This could go in GD, but I’m really more interested in the general perception rather than a debate:
Not to pick on Sam Stone unduly (I don’t want to pick on him particularly at all) but his thread here about the Cars for Clunkers program made me idly wonder if he would have said boo about this program if it had been initated under Bush. Maybe so, and I’m not concerned with Sam Stone’s motives here other than as an illustration of a larger principle: People of the right-wing give Obama grief, as they should be expected to, over pretty much everything he does or supports–what I’m wondering about is whether you think it’s mostly negative carping issued blindly, or carefully considered criticism on specific issues that they find offensive whatever their origin.
Again, to use the “Cars for Clunkers” thread as an illustration, I actually do see the principle that offends right-wingers about this notion. I just question whether Sam Stone and his ilk would be starting threads denouncing it if Bush had gone in this direction. Sometimes I think that if Obama came out in favor of cottage cheese, some rightie would denounce that as socialistic or favoring the terrorists somehow. So: do you think the right-wing criticism of Obama is fueled more by thoughtful, principled disagreement over policy, or is it mostly partisan politics?
If your response is “a little of both,” that’s a given. Of course there’s going to be some policy and some partisanship in all dissent. But which one do you think plays a bigger part here?
Well, it’s not as though there’s a whole lot of interest in the debate, or the opinion-spouting. How about I toss off a few angry denunciations of Sam Stone’s secret agenda, maybe a “goddamned asswipe tighty-righties” or two, and try it in the Pit? Would that work for you?
I am sure he would. Sam is a Warren Zevon fan, there is no more certain indicator of good sense and taste. His political views are his only obvious symptom of derangement.
On the basis of content I always quickly conclude it’s negative carping issued blindly.
But after more reflection, I wind up thinking it is actually a third thing, namely, that the people doing it think it’s carefully considered criticism on specific offensive issues when they are in fact fooling themselves and are more just angry and reactive than anything else.
Which is not to say that it is necessarily without merit. I’m a huge Obama fan but would have to agree there are several kinds of things people might have plausible cause to dislike.
If, for example, you believe the Bible describes more or less literally a magical God whose agenda includes US military superiority and who sees non-American cultures as failed attempts at becoming American, then what to the rest of the world looks like a proper and non-arrogant foriegn policy is going to have you pretty riled no matter who is doing it. If you believe in some constellation of somewhat related ideas including there being something wrong with African-Americans, there being something wrong with Muslims, there being something wrong with people who were born outside the United States, and Barack Obama being in 2 or 3 of these categories, you’re also going to be riled.
Beliefe in such things is a pretty tough thing to negotiate or compromise about. I don’t think they are correct, but it seems clear many think some of them are. The ones that involve magic and eternity and higher authorities are especially challenging to work through. These are plausible cause, in my view, though not correct and not very reasonable.
There are even things that are somewhat reasonable. Some problems, like the financial disaster and global warming and the militant civil war in Islam, are somewhat new territory, coming as they do without instructions or road maps. There have been other situations somewhat like them, but a goodly share of considerations that make them unprecidented in just this form. It is a little scary that these things are going on as they are (though because of things before the Obama administration). There are pretty big penalties for us if we get it wrong. I still think Obama’s our best bet, but it is easy to imagine resisting his efforts.
You could have picked a better example. There is no mention of Obama in the OP. Sam’s not saying “RAAAAHHH!!! THIS IS SOCIALISM!!!” Sure he is expressing an opinion, but it also comes with examples and justification for his opinion.
True dat. But were there a whole lot of policies under Bush that any righties Pitted as lousy? He certainly did a lot of stuff, and DIDN’T do a lot of stuff, that doesn’t quite jibe with conservative thinking (deficit spending, nation-building) and that certainly would have (and does) draw out their criticism when Obama does it. You’d think that if this was crummy policy, it’s crummy policy whoever suggests it. If it’s only partisan bickering, and Obama’s praise of cottage cheese comes under right-wing wrath, it’s hardly worth paying attention to, isn’t it?
There’s an underpass near where I live that has spray-painted on it “KILL OBAMA SAVE THE USA” that, when I pass it, I think, “Poor deranged fucker.” I’m torn between giving righties’ posts that same sort of dismissive response or reading them to see if there’s any non-partisan substance there.
Most people don’t have a sufficiently coherent political outlook to object to any specific policy based on a reasoned analysis. But some do, and those people deserve to be listened to regardless of their position on the political spectrum.
(As an aside, the example in the OP couldn’t have been more poorly chosen. Regardless of what you think of his politics, you can’t deny that Sam Stone has a very solid understanding of economics. I don’t doubt even for a minute that he would’ve posted the same criticism of the cash for clunkers program if Bush had come up with it.)
You might want to search for Bush’s steel tariff policy. Or his prescription drug benefit. Or ‘no child left behind’, or Bush’s deficits… While you’re at it, search for ‘Terry Schiavo’. I laid into Bush and the Republicans plenty during the past 8 years.
And for good measure, you could go back and see what I said about Obama between November and about March of this year, when he was picking his foreign policy and economics teams. I said plenty of complimentary things about him.
The fact is, Obama had plenty of support from ‘right wing’ sources when he was first elected. He lost the right when he turned sharply left, starting with the incredibly poorly implemented stimulus package, which he basically turned over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and which subsequently became a grab-bag of Democrat pork and foolish projects. Before then, Obama was given plenty of benefit of the doubt.
In February, Obama only had a 17% disapproval rating - that’s basically only the hardcore ‘base’ Republicans. Everyone else was giving him the benefit of the doubt. And he had a 64% approval rating. Today, his disapproval is at 34%, and his approval at 54%. But approval ratings of his specific policies are very low. More people now disapprove of his handling of health care, the economy, and the deficit than they approve of those same policies.
To me, the fact that majorities disapprove of his specific policies but still approve of Obama says that they’re still trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he keeps making mistakes that cut into his popularity.
I would be interested in seeing some criticism of Bush for running up a huge deficit from you. Could you help me search? When did you write these things, approximately, and in which forum? Also, if you remember, could suggest a few search terms other than “Bush” and “deficit”? Thanks.
Aside: I want to take a moment to gasp in admiration at this lovely bit of spinsmanship. Its a chestnut! The American people were “giving him the benefit of a doubt”, transforming the warm enthusiasm that greeted his election into the the cool irritation of people who keep glancing at their watches. Neatly played!
You’ve leaving out a chunk. That chunk of his supporters who feel they Obama isn’t being enough of a change agent, trying to build a consensus with people who hate his guts with poisonous rage. I have no doubt that he thinks he’s on the right course, but I think he’s wrong. On the other hand, I didn’t win a national election against all comers and all odds. Maybe he knows what he’s talking about.
(It has become abundantly clear that Barry is smarter than me. I have managed to forgive him, and support him anyway…)
By evidence, I offer that his enemies have not gotten that much less unpopular, even as he loses some on the left. And, ultimately, the left is pragmatic, we take what we can get, hold on to it grimly, and start negotiating for the next chunk. When push comes to shove, we’ll give him credit for his enemies.
AS for Sam the scathing critic of GeeDub, oh, sure, why not be generous? But, truth, I can’t say that Terry Schiavo or a steel tariff really gets on my list of top ten reasons why Bush ensuckens dead donkey balls.
You mean there’s blind partisanship here, where people decide their position on an issue based on what their party is advocating rather than what they’ve come to believe through rational thought? CALL THE COPS.
This topic is worthy of examination, but you picked a very poor example. First, Sam Stone is not even close to being the best example of blind partisanship on these boards - his ideas are always at least reasoned and fleshed out, he’s willing to admit when people on his side get something wrong, and he’s generally more loyal to his own ideology than to any particular group.
You’d be much better off starting this thread about just about anything that Starving Artist, elucidator, Shodan, Diogenes the Cynic, Der Trihs, etc. has to say. They are far more consistently rigidly partisan. Really - most of the board is.
The right has no monopoly on this - really, it’s horribly dissapointing to me that on these boards, where the discourse is far better than on most message boards, most people still determine their position based on some tribalism-turned-political-partisanship factor than their own thoughts and analysis of the arguments.
I’m not claiming to be the smartest or most eloquent person on the board, but I certainly don’t play partisan games. I don’t get my ideas or identity from a political party or partisan group. I actually have the ability to see new facts and arguments and change my mind about things - I was quite outspoken against socialized medicine a few years ago but I’ve actually found myself defending it and advocating it to some degree recently (although my support is somewhat cautious) - because I was exposed to new facts and better arguments that made me reconsider my stance. How many people here honestly do something as basic as that?
There are some other people I’ve grown to appreciate as not being knee-jerk partisans - do you really want a list or was your question strictly rhetorical?
How many times in the OP do you want me to say that I’m just using **Sam **as a convenient example, not an especially good one? Let’s just skip Sam entirely and deal with my point, which was how much partisanship do you suppose goes into political arguments and much is true policy differences? I’m genuinely undecided whether I should take seriously arguments from people I usually disagree with or just dismiss them out of hand, and I thought it would be interesting thing to see if anyone else coped with that problem better than I did.
How can we defend against your accusation that certain members are so biased that their arguments should be dismissed out of hand, if not even you know who those members are?