Why SPECIFICALLY do Republicans hate Obama?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

OK then, let’s get back to the OP, why, specifically, do the Republicans hate Obama? My feeling of it, and I have no proof, is that it truly is because he is black and has a D after his name. Or it could just be because all the lies and hatred spewed by right-wing radio pundits. Hell, I don’t know, but I just don’t see a reasonable reason for the level of vitriol.

With President Bush I could understand. Two wars (one of which had a very questionable justification), Patriot act and warrantless wiretapping, torturing of POWs, Guantanamo and the definition of illegal combatants, extraordinary rendition, ignoring the situation in Korea, ignoring the situation with the Palestinians and Israel, cutting taxes (mostly for the wealthy) while supporting increased spending on all fronts (domestic and foreign), the dismissal of science for political reasons (climate change, evolution and creationism, stem cells, NASA), the whole neo-conservative agenda with its nation building and democracy spreading (I believe in a Libertarian foreign policy stance), etc… President Bush was no where near the devil that many Liberals made him out to be, but he really sucked on a lot of levels. President Obama does not have near as many black marks on his record as President Bush, at least to my mainly (civil) Libertarian eye. Forcing people to pay for insurance does not bother me as I was already paying for their health care, it’s about time some of them carried the load. Also letting the government insure only the high risk pool (Medicare), while insurance companies get to cover everybody else is just lame. Well, maybe we can fix this later… I would also love to let companies off the hook with providing health care. It’s a stupid benefit for them to offer anyway and probably against their best interest. Meh, I’ll save it for a different thread.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Cisco

Well, it’s certainly not because

HE’S BLACK.

At least, that’s what a few Republicans told me.

Also he’s bright. If there is anything they can’t stand it is a Negro who has more brains than they do.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

If Barack Obama is politically successful he will undue the damage caused by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and end the Republican ascendancy that has blighted my adult life. The United States will resemble the more civilized countries of Western Europe and the British Commonwealth.

[Trepa_Mayfield]

@godix

Yes, I’d vote for them. Being able to say ‘screw the polls, I’m doing what I think is right’ is an admirable quality. I may disagree with their policy, but at least I know they believe in their actions rather than doing what was politically expedient.

My issue with Obama is not that some disagree with him. It’s that he gained nothing from this. When he weighed in on the Gates thing by calling the cop stupid, he hurt his political standing with no upside. Same with the mosque thing. I actually agree with him about it, but he gained nothing by stepping into that hornets nest. His foreign policy attitude has annoyed many in America, but we have yet to see any real benefit from it.

Contrast that to Bush. Bush offended a lot of people with his Iraq invasion and his standing by that war. However, he got something from that. He got to invade Iraq, do the surge, and as a result today we’re in a position where we can withdraw (most) troops without it being a clear loss. Now I’m not saying Iraq was a good thing, just that when Bush pissed people off he did so to accomplish his goals. So far, when Obama ticks people off it’s usually over some issue that doesn’t get him jack shit.

Are you…
Are you seriously saying that you don’t care how badly things go for the country, as long as the government is sincere?

Just…wow.

How would you handle being on a war crimes tribunal?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Tim_R.Mortiss

I heard a lot more “worst ever” comments during GWB’s regime than I do now.

But to answer the OP, I suspect they dislike his socialist tendencies, such as Obamacare and nationalizing GM, to name a few. They also dislike his profligate spending, although it takes a touch of hypocrisy for them to make that complaint.

edit… damn, beaten to the punch, and by a better post!

Whoa whoa whoa! Wait a sec. Obama nationalized GM? General Motors? That GM? When did that happen? Cite?

[flickster]

@New_Deal_Democrat

If Barack Obama is politically successful he will undue the damage caused by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and end the Republican ascendancy that has blighted my adult life. The United States will resemble the more civilized countries of Western Europe and the British Commonwealth.

Oh boy [/sarcasm]

[flickster]

@New_Deal_Democrat

@Cisco

Well, it’s certainly not because

HE’S BLACK.

At least, that’s what a few Republicans told me.

Also he’s bright. If there is anything they can’t stand it is a Negro who has more brains than they do.

Never fails, when you got nothing else play the race card :rolleyes:

[flickster]

delete

[flickster]

@L. G. Butts

@flickster

Not True according to the latest reports
Again - Not true

Neither of those cites say what you think they do. My statement was that “Obamacare” may (most likely) cost less than the Medicare Drug benefit. Your cite say nothing about that. I also said that “Obamacare” may save the government money. Your cite says nothing about that either. You cite says that the health care reform is not going reduce health care spending in America which currently consumes about 20% of our GDP.

Look, flickster, I don’t think the health care bill was perfect, I don’t even think it was that good, but it was far from the socialist money-sink most conservatives claim it to be. Medicare and Medicaid are a problem. The uninsured using emergency services for well doctor visits are a problem. Hell, I will even agree that immigrants here illegally using these resources are a problem, but “Obamacare” is based on the 90’s Republican plan for Health care reform and should cost the government little while shifting the burden of the uninsured onto the uninsured. What is the problem with that?

When the bill was passed we were repeatedly told how much it was going to reduce health care costs. Every CBO report that has come out since then has “readjusted” those figures upward. As in, “Oops, sorry, we F’ed that up.” Too Bad, So Sad… Plus, show me one example of a government entitlement program that has come even close to operating within the expected costs estimates.

Your second site shows that the deficits increased in the last two years, much faster than the deficit increased during the early war years, but this is just disingenuous. The deficit increased during the Obama administration because of the TARP, because of the unfunded Medicare Drug Benefit, because of the “Porkulus”, but also from reduction in tax receipts. That is what the deficit is, government outlays minus receipts, and in these financial times receipts are down a lot. So lets just look at the cost of the wars, the TARP, and the stimulus and compare them. According to a CBO report issued in 2007 the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be around 2.4 Trillion Dollars (cite - if you want a direct link to the CBO report, I can provide that too). This is lower than some estimates, like that of the Nobel Prize winning economist and former chief economist of the World Bank, who says the real number is closer to 3 Trillion dollars (cite). This does not even count the long term losses to our military armory. I work in Aerospace and I have family members that work for the NSA and the Navy, and the cuts that have been made in the budgets in order to keep the boots on the ground and the armor on the Humvees has really hurt our preparedness. If you want a cite for this, I am sure I could find one…

The cost of the stimulus 820 Billion Dollars, 275 Billion of which were tax cuts (yet another decrease in tax receipts). I am sure you can verify this, but if you want a cite I will provide one. The cost of the TARP, originally a 700 Billion dollar bailout, is now projected to only cost 89 Billion dollars, so you were right there. Thanks for making me do some research there, I had no idea we had gotten so much of that money back.

Well, I have about as much faith in Reuters and the World Bank as you have in Fox.

As for the declining tax receipts/revenue, if the Administrations policies had worked as laid out, this would not have happened.

[foolsguinea]

Are you actually arguing that the stimulus was supposed to shrink the deficit & bring more money in within a single fiscal year? Because that’s not how Keynesian stimulus works.

[elninost0rm]

@TriPolar

@Rune

You guys have the largest deficit in the history of mankind. You owe enough money to buy two or three small countries, your children’s future is mortgaged and your economy doesn’t seem to be any better for it.

I don’t know who you guys are, but we can still kick your ass. And I think we could buy two or three large countries. And of course we have the largest deficit in history, we are always #1. And my children’s future is none of your business, but if they have trouble making the mortgage payments, they’ll beat up your kids and take their money.

Anyway, were you talking about the OP there, or just picking a fight?

Machiavelli anyone?

[Dick_Dastardly]

@flickster

1.When the bill was passed we were repeatedly told how much it was going to reduce health care costs. Every CBO report that has come out since then has “readjusted” those figures upward. As in, “Oops, sorry, we F’ed that up.” Too Bad, So Sad… Plus, show me one example of a government entitlement program that has come even close to operating within the expected costs estimates.

2.As for the declining tax receipts/revenue, if the Administrations policies had worked as laid out, this would not have happened.

1. Not true. According to the CBO the healthcare bill wiped out two-thirds of the US long term deficit.

Fiscal Policy: The Long-Term Budget Outlook

2. And how exactly? If you’re enacting a fiscal stimulus then obviously you’re going to increase the deficit. That’s what fiscal stimulus is, deficit spending.

[Una_Persson]

@New_Deal_Democrat

If Barack Obama is politically successful he will undue the damage caused by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and end the Republican ascendancy that has blighted my adult life. The United States will resemble the more civilized countries of Western Europe and the British Commonwealth.

…says the person who almost certainly has never lived a day nor worked in any of those “more civilized” countries.

[Una_Persson]

@Dick_Dastardly

1. Not true. According to the CBO the healthcare bill wiped out two-thirds of the US long term deficit.

Fiscal Policy: The Long-Term Budget Outlook

That’s somewhat deceptive - this random blogger you linked to qualifies it with “*if the U.S. Congress now sticks to PAYGO–as it did during the Clinton years[3/4 of which had a Republican House, something he somehow failed to mention, huh, nope, no partisanship there! - Una]–and doesn’t pass new programs and amendments to old programs that add to the deficit.”

What are the odds of that happening? Not very good.

[elucidator]

So, if he had pointed out the years as years, like “1990-95” that would have been non-partisan and kosher, but he said “Clinton years”, so it isn’t?

[Dick_Dastardly]

@Una_Persson

@Dick_Dastardly

1. Not true. According to the CBO the healthcare bill wiped out two-thirds of the US long term deficit.

Fiscal Policy: The Long-Term Budget Outlook

That’s somewhat deceptive - this random blogger you linked to qualifies it with “*if the U.S. Congress now sticks to PAYGO–as it did during the Clinton years[3/4 of which had a Republican House, something he somehow failed to mention, huh, nope, no partisanship there! - Una]–and doesn’t pass new programs and amendments to old programs that add to the deficit.”

What are the odds of that happening? Not very good.

He isn’t a random blogger, he’s one of the top economics bloggers, a guy with a track record of being very accurate and a former Clinton-era Treasury official. His blog is one of the most trafficked economics blogs on the net :

Business Blog Rankings: Trumped by Krugman & Sorkin! - The Big Picture

And it was the Democrats who put teeth in PAYGO and used it to turn a record budget deficit into a record surplus. It was the GOP congress who under Bush scrapped PAYGO and went on the biggest unfunded spending spree in history. And when the Dems recently voted to reinstitute PAYGO, look how the vote broke down :

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session

scroll down halfway to grouped by vote position. No paritsanship there, eh? So you can see he’s got an actual factual basis for questioning whether the GOP will stick to PAYGO. They already scrapped it once and voted en bloc to stop it being reintroduced.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@DigitalC

They hate him because he is a symbol of their gradual decline in relevancy. The old, white, religious, rural demographics are all in decline and they know it and they are terrified about it.

I think it would be fair to suggest that he brought that on himself (to a degree) with his “clinging to guns and religion” comment during the campaign.

[Marley23]

@flickster

BTW, that 1995 - 2007 that the Republicans ran the House - wasn’t that also the only time we’ve come close to having a balanced budget in decades?

The statement would be more accurate if you were talking about 1995 - 2000 or maybe 2001, not 1995 - 2007. The budgets were definitely not balanced after 2001 because of tax cuts and the “special items” in Afghaistan and (starting in 2003) Iraq.

[Gyrate]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

@DigitalC

They hate him because he is a symbol of their gradual decline in relevancy. The old, white, religious, rural demographics are all in decline and they know it and they are terrified about it.

I think it would be fair to suggest that he brought that on himself (to a degree) with his “clinging to guns and religion” comment during the campaign.

It may have been a dumb thing to say in public, but was he wrong?

[Sateryn76]

I’ll play…

First, I am not a Republican - I suppose I am an “Independent” - fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Second, “hate” is an awfully strong word - I don’t hate him, but I do not respect him, and I think he’s doing a lousy job.

So, the specific reason I “hate” Obama is that he is a crappy leader. We can debate things all day and drag Obama into it, but the fact is that Obama himself has very little power, and most of the things I disagree in terms of government action cannot be laid at his feet. But, he has the role of being the Federal Rockstar, and he’s doing a shit job responding to his citizens.

I disagree wholeheartedly with 99% of his financial positions, as do quite a few Americans, in differing amounts, obviously. He seems completely unable to analyze the wants and needs of the majority of the country, and frankly, I don’t think he cares. It is the job of the POTUS to lead the country, and he’s doing a piss-poor job. If you look at Kennedy and Reagan - they were great leaders, which is 90% of their job. Part of being a leader is to actually listen to who you’re leading, whether you agree or not, try to see their point of view, educate people on your side of things, and reach a compromise. Obama acts like an old man who’s turned his hearing aid off.

I have a real issue with the people he’s surrounded himself with, which is particularly important to me since he has no real executive experience, and very limited experience with the “real world” as an adult. So, instead of filling his cabinet with a variety of people with a variety of experiences, he’s hired intellectuals and academics across the board. This is a serious problem, because no matter what issue you’re studying, you have to apply real world standards during the process, and if your advisors have no real world experience running a business or working a shit job, being totally broke, etc., your answers will be almost impossible to implement in real life. Everyone has an ideal, and I think we should all work toward meeting that ideal, but we all know that you cannot shape the world to match a mission statement.

That’s a general overview of how I see Obama - it pops out at me when I see things like his response to the BP spill, or his speeches about the economy, or things like the Beer Summitt - he just doesn’t seem like he lives on Earth sometimes. And when he gets stuck, his first reaction always seems to be striking out against Bush or the rich or somebody else. That’s terrible leadership.

I didn’t vote for him, but I was okay with his election. It was fantastic to be a part of history, and I wanted him to do well, if for no other reason than the impact it may have on the road to a race-blind America. It makes me angry that he’s screwing that up by appearing to be a bumbling ivory-tower robot.