And the difference being?
I think in both cases impeachment efforts are efforts to move political disagreements into the impeachment/removal sphere. The U.S. was not set up as a parliamentary system. Our Presidents govern for fixed terms that are not limited by the confidence of Congress.
Thus, the only living President whose term ended prematurely was Richard Nixon. That was in the face of accusations of serious criminal misconduct. I happen to think that the “birthers” are off their rocker. But even if Obama was born in Kenya, the Constitution does not fix removal, or any other penalty, for failing eligibility but being elected anyway.
This. He is divisive, merely because he exists. The fact that it isn’t his fault doesn’t make it untrue.
I am stealing this, but I promise to credit you as a wise man.
Do you know something the rest of us don’t?
As for Carter, the impression I get is that he was widely regarded as a nice guy who was just wrong for the job. Plenty of people wanted to (and did) vote him out of office, but very few wanted to walk up to him and punch him in the nose. I suspect that the punch-in-the-nose count is significantly higher for both Obama and W. Bush (and for Clinton, and H. W. Bush, and Reagan, for that matter).
The difference between hatred and contempt. E.g., traditional white American prejudice towards African-Americans regarded them as mentally inferior, and for that very reason was often rather affectionate towards them in a patronizing way, but not respectful; these people were all right to have around, but not to be taken seriously or given positions of responsibility. That’s contempt. Hatred was manifested by the Klan and such. In Carter’s case, everybody liked him, everybody recognized him as one of the good guys, but many despised him as incompetent at his job. Nixon was hated but not despised, he was obviously brilliant at his job. But W came in for both hatred and contempt, and deserved both. Obama deserves neither, but gets both anyway.
Death as we understand it has no power over him . . .
Yeah, that was my bad, sorry.
Turns out a length of PVC covered with wood-grain printed contact paper doesn’t really count as a stake.
This comes from a GOPer whose leaders decided on day 1 (Jan 20, 2009) to oppose President Obama on every single issue.
Karl Rove school of damned lies.
Pffft, I’ve already filed a copyright application.
I remember a LOT fo people saying all sorts of shit about bush. the only difference you point out is that the stuff they’re saying about Obama isn’t remotely true.
Republcans put party before country. They are so convinced that they have a monopoly on good ideas that they are willing to see Rome burn so they can rebuild it in their image.
The difference between the Bush vitriol and the Obama vitriol is the the Bush vitriol was never mainstreamed the way it is for Obama.
Obama is a divisive figure not because of anything he’s done or hasn’t done, it because he holds the office, and the Republicans have made him the deliberate fulcrum of their ire. They’ve opposed him on that basis since January 20, 1989.
GWB was a divisive figure because of his mishandling of Katrina, and launching divisive wars, and not keeping Cheney in a box, etc. etc.
Nixon was a divisive figure because he was a crook.
My point being that the other premature endings of a Presidential terms were all by death. Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton were impeached by the House of Representatives but not removed by the Senate.
There was also the small matter of the circumstances surrounding the 2000 election. I think this kind of misses the point, though, in that the president is always going to be a divisive figure in the currnet political climate. I remember a recent New Yorker article that suggested it’s possible that a piece of legislation that is backed by the president is less likely to become law just because the president supports it: once the president endorses a bill, it becomes a higher-stakes issue. The opposition calculates that if the bill passes, it’ll be a win for the president and his party and it’ll get no credit. That’s pretty much what has happened throughout Obama’s term, and it indicates presidents may be better served if they do more work behind the scenes instead of supporting specific bills.
Obama is a divisive figure since he does not understand the nature of the country that he is sworn to lead. Alexis de Toqueville, a French visitor to the U.S. during the late 1820’s and early 1830’s got it. The U.S. is very much a country that relies upon individual initiative and hard work. Governments that have the most impact are those closest to the people, i.e. local governments and school districts. State capitals have distant impact, Washington, D.C. even more remote.
Obama’s health proposals, and the massive spending implied in the “stimulus” upends that relationship. Many, not all, Americans are not sure they want to become familiar with Washington, D.C., up close and personal.
Let’s take those one by one.
Katrina - The handling of natural disasters (and man-made ones such as 911) are primarily a state and local function. I do grant you though Bush should have known that the mayor of New Orleans and the governor were hopelessly incompetent, and supplanted rather than supplemented their dubious efforts.
Divisive wars - The Muslim world has been at war with us for centuries. That war came to our shores. Clinton chose to ignore it. Bush understood what was at stake.
Agreed.
So you’re seriously suggesting that the nature of the relationship between the Federal government and the average citizen hasn’t changed since the early 1830s?
And in what crazy universe do we live in where the most divisive thing that the President of the United States has tried to do is ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care?
Excuse me?? Clinton made several attempts to capture Osama bin Laden and stop al-Qaeda, amid Republican accusations of “wagging the dog.” (Anticipating a typical response: no, Clinton did not pass up a chance to have bin Laden handed to us by the Syrians – that was never going to happen. The guy who made the “offer” had virtually no connection to the Syrian government.) Bush ignored several warnings by the intelligence community in July and August of 2001 that a major terrorist operation was in the pipeline and steadfastly refused to take it seriously.
And, after 9/11, where did Bush decide to concentrate the bulk of U.S. armed forces? Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Evidence of WMD’s was manufactured to sell the invasion to Congress and the American people.
So, don’t give us this “Bush understood what was at stake” balloon juice.
Nah, they took a break and fought with Eurasia for a while. Something to do with a silly treaty Adams signed.
I stopped voting for this prick PM 12 years ago and I live happily knowing I don’t have any guilt, but it still pisses me off what these Muppets are doing. This Obama is no angel he’s positive prime evil.
Look! A visitor from the future!
My own impressions, from the Presidents of whom I have a sufficient memory, using “scorn” for what BrainGlutton calls “despised”:
Nixon - Hated with a passion like a thousand burning suns, and feared, but definitely not scorned
Ford - Placeholder, no major passions aroused, moderately scorned for the Nixon pardon but fended off a Reagan challenge and came close in the election.
Carter - Liked OK, but heavily scorned as mentioned above for being in over his head. Left office with his approval in the dumps.
Reagan - Loved by his supporters from day one. By his adversaries, not hated, but heavily *scorned *as an intellectual lightweight at the service of the rich, and (at the beginning) feared as in “OMG this guy wants to go to war, he’ll get us all NUKED!!!1!11one” --by his second term this later part had died off quite a bit but it was replaced by scorn over the “sleaze factor” in government. Left office basking in great public approval.
George Bush 41 - Liked alright, not loved, not hated, generally respected. Considered competent but mildly scorned by some opponents as not really with-it and even by some supporters for not being hardass enough. Left with not so bad ratings.
At this point we’ve gone through 4 guys that the opposition mostly scorned as inferior material but only a small faction felt passionate enough to hate, but then we get…
Bill Clinton - Liked OK; from the beginning badly scorned by opponents as someone morally undeserving of the post, which became outright* hatred *among the harder-line Right as time went along. Later on the hatefest kept expanding but spent itself in the impeachment. OTOH, the opposition absolutely detested Hillary with every fiber of their being almost from the start and all the way until 2008. Left office with good public approval anyway.
W Bush 43 - Liked at first, the “dude you could have a beer with” thing. Before the election, scorned by opponents as an intellectual lightweight. After the election, then also hated by some opponents for the perception of having gamed the system. After 2003, both scorn and* hate *intensified for causes mentioned in prior posts, mostly related to the wars. Deterioration really took off after Katrina; by the time he left office his ratings were just dismal and even Republicans had grown to scorn the handling of the budget and economy.
Obama - Liked very enthusiastically by his supporters. Initially scorned by opponents for being a rookie, after taking office this grew quickly into an* intense, angry and loud* hatred, sometimes hard to tell how much based on himself and how much that would have been against whoever was the one standing there. Within mere months we had that person shouting “I want my country back!” which made no sense since nothing of consequence had yet been done any differently. Some of the hate based on entirely irrational premises, e.g. Birthers. Middling approval ratings at this time.