Come on, Sam. Why did you have to go and drop unsubstantiated crap intermittently in your list? They distract from your more reasonable objections.
For example:
Not sure what your source for this is, but this site suggests that Obama was responding to correspondence initiated by Chirac. From the site:
Seems reasonable enough to me. A lot more reasonable than thinking our president is just dying to find a way to really piss off the French, anyway.
Then you said:
When Obama immediately responded (after hearing about the New York Times article), saying that this wasn’t the case. According to Reuters:
So, while we’re busy reading these absurdly partisan claims of yours, we overlook some of the more reasonable claims you mentioned. Like the one about the DVD box set. Or even the thing about the video to the Iranian people - I don’t agree with your opinion on that matter, but at least it’s something that doesn’t fly directly into the face of facts.
Except Obama didn’t screw up at all. He made a joke about the teleprompter screwing up while the Irish PM was speaking. So who is really the idiot here? Obama or the people who cannot figure out when he is joking?
Heck, by that standard, everyone in the world is an idiot. Which would make the meaning of the word pointless, right?
I’d bet that’s why a lot of people (myself included) don’t consider Obama’s special olympics gaffe “idiocy” - it was just a brief lapse of judgment. “Idiocy” really implies something with more meat to it.
It’s always a bad idea to rely on one news source of any ilk - they’re all pretty crap these days. Find at least five non-blogs/editorials from a variety of viewpoints and you might come close to learning the truth.
I’ve already addressed the SO and Irish teleprompter issues. I do think Obama was unnecessarily cavalier in his treatment of Gordon Brown (although as I’ve already said, playability of the DVDs is not an issue) but, strangely, by keeping Brown at arm’s length (which wasn’t easy - Brown was absolutely fawning) Obama has made himself **more **popular with the British public. Gordon Brown is really unpopular these days. Maybe Obama was afraid it might be catching?
I don’t need a cite on how the Illuminati are out to get Obama - that’s more of a political theory than a fact. I would like a cite that comparing a sitting President to his predecessor was something invented by the right-wing media.
And what did he do with it once he inherited it? Dropped the ball, that’s what.
if Al Gore had been elected (i.e. if the 2000 election had been fair), we’d have heard the phrase “on his watch” a lot more frequently (and that’s ignoring the very slight chance that 9/11 might not have happened).
Oh, and Bush inherited a comparitively stable relationship with Iran. One that had some limted potential for gradual improvement. Bush certainly lit a match under the pooch on that one. I’m convinced that Bush’s refusal to accept Iran’s help against terrorism and instead calling them “Axis of Evil” was his greatest blunder. At least with Iraq there’s an upside.
The way I see it, the right wingers in the media are trying to paint Obama as ineffective and incompetent because they have no choice. The public is not prepared to blame Obama at this point for the economy, and the natural assumption is that if things get better, Obama stands by default to get the credit for it, no matter what he’s done to deserve it.
And so the mudslinging begins, depicting Obama as naive, incompetent, and irresponsible. If the economy doesn’t improve quickly, the right-wingers will say “we told you so, the economy was all his fault.” If the economy does improve, they can say, “Obama had nothing to do with it.” At no point will the right-wingers say, “Yes, the economy went sour during eight years of Bush policies, but Obama came in and things turned around.” They’ve spent so much time lambasting Obama as a socialist, and socialism as evil, that they cannot backpedal and admit that any part of Obama’s programs might actually work.
Mind you, I’m not saying Obama’s policies will work, or won’t. I’m talking about the public perception game.
The optimism of the people is a factor, and nobody knows how much. I tend to think quite a lot, and that informs my opinion: its better to go with a good but flawed plan sooner rather than hope to put together a really great plan down the road. Because the people are the key in a consumerist economy, they must see Things Happening. Its the Tinkerbelle Factor, clap to make sure she lives, because if she dies, you’re boned.
We would like to pretend that all this economic stuff is totally rational, but it isn’t. Its based on the behavior of people. If the people believe we can muddle through, stick together and row the oars in unison, the chances of a half-assed plan succeeding are pretty good. But without it, the most brilliant economic schemes are just so much scholarly paper.
Sophistry, mophistry. It’s not worthless just because it was only one example; it’s worthless because it’s not even an example.
It would be like me saying that Bush’s OPEC/APEC gaffe demonstrates his idiocy. It simply doesn’t. There are lots of things to choose from, and that isn’t one of them.
If you’re referring to my OP, it was never my intent to assert that political rivals insulting a President was unique or invented by conservatives. I was looking for validation or destruction of my impression that supporters of the former President were deliberately couching their criticisms (or using criticisms) in terms that echoed common criticism of said former President. THAT seemed to me to be a rather unusual circumstance.
Though so far, those on both sides of the aisle seem to think I’m seeing things… I’m interested in seeing where further discussion goes.
I can’t provide a cite that proves right wing media invented the Obama is Bush line of attack. Bush was the unlucky charm during the election campaigns and instances when McCain and Clinton compared Obama to Bush. Based on my recollection, Obama was compared to Hoover and Hitler and eventually Bush. The comparisons of Obama to Bush became a common attack in media as soon as Obama was inaugurated.
The Republicans did try to distance themselves from Bush early in the election cycle, and there are a few examples in right wing blogs comparing Obama to Bush or comparing Obama’s policies to Bush’s.
I don’t find comparing a sitting President to his predecessor to be in the least unusual.
Bush’s lack of fiscal restraint is something that I and other non-“compassionate conservatives” have been against for some time. The SDMB is fairly consistent in blaming the current recession on Bush’s fiscal policies. Those policies, in the form of enormously increased spending and deficits, have been considerably worsened since the Democratic takeover of Congress, and then further worsened by Obama’s stimulus package, which became a liberal wish list of pork and earmarks. The SDMB’s general response seems to be ‘we have no choice - the current recession means we have to do everything that Bush did, except a lot more of it, and it is fine because Obama is a charismatic speaker’ or something similar.
If that is what you mean by “Is Obama the Republicans’ Bush”, then no - Obama is the Democrats’ Bush, except the Dems are not trying to distance themselves from him - they are all scrambling for pork for their districts.
If you mean 'is it a stupid idea to spend money like a drunken sailor instead of balancing the budget and addressing the coming crash in entitlements like Medicare and Social Security", well, obviously. Except I think it was a stupid idea from Bush, and is an even stupider idea from Obama, because Obama’s spending is so much worse.
