the center and left. Instead of communicating out concerns and critiques with President Obama, the guy we all voted for, we're busy answering the hateful, the ignorant, and the bizarre from the far right.

There are, imho, legitimate complaints to be communicated about the Obama administration, things like continuing rendition, expanding the secret wars, and extra-judicial assassinations, as examples. The problem is these concerns are having trouble cutting through the noise (read: crazy) coming from the right.

Are you also finding this? If so, what do you think can be done about it?

I agree with you completely, but I have no answer. I do wonder if this sort of cheapening of the debate is all that new.

I also think I understand the logic. O'Bama is essentially very moderate, slightly left-of-center debate. A slightly-right-of-center argument just wouldn't have the emotional power to whip people into a frenzy, and get out the vote. The right wing has found that if you whip up the crazies, that emotional energy turns into enormous political power. As long as they can keep some of the crazier aspects of it a little bit in check, and have the plausible deniability to disavow their crazier rantings, it works out brilliantly.

I think it masks not only the legit criticisms, but also the legit praise he deserves. Obviously the latter is the goal of those propagating the bullshit

really? is it any much different with any of the past presidents having to deflect all the crap that is tossed in their direction? It wasn't much different from Regan to BHO.

I can't speak much to what happened under Reagan, as my understanding comes from old newspaper/magazine articles and history books. I was five years old when he left office.

I agree, its a problem with every president, valid concerns and issues are always being drowned out by BS. When Bush II was president it always amazed me how many people focused on stuff like "he caused 9/11" when the mans term was rife with fodder for legitimate criticism...Clinton had the same problem, don't recall Bush I going through it though, Regan with out a doubt and I'd say Carter too. <--- my lifetime of Presidents, I'm sure it goes back further.

Obama being a white hating islamo terrorist muslim nazi socialist racist communist from Kenya who can't find his birth certificate is just so much easier to rip into with out much thought isn't it?

I have no idea what we can do about.

Hell, I was getting annoyed at how much I was defending this guy I had no intention of supporting.

Obama did and does strike me as a mess of many bad policies and aims, but apparently the Republican Powers That Be more loudly decided that 'ZOMG MUSLIM' was the more attractive argument. And now it feels like the reverse with the Tea Parties, a collection of great ideas fronted in small but loud part by borderline/obvious racists and fucking Palin.

Nothing can be done about it. There is very little, if any, difference between the two parties except the extremes. Both parties are beholden to special interest groups, lobbyists and multi-national corporations. Doesn't matter which group is in power, it'll continue to be the same mess till there is nothing left. The only way for them to differentiate themselves from each other is through the extremists. Discredit through sniping, gossip and back biting to get elected. The American public eats this stuff up. Need an example: just about all "reality" tv shows. The loudest and most obnoxious gets the most press.
Its all bread and circuses.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People who are aren't even on the left, people that are generally in the center right, are having to deal with this utter pig crap. People that didn't evrn vote for Barack Obama are having to deal with this ignorant hatred. It's insane.

Here's a crazy idea: people in the center and the right, people who may vote Republican, don't vote for the asshat representatives bowing to the extreme right. Don't vote for McCain when he runs right to beat a Tea Partier. If everyone running is an ignorant, theocratic xenophobe, run yourself as a centrist. I can think of a good dozen conservatives and libertarians on TFP I'd gladly vote for.

I disagree. I was around during the Reagan years, and the vitriol has never been as shrill as it is now any time in my lifetime.

You lose me here when you conflate far-right with "ignorant, theocratic xenophobes" and general asshattery.

It's unfortunately the case right now, in my view, that the groups promoting the worst and most obnoxious arguments are also promoting the best. They get my vote over the mediocre moderates.

Yes, extremism without compromise is so effective.

That's wierd, I thought you were blocking me.

I'll take ineffective over efficiently terrible.

I like how the fact that they're promoting the worst arguments doesn't make you question what you characterize as "the best".

I like to go slumming every now and then.
This is why I don't venture into that territory very often.

Why would it? "Obama's a Muslim" doesn't have much to do with smaller government or fiscal responsibility.

---------- Post added at 12:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 PM ----------

I'll have to take the initiative, then.

The Republicans don't want smaller government or fiscal responsibility.

They are all asshats, each and everyone of them. You can't get elected if you're not. The people who fund the campaigns expect something for their money, which means the candidates have to abandon their ideals to get into office.

Take the money out of politics and we can have an honest political system. Until then, it will never happen.

And Will, not everyone voted for him.

As for all the crap heaped on his head by the media, look at all the asshats he surrounded himself with and you find your answers. Terrorist, muslims and racists are his cabinet and advisers. Why would someone surround himself with people like that? As to his agenda, I have no idea what that may be. I hear one thing and see another. Just like every other politician in modern history.

The media is going to report what ever gets them ratings, so if your looking for someone to blame, look there. It's not the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Jeremiah Wright, Nancy Pelosi, Rush or any single entity that is obscuring the issues. It's the media in general. There's no moderation, one side is screaming 'he's the messiah' so of course the other side is going to be yelling 'he's the anti-christ'. Unfortunately, the majority of the populous is too busy trying to survive to take the time to filter through all the bullshit to find the relative truth.

If I were into conspiracies, I'd be wondering what the fuck they're really up to with all the convoluted bullshit being spewed in all directions.

Only time will tell whether he was a good president or not, judging by his current actions, he's not.

That's true Rogue, most people just don't spend that much time thinking about these issues. I'm not sure its always fair to think the average 60+ hour a week on the job American really has the time or energy to filter through as much information as we are bombarded with on a daily basis...I know I certainly don't. If the media in this country took their responsibility a little more seriously the BS issues wouldn't be issues in the first place, but sensationalism, ratings, money and all that.

My point was that there's always a distraction that the sitting president has to deal with in some manner. Some of the distraction may be real or made up but either way the administration or the individual needs to deal with it. I believe it's been that way since at least Lincoln based on my reading, then again, I haven't read much about presidents past him.

What? Are you serious? Please list who these cabinet & advisors are
& how they fit into these categories.

I have never seen a news network that calls Obama "The Messiah" (or acts like he is). MSNBC is constantly accused of being in Obama's pocket, but every time I watch Hardball or Maddow, they're lambasting Obama's administration

I haven't gotten around to criticizing Obama for being too centrist yet. When 45.7% of voting Americans voted for the guy who didn't win, there were sure to be some sore losers. I can't say that the Democratic-favoring media was very friendly to Bush in 2000 & 2004. Yet they usually used facts and had substance, not theories and fear about what 'might' happen.

I think Obama has been doing a pretty good job. It isn't easy being in charge right now.

I could see why having terrorist and racist would cause concern but why would you care if someone in his cabinet was Muslim?

Plus I really doubt he has racist or terrorist on his staff.

I agree with Cyn, ever POTUS deals with this crap. Everyone since I've been paying attention to politics has anyway. Shit listening to some people and you'd think Reagan was a butt puppet moron being controlled by Nancy. Bush one was against his own party cause he wanted to do something about the deficit... you know pay for things. So people talked crap about him. Clinton... holy crap what didn't he and Hilary do? Yhey Killed a guy named Foster, a couple of other people by a train somehow. Ripped off half of Arkansas in some land deal. Oh and he got a blow job. My god that man had oral sex with some one other then his wife! Should have shot him for that. Bush? Man the hard left hated that guy, nothing he did was right. The guy could have found a cure for cancer and some people would have found a reason to bitch.

Obama's not getting it any worse then any one else in my opinion.

The funnies thing about the Clinton years was listening to people still bitching about "inhaling" 3 years into his second term. I mean how sad is that?

"The man inhaled POT in college!!! POT!!!! There is no WAY a guy that took a hit off a joint 40 years ago could ever run the country!!!! Impeach the hippie!!!"

Scroll back up. I wasn't talking about the Republicans.

This is funny stuff, becasue of the following:

*On any given day anyone can find someone making some extreme charge against Obama or any public figure.

*The extreme charges that get traction are the ones most vociferously defended by Obama and his supporters.

*The more the extreme chrages get defended the more publicity they get.

*The more publicity the charges get the more credibility they get.

*The more credibility they get the more people believe them.

When people say Obama has thin skin and acts in ways beneath the dignity of the office, look at the above cycle and see if it gives you a better understanding. Example, I could care less if Obama is a Muslim, it ain't relevant, but the more time he spends saying what he is not, makes me think he really does not know what he is - and that is the biggest problem I have with Obama. And, relative to Bush, who clearly is who he is, I don't understand people like Obama. It is not a liberal or conservative issue for me, my favorite liberal is Dennis Kuchinich - I disagree with him, but he is a man of conviction and I like him and on the other-hand I have never like McCain.

You know President Obama isn't a Kenyan, right? And not a Muslim? And not a socialist? And not a terrorist? And not a racist? And not a Nazi?

I'll accept all of the above except 'not a socialist'. His nationalization of GM and Chrysler, and his insistence on controlling the salary and bonuses of executives sure seems to meed the Wikipedia definition of socialism. As far as his government enforced redistribution of wealth by programs like cash for clunkers, new homebuyer credits, forcing mortgage writedowns, etc, that sure sounds socialist to me. It clearly is not capitalism.

When was the last time Obama denied being a Muslim?

I know that part of the (more 'mainstream') right-wing narrative is how thin-skinned Obama is, but I don't see it.

Instead of your narrative, I hear:

** Crazy right-wingers: OBAMA IS A MUSLIM

** Obama: Uh, no, actually I'm a Christian, and I pray every day.

** Crazy right-wingers: OBAMA IS A MUSLIM, AND WAS BORN IN KENYA

** Obama: So, uh, about this economy...

** Crazy right-wingers: OBAMA IS A MUSLIM, AND WAS BORN IN KENYA. SHOW US YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE, BOY!

** Rest of the country: Uh...I think he said he was a Christian.

** Obama: We, uh, passed this healthcare bill. I know it isn't perfect, but it's kinda ok...

** Media: 'Obama a Muslim' claims on the rise.

** Obama: So, uh, the economy is getting a little better...

** Fox News: 'Obama a Muslim? What do you think?'

** Obama: Well, I think we're going to start getting out of Iraq now...

** Slightly less-crazy right-wingers: Obama is soooo thin-skinned!


In other words, we have the crazy right-wing spouting nonsense, the slightly less crazy right-wing repeating the nonsense and then adding their own level of irrelevancy, innuendo, and projection, the mainstream media treating it as a circus, and virtually no legitimate debate.

you prefer the capitalism version of wealth redistribution (i.e. all wealth flows upwards, creating a small, elite upper class and an enormous, underprivileged lower class)?

That's not socialism.

Do you consider subsidies socialist as well? You know, like the U.S. farm bills. Redistributing wealth to farmers. Those things that Republicans as much as Democrats are responsible for.

Guess what Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush have in common? They were Republican presidents who saw some form of nationalization take shape on their watch.

So if these things are what socialists do....I hate to say it, but I suppose that makes the United States of America a socialist nation.

Truth be told, there are a lot of things going on in the U.S. that could be considered socialist (or at least considered as having socialist roots). But people aren't aware of them in that way. These are things that were established long before Obama took office...and many long before he was even born.

I can imagine there are thousands of Americans, if not hundreds of thousands, who fear or otherwise admonish "the socialist threat" all the while benefiting from socialist ideas older than their grandfathers. Ideas that they now take for granted.

EDIT: Oh, and quick answer: he's working with a mixed economy. I'll type on about mixed economies until my fingers are numb. The U.S. is a mixed economy, not a purely capitalist economy. There are capitalist elements and socialist elements. Get used to it. It's been that way for decades.

Ask any real socialist whether Obama is a socialist. Real socialists know what socialism is better than right wing talk radio/tv hosts because real socialists actually practice socialism. Right wing talk radio/tv hosts just use the specter of socialism as a bogeyman to control insecure people.

Why is socialism such a bogeyman? It's everywhere.

Sarah Palin, Socialist | The New York Observer

[...] we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.

--Sarah Palin

And more to the point:
Democratic Socialist Director: Sarah Palin More of a Socialist than Obama

C'mon folks we all know socialism is EVERYTHING left of center, its not hard people! Democrats are socialists, there you go...

... I can't even type that in jest but its scary how much of a commonly held belief that really is.

Absolutely. Unless you are disabled, my success doesn't mean that I owe you a living, and it doesn't mean that the government has the right to take the money I earned and give it to you.

I'll take the lifestyle I've achieved by my efforts over being supported by the government any day. I started from nowhere about 35 years ago and have done relatively well. I've seen others in similar situations do well. Those who thought the government owed them? Not so well.

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

As I've written before, all subsidies should be eliminated. Every single one.

I'm not a fan of the socialist actions taken by FDR (Social Security) or LBJ (Social Security expansion, Great Society) either.

---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

No? From the Wikipedia article about socialism:

That's exactly what Obama did with GM. The government nationalized GM, threw out the CEO and put management Obama selected in his place.

Also, from the online Encyclopedia Britannica article about socialism http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1569/socialism

That's exactly what Obama tried with a number of Wall St executives. He publicly stated several times that he was going to make the executives give back their bonuses, to the point that he was going to write retroactive law if necessary to do that. He only gave up after Congress refused to go along with that stunt.

I'll agree Obama isn't a socialist 100% of every day, but he definitely has socialist leanings. If Congress didn't keep him in check, we would have even more of his socialist agenda to worry about.

Temporary 'nationalization' (it wasn't actually nationalization) is no more socialism than an overnighter in the drunk tank is being sentenced to prison.

What Obama is doing is in the same realm of what other presidents have done and will do in the future. This isn't "socialism" so much as it is modern democratic practices. There are few societies who have little or no socialist influences. America was built on a mixed economy. To take away that and move toward a pure capitalist economy would be radical, disruptive, and ultimately risky. I don't know why anyone would support the destabilization of one of the most wealthiest economies in the world.

For example, America would likely have seen a collapse of the agricultural industry. Most Americans would be eating South American or Chinese meat and dairy by now. But a true capitalist system would allow for the free flow of these goods, because no pesky FDA would get in the way.

The only reason for moving toward a pure capitalist economy I tend to hear is based mostly on self-interest, a kind of detachment from society. People tend to want healthy and stable societies, but not all of them want to pay for it.

Pure capitalism. It's basically a plutocracy or an oligarchy. I'm sure it would be enjoyable by less than 1% of the population. It probably wouldn't be any of us. It's just a hunch. At least we could have child labour once again. That always made sense to me. Small hands can do such small work. It's incredible.

'Temporary' nationalism is like being a 'little bit pregnant'. Obama nationalized GM. Again, from Wikipedia article on nationalism

Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.

That's exactly what Obama did by having the feds buy controlling interest in GM and throwing out GM's CEO.