…are interpreted by the media as attacks on them.
Appropriately so. They crammed him down the nation’s collective throat, twice. So when they see a public-relations threat to him, they swarm it like anti-bodies.
[Update a while later]
Yes:
When Giuliani told an audience ”I do not believe – and I know this is a horrible thing to say – but I do not believe that the President loves America,” he was inadvertently doing more than criticizing a president; he was in a manner of speaking, committing treason. The unprecedented firestorm of opprobrium that greeted Giuliani suggested that he had somehow hit a switch. It was like pushing an ordinary button in the wall and watching the skyscrapers out the window suddenly crumble in dust down into the ground.
What Giuliani had done was undermine Obama’s legitimacy. Because so much of Obama’s “power” comes from his special-ness that to question his patriotism is to strike at the basis for his governance. It was, as in a monarchy, tantamount to rebellion. The reason that similar remarks by Obama about George Bush’s patriotism evoked simple shrugs was because Bush was just an ordinary president, the latest in a line of politicians to occupy the office since George Washington.
But Obama is different. One cannot understand, for example, the vituperation vented by Dana Milbank at Scott Walker, calling him out for “cowardice”, arguing for his “disqualification” (yes those are the words) for the simple act of refusing to publicly repudiate Giuliani’s words about the president, unless one grasps this essential fact. Obama is different. The Obama phenomenon is founded so completely on his legend that to attack the legend is to undermine the very foundations of the tower on which he stands.
But this is not the first time the Obama myth has been directly impugned. The first major political figure to accidentally touch the Third Rail was Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has become an extraordinary hate object in the press, not because of any views he may hold on policy, but because Netanyahu had the temerity to disrespect Obama. Netanyahu must have been astonished by the charge of electricity that gave back on him.
Disrespect America, even attack it if you want, and you will not receive a tenth such voltage as did Netanyahu. The torrent of hostility poured upon Netanyahu was so out of proportion to any conceivable offense, that he probably felt obliged to persist in coming, reasoning that he must be on to something. Yet the myth of the president has been crumbling abroad for some time. Readers will recall that Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande recently made the almost unheard-of move of negotiating directly with Vladimir Putin over Ukraine without receiving instructions from the “leader of the free world”.
I don't know how much Barack Obama loves America, but however much it is, I'd bet that Netanyahu loves it more.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) February 23, 2015
[Update late morning]
Rudy and the one-way taboo:
Democrats use “civility” as a shield because they know that conservatives care about civility, while Democrats don’t. Thus, reproached for incivility, Republicans will retreat, while Dems will say “screw you, I’m stickin’ it to the man.”
I question the patriotism of people who question the patriotism of people who question Obama's patriotism.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) February 23, 2015
It’s interesting how vigorous the defense is now. I bet all these defenders will vanish once Obama leaves office and becomes politically irrelevant. Journalists will allow themselves to think once again and grudgingly admit that maybe Obama was a little bit of a complete disaster.
The Press are the willing comfort women to the Democrat Party in general and Obama in particular.
Obama wont be President but he isn’t going anywhere.
Boo hoo. It’s up to each American to determine in their own mind if Obama is patriotic. The media-class can go pound sound.
Patriotic? Hell, I would be happy if they guy was a half-way competent administrator of the Federal government. That’s his job, isn’t it?
If the press had any patriotism they wouldn’t be defending these america haters. Oops, did I just up the ante? I first met an america hater in NYC riding a cab. She spoke in whispers because the driver could hear us. She was very upset with me for speaking in a normal voice. I have no problem bashing america where it needs bashing, but on balance, no country in the world has sacrificed for good as the american people. As Colin Powell said, the only foreign land we desire is enough to bury the dead that fought to protect others.
because Netanyahu had the temerity to disrespect Obama
Netanyahu had the temerity to disrespect the office of the President of the United States. In the history of our country, has any other foreign leader ever proposed to attack the sitting U.S. president’s foreign policy from the rostrum of the U.S. Capitol?
The torrent of hostility poured upon Netanyahu was so out of proportion to any conceivable offense
I don’t think that word “conceivable” means what the writer thinks it means. Imagine if Obama appointed an anti-Likud political operative as our country’s ambassador to Israel, who then proposed to have Obama lecture the Knesset on why its members should oppose their Likud prime minister’s security policies, seeing as how Obama understands Israel’s security needs better than Netanyahu. Is it conceivable that such a proposal might be considered offensive by Israelis?
Another rube self-identifies. But we already knew that about you.
Has an President mounted campaigns against the leaders of our allies, in their own countries, during their elections?
Much like civility, this issue is a one way street with Democrats.
Has an President mounted campaigns against the leaders of our allies, in their own countries, during their elections?
Are you under the impression that Obama’s done this?
Yes, when hundreds of Democrat party workers spend millions of dollars to influence a foreign election in a country that Obama is trying to marginalize, I think that Obama is behind it.
What are you saying, that the Democrat party was out for a walk in Israel and spontaneously decided to campaign against Netanyahu for no reason?
It is no wonder that Obama gets mad at the internet for allowing people to know what is going on in different parts of the world. He doesn’t want you to know. He will intimidate the press from reporting. He will gruber about his intentions in negotiations. And his useful idiots eat it up.
Believe it or not, individual Democrats sometimes do things for reasons other than Obama telling them to. If a GOP politico worked on a foreign campaign in 2007 would it be fair to conclude that George Bush had sent him?
“If a GOP politico”
We would need to analyze the situation by looking at the numbers of people involved, how much money they are spending, where they get their money, whether or not they were working to advance Bush’s policies, ect.
It is no secret that Obama doesn’t like Israel and especially Bibi. According to Axelrod, it was Obama’s intention all along to marginalize Israel and Bibi. This has been backed up by other Obama staffers and of course by observations.
We would need to analyze the situation by looking at the numbers of people involved, how much money they are spending, where they get their money, whether or not they were working to advance Bush’s policies, ect.
How would the answers to those questions tell you whether Bush sent them?
Since you know that Obama sent people, I assume you can answer all those questions about the current situation? I’d love to hear the answers.
It is no secret that Obama doesn’t like Israel and especially Bibi.
There’s a difference between disliking Bibi and disliking Israel (there’s no evidence of the latter), and there’s a difference between disliking Bibi and sending people to work against his election.
“How would the answers to those questions tell you whether Bush sent them?”
Considering no one has access to Obama’s communications with activist groups, we have to rely on other evidence. Sure, Obama could just decide in the name of transparency to release these communications but c’mon now we both know that wont happen.
You are free to disagree. I don’t really care. You can just close your mind to the motivations behind hundreds of Democrat party activists opening up shop in Israel to spend millions on removing from power someone whom Obama hates. Just a coincidence like Tea Party donors getting audited ten fold higher than the rest of the USA.
“There’s a difference between disliking Bibi and disliking Israel (there’s no evidence of the latter)”
There is a difference but in this case it is both. Obama’s top advisers have written books and in those books they talk about how Obama set out to intentionally create an adversarial relationship with Israel. Since Democrats created and support the BDS movement and Obama comes from the activist community, it looks like he hates Israel.
According to news reports, Obama has sent people to Israel to support Netanyahu’s opponents in the upcoming election. That’s not exactly a way to win friends and influence people. Looking the other way while Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon that they’ve already said they’ll use against Israel isn’t exactly a good way to show friendship to an ally, either.
Obama can suck it. The Congress is an equal branch of government. It doesn’t need Obama’s permission to ask someone to address them.
According to news reports, Obama has sent people to Israel to support Netanyahu’s opponents in the upcoming election.
I think you’re confusing “people who have worked for Obama in the past are helping Netanyahu’s opponents” with “Obama sent people to help Netanyahu’s opponents.” Certainly Obama himself has not traveled to Israel to work against Likud, the way Netanyahu is coming here to work for the GOP.
Try reading comprehension for $200, Jim. I didn’t say that Obama himself went to campaign against Bebi. I said that “Obama has sent people to Israel.” Do try to keep up.
Any Netanyahu isn’t trying to get Obama defeated. He was invited to testify before Congress on an issue of very high importance to Israel and the US, except apparently Obama.
Where’s the evidence that Obama has sent anyone to Israel to work against Likud?
Netanyahu is not “coming here to work for the GOP.” He’s coming here to work for his country, and ours.
It’s a twofer: he gets a platform for Likud, and the GOP gets support for their attacks on Obama’s foreign policy. Certainly he wouldn’t have been invited if the GOP didn’t think there was political gain to be had.
and ours
I’m sure he thinks his policy preferences would be good for the U.S., just as I’m sure Obama thinks his policy preferences would be good for Israel. But Israel doesn’t need Obama to tell them what they should do, and we don’t need Netanyahu. They both have enough on their plates looking after their own countries.
But Israel doesn’t need Obama to tell them what they should do,
What an absolute joke. Obama has been bossing Israel around since before he was sworn in. Just one example:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/21/17396987-obama-appeals-to-israelis-give-justice-to-the-palestinians?lite
“I think you’re confusing “people who have worked for Obama in the past are helping Netanyahu’s opponents””
Sure Democrat party activists aligned with Obama just go around the world campaigning against Obama’s enemies without any direction from Obama.
Obama has taken an active and adversarial role with Israel and Netanyahu. David Axelrod wrote about it and everyone else can use their own eyes.
Sure Democrat party activists aligned with Obama just go around the world campaigning against Obama’s enemies without any direction from Obama.
Yes, they do. Campaigning is their profession, it’s what they were doing before Obama came along and will be doing after he leaves office. You imagine a very weird world in which political professionals are somehow unable to find work without Obama telling them where to go.
“Yes, they do.”
So, what other countries are Democrats campaigning in on behalf of Obama’s policy preferences?
” You imagine a very weird world’
And you imagine a very naive one where Obama isn’t trying to influence Israeli elections.
Netanyahu sees Iran as a threat. So does Congress. I think you’re upset because Congress (how dare they!) act as a separate branch of government. I know your Statist inclination is to make Congress an arm of the executive branch, but thank goodness we still have some shreds of the Constitution left.
Exactly where in those shreds of the Constitution does it say that Congress will conduct our diplomacy with foreign nations?
This isn’t diplomacy.
Of course it is, in addition to domestic Israeli and U.S. politics. Netanyahu and the GOP don’t like U.S. diplomacy with Iran, so they’re teaming up to try to scuttle it.
That’s not diplomacy, it’s war. Which is the prerogative of the Congress.
“Netanyahu and the GOP don’t like U.S. diplomacy with Iran”
Under Obama’s deal Iran gets the bomb either through delaying any action to stop them or by literally letting them in the agreement.
Why can’t Obama makes his case in the open?
If Congress wants to declare war on Iran, what’s stopping them? Of course Congress doesn’t want to declare war, they just want to interfere in diplomatic talks.
“Of course Congress doesn’t want to declare war, they just want to interfere in diplomatic talks.”
I notice you use the gruber word of talks rather than negotiations because it is apparent that negotiations are not taking place, unless you considering giving Iran the bomb negotiating.
Of course negotiations are going on, e.g. about how many centrifuges Iran will keep. Nobody’s giving Iran the bomb, they can make it themselves (and presumably will, if negotiations fail).
“Nobody’s giving Iran the bomb, they can make it themselves (and presumably will”
No shit. These “negotiations” are a sham. They are designed to buy Obama time so that he doesn’t have to do anything to stop Iran. And why would he want to? He wants Iran to be a regional power to counter Israel and the USA.
” if negotiations fail”
They are designed to fail, that is why Iran gets to keep their centrifuges and transition to building a nuke. Obama just wants to massage their timeline and cock block Israel from doing anything.
Netanyahu had the temerity to disrespect the office of the President of the United States. In the history of our country, has any other foreign leader ever proposed to attack the sitting U.S. president’s foreign policy from the rostrum of the U.S. Capitol?
I can respect temerity. And as everyone has noted, President Obama has done much to earn that disrespect. And I can see how someone like Netanyahu might have a much better understanding of the US’s security needs than Obama.
What Giuliani had done was undermine Obama’s legitimacy.
Obama is different. The Obama phenomenon is founded so completely on his legend that to attack the legend is to undermine the very foundations of the tower on which he stands.
LOL. Rightists have been trying to label Obama as illegitimate since 2007, to the point that most Republicans polled in 2012 still couldn’t bring themselves to admit that he was born in the U.S. And what good has it done the GOP? If anything these displays of Obama Derangement Syndrome just make the GOP look kooky to the wide swath of the electorate that sees Obama as a normal president.
The right can’t face the fact that the president and his policies have the support of most voters, so it tries to soothe its cognitive dissonance with childish fantasies. Maybe, if some Republican insults him in just the right way, the scales will fall from the voters’ eyes and the public will suddenly see Obama as a fraud! This time for sure…
“The right can’t face the fact that the president and his policies have the support of most voters”
Wait a second. Obama said his policies have the support of the people who didn’t vote. Stay on script Jim.
Obama said his policies have the support of the people who didn’t vote.
That too.
Yes, they supported his policies so much, they didn’t bother to vote for them. Do you how hilariously stupid both you and he sound?
They prefer his policies to those offered by the GOP. They may not think their vote makes enough of a difference to bother to express that preference at the ballot box, but it’s their preference all the same.
” to bother to express that preference ”
Rather convenient then that you can read their minds when voting is the only real way to be sure of how they feel. If they do support Obama’s policies, they didn’t care enough to open a mail box or lick an envelope. That doesn’t point to strong support.
Jim: “The people who didn’t vote are all really strong supporters of Obama. They would march from Colorado to DC to show their love but don’t ask them to take 15 minutes and vote.”
I put forward the notion that the people who didn’t vote don’t actually support Obama or they would have… supported him at the ballot box.
By the same logic they didn’t support Romney. So the question is, which did they prefer? If you ask them, the answer is clearcut (which is why Rand dismisses polls of adults or registered voters, since they are more favorable to Democrats than polls of likely voters).
“By the same logic they didn’t support Romney.”
Romney wasn’t on the ballot. Obama and his policies were, at least according to Obama.
But actually by that same logic, they did support Romney. Ya, its totally stupid but don’t blame me, it’s Obama’s logic.
…the point that most Republicans polled in 2012 still couldn’t bring themselves to admit that he was born in the U.S
Wrong.
I care far more about the influences surrounding him as he grew up than the geographical accident of his birth. And by all accounts all those most influential in his youth did not instill american culture or love of this country.
“Influences surrounding him as he grew up” is the birther fallback position. Do you care as much about the influences surrounding Rudy Giuliani as he was raised by a mob enforcer? Should that lead us to question Giuliani’s grasp of American culture? Did Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio get more American culture from their immigrant parents than Obama got from his Kansan mother and grandparents? Who’s going to be the arbiter of which politicians have the right amount and sort of American-ness?
All this stuff is great for branding the GOP as the party of xenophobia.
Did Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio get more American culture from their immigrant parents than Obama got from his Kansan mother and grandparents?
It would seem so, given that both his supposed father and his “Kansas mother” were communists.
“Supposed” father? In right-wing crazy town, the birther conspiracy theories just won’t ever die. Nor the casual labeling of anyone to the left of Nixon as a communist, or the definition of “American culture” as something incompatible with left-wing political, despite the long history of American leftism. “American” apparently doesn’t literally mean American, it means “passing my ideological litmus test.” So Rafael Cruz Sr. is somehow more American than Stanley Dunham Sr., never mind that in their respective youths the former fought for Castro while the latter fought for Ike.
Leftism has always been antithetical to the founding principles of this country. If Rafael Cruz fought for Castro, it was because he believed his lies about not being a communist. And I didn’t say anything about Stanley Dunham, Sr.
Leftism has always been antithetical to the founding principles of this country.
So never mind that there have been millions of American leftists, and that they have greatly influenced the course of American history — we’ll just declare them un-American. How nice it must be to get to draw up the borderlines on what constitutes American culture.
And I didn’t say anything about Stanley Dunham, Sr.
Check again. You wrote that it seemed that Ted Cruz got more American culture from his immigrant parents than Obama got from his Kansan mother and grandparents.
So never mind that there have been millions of American leftists, and that they have greatly influenced the course of American history — we’ll just declare them un-American.
When the course was a leftist one, it wasn’t for the better.
You wrote that it seemed that Ted Cruz got more American culture from his immigrant parents than Obama got from his Kansan mother and grandparents.
You wrote about his grandparents. I wrote about his parents.
You wrote about his grandparents
I asked a question about his mother and grandparents, you quoted the entire question and answered it.
“So never mind that there have been millions of American leftists, and that they have greatly influenced the course of American history ”
Yes, we know about slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK.
“Do you care as much about the influences surrounding Rudy Giuliani as he was raised by a mob enforcer?”
If Rudy was still parroting mob talking points…
If Rudy was still parroting mob talking points…
So you don’t care about how Giuliani was raised, just about the opinions he expresses today. Then why all the concern about Obama’s upbringing?
“Then why all the concern about Obama’s upbringing?”
He still parrots red diaper baby talking points. It isn’t about his upbringing but about what he believes today, which also happens to be what he was raised to believe.
It isn’t about his upbringing but about what he believes today
Then, again, why the right wing obsession with his childhood?
His public statements and actions are completely mainstream. But rightists are sure that he must be concealing radical beliefs, so they go searching through his past for the secret key to his “true” self, ignoring the far more telling record of his public statements and actions in office.
Then, again, why the right wing obsession with his childhood?
Because it provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for his adult behavior and apparent beliefs.
Then, again, why the right wing obsession with his childhood?
It’s reasonable, for an important job like the US presidency, to know the history of a politician even from birth, because that is constitutionally relevant (if Obama was born in another country, he would have been disqualified from becoming US President), it sheds light on the politician’s upbringing (which is important to the “right wing”), and it may reveal a plant or sleeper agent. I think all three became relevant with Obama.
“His public statements and actions are completely mainstream.”
Lol what? Open borders isn’t mainstream. Going to war without going to congress isn’t mainstream. Throwing Israel under the bus isn’t mainstream. Arming and training Islamic militants isn’t mainstream. Late term abortion isn’t mainstream. Installing the MB in Egypt isn’t mainstream.
Obama isn’t mainstream. Obama comes from the academic and activism wing of the party, which is pretty far to the left, nearly as far to the left as one can go. The crap that comes out of the Democrat’s militant activists is hardly mainstream. Most Democrats would object to it if they knew anything about their own party.
“But rightists are sure that he must be concealing radical beliefs”
Well, the cornerstone of his Presidency has been dishonesty. We can watch his speeches to see some of his radical beliefs, especially in unscripted comments. But we can also see his actions, which often times are at odds with his statements. When you say one thing and do the opposite, that is dishonesty.
I wish Obama could really come out and say what he thinks but he can’t, at least according to Obama.
His public statements and actions are completely mainstream.
Whoa, I just had to recalibrate my “Whoppers by Jim” scale with that one.
To be fair, Jim probably deludes himself that his own lunacy is “mainstream.”
Here’s a 2014 poll in which only 34% of Republicans polled agree with the statement that Obama “was born in the U.S.”
In this 2012 poll 56% of Republicans say they have always believed that Obama was born in another country, and another 8% say they used to think he was born in the U.S., but now believe he was born in another country.
You said most.
You are lying again. Tell your handlers at media matters to get their facts straight.
Liar.
I wrote that most Republicans polled did not say they thought Obama was born in the U.S. I posted links to two polls in which most Republicans polled did not say they thought Obama was born in the U.S. What’s your problem?
My problem is your lies. Here’s what you said:
that most Republicans polled in 2012 still couldn’t bring themselves to admit that he was born in the U.S.
Then you backtracked. And you got caught.
“What’s your problem?”
Once you develop a well-deserved reputation as a liar, people assume you’re always lying. Liar.
Then you backtracked.
What backtrack? I wrote that “most Republicans polled in 2012 still couldn’t bring themselves to admit that he was born in the U.S.” That’s true, as shown by the poll I linked to in my follow-up.
And you got caught.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Then you’re a fool.
Maybe, if some Republican insults him in just the right way
Let me know no when celebrities are openly claiming Obama didn’t just lie about the Benghazi video, but actually planned and had carried out the attacks on Benghazi.
Until then, not much said about Obama compares to the Truthers deeply rooted in the Democrat Party.
I also note that worse claims have been made about the Koch brothers than Obama.
Until then, not much said about Obama compares to the Truthers deeply rooted in the Democrat Party.
Giuliani was at one point the highest-polling candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. Bobby Jindal, who endorsed Giuliani’s comments, is a GOP governor and presumptive presidential candidate. Name one Democrat of similar stature who’s a 9/11 truther.
“Giuliani was at one point the highest-polling”
And yet Leland is right, no one has said Obama planned Benghazi like Democrats said about Bush and 9/11.
And Giuliani was right in his comments about Obama. Even if you think Obama loves America, you have to admit there are lot of things he hates about it and runs down our country at every opportunity.
What Democrats said that Bush planned 9/11?
you have to admit there are lot of things he hates about it and runs down our country at every opportunity.
I don’t have to admit anything so ridiculous.
Via Democrat.com: House Parties for Truthers
As for Birthers, if you want to bring up Michelle Obama’s comments about Barack being born in Kenya, that is all on you, Jim.
“I don’t have to admit anything so ridiculous.”
So, Obama doesn’t hate anything in America? Do you even listen to his speeches? This is the point of the conversation where you are supposed to use nuance and say it is possible to dislike some aspects of the USA without hating the USA.
It is probably easier to just deny it though because then we would be looking at the things Obama dislikes, or hates if you will.
“If anything these displays of Obama Derangement Syndrome just make the GOP look kooky to the wide swath of the electorate that sees Obama as a normal president.”
Except that this “wide swath” you talk about consists of ostrich-like, blind, sychophants and loonies…
like you….
And the width of that swath is getting narrower and narrower………
According to Gallup 46% of the population approves of the job Obama is doing as president. No doubt some of the people who disapprove of his performance nonetheless see him as a normal president. That’s a wide swath.
Which is far less than the 50+% who voted him into office (getting narrower) and far far less than the 70% who thought he was doing a good job at the start of his first term
far far narrower…….
Nobody’s saying that Obama is more popular today than in January, 2009. The question is whether the fraction of the country that considers Obama a normal president is “a wide swath” of the population. 46+% is a wide swath.
“The question is whether the fraction of the country that considers Obama a normal president”
Literally no one views Obama as a normal President, not even Democrats, especially not Democrats.
That 46% is much narrower than the 50+% that voted him into office twice and is far far narrower than the 70+% who thought he was doing a good job in his first term.
So yes it’s narrowing and it would be even narrower if the MSM weren’t fellating him and if the lo-fo’s would pay a little more attention and get some varied news, and used their noggins a little bit, and learned about their country and why it’s so great.
For the percentages represented by people like you there’s no hope of you ever seeing clearly
So yes it’s narrowing
Not really; Obama’s slightly more popular now than he was a year ago.
it would be even narrower if
If wishes were horses…
Sorry for the double entry. I put the first one over 30 minutes ago and didn’t see it when next I looked.
The right can’t face the fact that the president and his policies have the support of most voters
Most equals at the most three percentage points. Foolish Jim.
I wonder why Jim didn’t respond to this comment? Waiting to distort the popular vote figures?
I didn’t respond because it doesn’t make sense. “Most equals at the most three percentage points”? What does that even mean?
I take “most” to mean a majority, more than half. Obama and his policies have been on the national ballot twice, and most of the people who voted in 2008 and 2012 voted for Obama. If most people saw Obama the way the ODS sufferers on the right do — as someone who doesn’t love America, and is working against the national interest — he wouldn’t have been soundly elected and re-elected. That chasm between the way rightists see Obama and the way most American voters do is something the right struggles mightily to banish from their minds, or creatively explain away. But again and again it rears up to hit them, as when the commenters here confidently predicted a landslide Romney win, and Karl Rove famously refused to believe the Ohio results displayed in front of him.
If most people saw Obama the way the ODS sufferers on the right do — as someone who doesn’t love America, and is working against the national interest — he wouldn’t have been soundly elected and re-elected.
That was then, this is now. Most people now know that he lied his way to re-election.
His job approval is similar to where it was for much of his first term, after which the country gave him another four years.
The link only supports my claim: that most Americans (51% in that poll) disagree with the ODS view of Obama.
Jim, his approval is high among Democrats and no one else. Not surprising considering the cult of personality that surrounds him and Democrat’s refusal to hold him to the same standard they hold other people to.
Obama’s own campaign organization was turned into a nonprofit that engages in political activity and Democrats are not calling for him to be thrown in jail or anything. They only want non-Democrats to be thrown in jail for doing what Obama does.
“If most people saw Obama the way the ODS sufferers on the right do — as someone who doesn’t love America, and is working against the national interest”
You make a lot of assumptions about Democrats there. Obama’s anti-American views are deeply embedded in the Democrat party. These views spring forth from the academic and activist wings of the Democrat party.
“That chasm between the way rightists see Obama and the way most American voters do”
No, not most American voters. There is a chasm between Democrats and everyone else in how Obama is viewed.
Obama’s anti-American views are deeply embedded in the Democrat party.
Ah, so it’s the Democratic party that’s anti-American, why didn’t you just come out and say so? That should be the new GOP talking point: that the largest American political party is anti-American.
“Ah, so it’s the Democratic party that’s anti-American, ”
Parts of it are. Do you never speak to Democrats? Maybe I am just in a bubble because I talk to so many progressives.
It means you are distorting the truth. Obama got at most 3 percentage points in the 2012 election, yet you claim that most is far more than that. 3 percent is a win, but it’s a very narrow win.
The support of most voters is not 3 percent. Any sane person would see this.
Obama got at most 3 percentage points in the 2012 election
I think you are saying that Obama got “at most” 3 percentage points more than anyone else. In fact he got 51.1% of the popular vote, 3.9% more than Romney (who got 47.2%).
The support of most voters is not 3 percent. Any sane person would see this.
That is total nonsense. By that logic Reagan didn’t win the support of most voters in 1984, because he only beat Mondale by 18.2%, and 18.2 is less than 50.
“Support of most voters” means “support of 50% + 1 of all the votes cast.” Obama got 51.1% of the votes cast in 2012 — that’s most of them.
But we had another election since then where Obama was on every ticket and he lost big time. In response, Obama said that the people who didn’t vote were the real voters, they all support him, and they showed it by not voting.
So there is a strong case that Romney actually had the support of most voters.
And an even better case that John Kerry actually had the support of most voters.
No, it just means your phrasing is silly. His margin wasn’t that great.
In other news, Seattle temps today are 1.5 degrees warmer than the average. It’s ridiculously hot outside, because a 1.5 degree difference is the difference between tropical weather and arctic conditions.
No, it just means your phrasing is silly.
Wow, you just can’t stop digging.
You wrote that “Obama got at most 3 percentage points” when apparently you meant “Obama beat Romney by a margin of at most 3 percentage points” (which isn’t even true!). If you’re concerned about phrasing you should start with your own.
His margin wasn’t that great.
And I never said it was. I said that he got most of the votes, which, you know, he did.
“And I never said it was. I said that he got most of the votes, which, you know, he did.”
Not when you count the people who didn’t vote who were clearly supporters of Romney. #Obamalogic
35% believe Bush knew the 9/11 attacks would occur.
With Jim’s logic, this means everyone.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
I mean 35% of democrats. With Jim’s logic, it means all democrats.
Fortunately that 35% does not include the leadership of the Democratic party; it would hurt the Democrats if its leaders were 9/11 truthers. Just as it hurts the GOP when leading Republicans express their various nutty flavors of ODS (birtherism, “Obama doesn’t love America”, etc.).
Pretty sure if we look we will find examples of elected Democrats or people in the Obama administration believing that 9/11 was an inside job or a Jewish plot. Van Jones wasn’t an aberration.
I’m pretty sure you’ve been looking for 13 years; is Van Jones’s alleged trutherism the best you can do?
Sorry, I haven’t been looking. I am just not that shocked by all the crazy shit Democrats believe like Iraq was about oil or a response to 9/11 or that we only have problems with Islamic militants because of Bush.
Alleged?
Update 9/11/2009: Signatories removed.
Posted by Janice Matthews, current Director, 911Truth.org
Following recent media-generated controversy over Obama appointee Van Jones’ signature on this Statement, he and two other signatories have requested their names be removed. That has been done.
http://www.911truth.org/911-truth-statement/
https://www.google.ca/search?q=2003+protest+bush+effigy&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7wTtVJ2mAcGLgwTlnIT4DQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1303&bih=693
GFYS, Jim.
Given the tenacity of Jim, et al’s refutation of the comments here, I can only conclude that we’ve hit an incredibly sore spot.
I imagine there’s a lot of foot stomping going on in the White House over Netanyahu’s arrival. And for what, allowing a foreign dignitary to speak?
I think yes on both parts. Obama should consider that the Senate writes treaties, not his pen and phone.
The question, “Does he love America”, is meaningless. There is too much partisan division between Blue and Red (and Grey) tribes. The question is how much he hates the Red Tribe. As Scott Alexander says,
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
His public statements and actions are completely mainstream.
Liar. “I’ve got a pen and a phone!” “Fundamentally transform America.” “Energy prices must necessarily skyrocket.”
But it’s also his private actions that scare me. And he has a lot of them. “clinging to guns or religion” is just one.