How to Properly Criticize a President 101
There's something almost adorable seeing Republicans flail in the wind, trying to come up with reasons why people should dislike Barack Obama. It's akin to watching a dog run around trying to catch a light beam.
How can your heart not break when you see people struggling so hard to undermine the President of the United States, and the best they can come up with is that he's not born in America, he's want to kill old people, he tells school children to study, he won the Nobel Prize for Peace, he's trying to help the U.S. host the Olympics, he's a socialist, he's a Nazi, he's a communist, he's like Hitler, he's a terrorist, he's a traitor. Their panicked faces during Saturday's House health care vote night was woeful. At a certain point, you just want to wrap your arms around them and say, "There, there, it's all right. Everything is going to be okay. Come to poppa."
But still, they go on. Trying so hard. Bringing out the signs with swastikas, holding up their tea bags, seeing behind every little shadow the horrors of all possible hells. "We're being attacked by the Mole People!!!" No, no, honey, it's just the wind.
When I hear their unrelenting, frantic ramblings of Worst Possible Consequences, I always flash back to when I was a counselor at Camp Nebagamon. One of my campers was an 11-year-old we'll call Jimmy Baxter. Jimmy was a nice little kid, who tended to roam in his own universe. "Bob," he'd come over and excitedly ask, "Bob, what would happen, Bob, what would happen if all of a sudden the sky opened up and all of a sudden dogs and cats started to fall and they all had guns and and and it started to snow, what would happen??"
Republicans have become the modern-day political equivalent of Jimmy Baxter.
And I feel bad for them. Not just for being afraid of dogs falling from the sky, but because I know they can complain better. I mean, c'mon, if you want to be considered one of the Two Major Political Parties, then you have to come up with oh-so-much better criticisms of the president. "He's working on too many things" and "He's honoring the war dead" just doesn't cut it. Honestly. You have to trust me on this.
And if you want to be considered respectable and not laughed at when you enter a room, you really do have to stop calling Barack Obama a socialist and a Nazi. For starters, they're polar opposites, so a person can't be both. You don't want to come across ignorant when you're trying to sound convincing. Second, if you want people to be frightened of Barack Obama because you say he's like Hitler, you have to understand that people don't hate Hitler because he provided governmental health care.
No, really.
People hate Hitler because a) he tried to rule the entire world by military domination, and b) he built actual concentration camps, rounded up Jews and killed six million of them.
(Side note: that was a death panel.)
See, here's the thing. If you're going to try to convince the world why the American President is bad for America, you really need to have some specific, actual facts. Not something out of an old Stan Freberg sketch. ("They wear funny shoes.")
So, as a public service, I'm going to show you how to properly criticize a president with actual facts. You're welcome. After all, I not only disliked George Bush, but can give you real reasons why, so I have practice. You should be able to try the exact same with Barack Obama. Take notes, and then maybe you can do it, too. It's not hard. Pencils ready? Great! Here's how it's done.
I didn't like George W. Bush when he was president because:
1. He lied about Iraq having WMD, which got America in a war.
2. He lied about Iraq buying yellowcake, which got America in a war.
3. He wiretapped Americans without warrants, which violated the Bill of Rights.
4. He ignored a briefing that Osama bin Laden would attack the U.S. with airplanes, that got 3,000 people killed.
5. He inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion and left with a record deficit of $1.3 trillion.
6. He ignored warnings of Hurricane Katrina which wiped New Orleans off the map.
7. He used the non-political Justice Department for political purposes, firing U.S. attorneys and attacking political opponents.
8. He vetoed stem cell research, which could cost lives.
9. He dismissed global warming, which could destroy the planet.
10. He allowed civilians to rewrite scientific reports written by scientists.
11. He promised No Child Left Behind, but underfunded the program.
12. He eliminated environmental protections.
13. He allowed his Administration to out a CIA agent.
14. He became the first leader in the history of the world to cut taxes during a war.
15. He weakened regulations of banking, housing and Wall Street, which allowed for the collapse of the U.S. economy.
Okay, there! See?!! It's easy! All right, I know the list isn't full, but this is just to get you started.
You can do it, Republicans. You can come up with actual, specific, meaningful reasons one day to try to convince others why they shouldn't like Barack Obama. And you won't ever again have to run around in a perpetual panic attack over nothing.
Here, let me give you a hug.
Eric Tang: Anh "Joseph" Cao: The Surprises Are Just Beginning
The improbable victory of Joseph Cao gave Republicans something to gloat about in the wake of its November defeats. But Republicans may soon learn that they're getting more than they bargained for.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think plutocratic must have been the word of the day on Sesame Street. Next stop: conjunction junction!
It's "Projection"/
The Conservatives are the dictatorial anti democracy fascists,
so they "Project" their own guilt on their opposition.
"Psychological projection (or projection bias) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are ascribed to the outside world, like the weather, the government, a tool or another person or people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
The leaders use "Big Lie" to keep the dupes confused and fearful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
You hit the nail on the head.
What GOP supporters hate most is themselves. As a lone liberal in my family, I see this frequently.
Hate gay people? Maybe you have a homosexual tendency or two yourself.
Hate college-educated people? Probably because you barely made it through high school.
Hate affirmative action? Likely that you aren't as desirable in the job market as you would like.
Hate Barack Obama? Because you're SUPPOSED to, you're a Republican! Besides, your guy would have royally effed things up beyond recognition by this time. You know it. But you can't admit it.
I do feel a sort of sympathy for these idiots. Some of them might feel the cognitive dissonance, but their own inadequacies lead them to ignore it and keep the hate flowing. If they're miserable in their souls, everyone else should be too. THAT'S their version of equality.
Added to the Bush list: he fixed an election.
Comparing Obama to Hitler is unforgivable, considering , after all, what Hiltler DID.
Sure those are dumb things to criticize a President for. But what about the economy and jobs that no one wants to talk about the voters. Today, Spring cut another 2.500 jobs. EA cut 1,500 jobs. And it goes on and on. With over 15 million people out of work. Hello? The do nothing Congress certainly doesn't care.
And since the President barely talks about it, I assume he doesn't either. That should be the real story!
And the main focus of the media!
now you're getting the point. Do you need a hug too?
all i hear is NO NO NO NO NO
we need to ALL be fired up and ready to go to support our president!
have we forgotten the pledge? YES WE CAN.
OK! Now you're getting the idea! Those are REAL criticisms that we can have a discussion about (although if EA is short for Electronic Arts, their cuts had more to do with loss of gamers to the console market than anything).
Thing is, what can be done about it? Now, there's three responses here: The first, favoured by voodoo economists (so called because it would take an act of magic to work) would be to cut taxes to the bone and hope and pray that the rich see fit to bung it back in the market. Problem there is that firstly, it has never, ever worked because, secondly, the rich are not stupid. They're not going to throw money into a market this unstable.
The second solution, favoured by Keynesian economists, is to pass another stimulus. A proper one this time because the last one was too small (as every economist said at the time) and had too much of it's funds made up of tax cuts (I don't like paying taxes any more than you do but tax cuts are the very least effective form of stimulus).
The third solution would be to just cut every household a check for, say, fifty grand. Which would certainly work but I doubt any politician has the guts to do it.
This presupposes that the wing-nuts think logically.
Going out on on what looks like a essentially solid limb here: I don't think Doc Twain is any kind of an "out-there" wing-nut. He's obviously done a lot of home work, is well versed in (on) many issues and has given an enormous amount of thought (perhaps TOO MUCH?) to these matters.
It seems to me he's just reached the "break point" in the "bend-and-compromise" process (which many somewhat mistakenly refer to as "democracy." ) This is a subject on to itself - and I'll try to elaborate later and/or elsewhere, BUT
While I DO understand Doc's anger and frustration, I'm not ready to give up on Obama yet. Giving up means abandoning faith and hope in his "promise" And I'm just not there yet.
Doc Twain is right on that most of America's problems will never be solved by ANYONE until we have unadulterated publicly financed elections. And I would add that both elections and health care require UNCOMPROMISING reform. anything else is good money after bad.
President Obama is a Centrist obstructionist. Not only has he continued many of Bush's policies; his "reforms" are opportunities for the cartels to further exploit the People, rather than an end to plutocratic abuses. Hence Obama is different from Bush only in degree, not in kind.
1. Plutocratic corruption: health care. Refuses to pass improved Medicare for all, but instead cut a back-room deal with the pharmaceuticals cartel to protect price fixing. Eliminating the private health insurance cartel would save $400 billion a year, but Obama is turning "reform" into a scheme to profit the cartels.
2. Plutocratic corruption: foreign policy. Obama refuses to end the profiteering wars or to slash the budget of the war cartel. How is he different from Bush, except in PR?
3. Plutocratic corruption: banking policy: Obama appointed Summers-Geithner to continue the Bush-Paulson bailout of the banking-cartel's supra-legal ponzi scheme. He refuses to break up the big banks, smash the power of the cartel, to regulate the banks, or to protect consumers from usury. How is Obama better than Bush and Clinton?
4. Plutocratic corruption: energy policy: Obama obstructs the ambitious approach needed to bring radical changes. We need massive investment in solar and wind--huge installation in the southwestern and western deserts and the farm country of the plains states. In this area, Obama is like Clinton all over again--mere obstruction after years of reverses, when revolutionary change is needed.
Conclusion: Obama is reactionary, not visionary.
Your conclusion is poorly supported by your lack of evidence and even basic understanding of the extent of the powers of the Presidency.
Yeah, the stuff you say is all rah-rah exciting and all, but you're delusional in your expectations.
I think DocTwain just likes to say "plutocratic corruption" a lot.
ElTommo, a simple Google search of "$400 billion a year" and "single payer" will pull up the evidence re: the savings for eliminating AHIP. If you want an article referring to backroom deals with PHRMA: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html . Please note that it's a convention of web-based dialogue to do a Google search of well-known events about which you lack the basic narrative.
My other remarks require no "evidence"; either they constitute evaluations of large-scale events, like the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, which you must investigate for yourself, if you lack knowledge to concur or dispute particulars; or they are either policy goals; or they are predictions about the final versions of "reforms" that have not yet been passed--predictions intended, by denouncing the undesired outcomes, to make them less likely. I would certainly be happy to be proved wrong, when such proof is capable of production.
I have no lack of understanding of the power of the presidency. The President's job is in part to lead Congress in passing needed reforms, as FDR did when he passed Social Security and the New Deal.
I'm not delusional in my expectations. You are blinkered in yours.
Americans can indeed create a much better society than we have at present.
We are not doomed to increasing plutocratic corruption and stakeholder fiat.
If you disagree, explain why, and we can discuss further.
It certainly appears that way on the surface, but if the American electorate changes the composition of the senate at the 2010 elections and deals to the slime bag conservative democrats-in-name-only in the house, then Obama will have some room to move. He can do virtually nothing on his own, so he is obliged to stitch up deals that do the least on-going damage. Why does everyone expect Obama to do things he simply cannot do? Should he instruct congress to behave in a certain way and then face the humiliation of having them do the opposite? Give him some credit for picking a path through the most toxic minefield any US president ever faced.
True enough. But the other option was McCain and he would have been even worse.
You're comments are no more constructive than what we see coming the right. If you're just made at everybody you just produce nonconstructive hot air. Just as none of us take Tea Baggers seriously, it's impossible to take you seriously.
President Obama is trying to president of all Americans and it's appropriate for liberal opinion to want to change the balance of power and control our society. But what is never acceptable is to place the discussion at the 'us' and 'them' level.
A conspiracy theorist is a conspiracy theorist, it know no bounds of ideology. Democracy is not a conflict of enemies and the left does itself no favors and accomplishes nothing if its central thesis is to target the success of some at the failure of others....That's "tea bagger" logic and I'm sure that depresses you too.
Gotta love your style. It seems to me that you feel secure, smart, and important when you use $50 words in places where 5 cent words would say the same thing. What in impressive display of vocabulary.
Good article, Mr. Elisberg. I don't worry so much about the republicans as I do w our own democrats. They are sitting on the power of the majority and don't know how to use it. The House HCR bill this weekend showed conservative dems voting FOR the anti-choice amendment and then voting AGAINST the HCR bill. They voted primarily to take away a woman or woman-child choice of whether or not to have child, forces them against their will but do not pass health care to make sure the woman gets proper care during the pregnancy, and care afterward. The social conservatives whether dem or repub have serious brain drains.
This morning on c-span call-in show a conservative woman said she is not sure whether Bush43 did the right thing to bail out the banks but for sure Obama's giving money to the banks was definitely not a good thing. Where's the logic there...both presidents bailed out the banks, both gave money to auto companies but when Obama does it, it's bad for the country. The wars are sapping all our money now and future, but HCR spending will kill future generations. The c-span guest did not respond to the illogical point made by the caller. I guess he thought it was useless.
They rarely respond, which is just poor journalism to allow B.S. to float past, unchallenged. It pisses me off every time I see that sort of thing.
Take a look at your list and then Mr. Elisberg's list. One list contains many more damaging acts/omissions. Hint: It's not your list.
Hypotheses: the central problem of U.S. politics is plutocratic corruption.
For example:
Centrist Democrats helped start the Iraq War to profit the war cartel, on the basis of lies.
When did Centrist Democrats decry the yellow cake, WMD and al-Qaeda links lies? They voted for the war, on the pretense that the lies were true!
Which of Bush's war crimes did Centrist Democrats single out and punish?
When did they hold him accountable for politicizing the DOJ? For wiretapping? For outing a CIA agent?
Centrist Democrats helped deregulate the banks, enabling a ponzi scheme that ruined the economy.
Centrist Democrats rewarded the banking cartel's ponzi scheme with a trillion-dollar bailout.
How has Obama been any different from Bush vis-a-vis Goldman Sachs?
Centrist Democrats voted for 70 tax cuts for the rich under Bush.
Centrist Democrats continued the tax cuts in a time of two wars and record deficits.
Centrist Democrats put single payer off the table--Obama didn't even allow its advocates a seat at his summit, though AHIP and PhRMA were well represented.
Centrist Democrats are turning all "reforms," including health care, into schemes to profit the cartels.
Centrist Democrats have supported such schemes before--Medicare Part D and Advantage.
There are very few items on Mr. Elisberg's list--none of them among the largest--where the Democrats did not go along with Mr. Bush every step of the way, and where they are not, even now, continuing or protecting his abuses....
I think you said that very well, and I agree with you for the most part. I've been asking this question for several years now
When the Republican party controlled all 3 branches of government between 2001 and 2007, why didn't they fulfill any of the agenda they consistently campaign on? I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, the flat tax, affirmative action, you know their bread and butter issues. Recently I read an article in our local paper where a woman said she was going to vote for Perry because of his stance on abortion. Maybe they didn't notice this, but they controlled the entire government for 6 years. They could have actually suceeded in ending abortions in our country. It would have been messy, but they could have done it.
What will the Democrats do now that they control the government? They just spent the entire summer and fall arguing with m0r0ns about death panels, socialism and where Obama was born. What did they accomplish? nothing yet. They got a very weak bill out of the House which does nothing to help us. And while the economy is still struggling, here come the bonuses, again. The wars are still there, stagnant, We are still holding foreign nationals in Guantanamo without trial.
It's been a year since the election. What are they going to do?
Makes me feel better about throwing away my vote on Ralph Nader.
Again, In whose hands is the cure for this? Not Obama's, yours, the voters.
And again, not immediately, but in 2010, and if you don't fix it then, the unbiased observer is going to have to say you didn't want to fix it. Until then you have to just endure the stinking fetid ordure you are in up to your necks, because, in the end, you put yourselves there by your own hand. And lest you are thinking you're being patronised, there is hardly a country in the western world that is not run by gangsters freely elected by the people. My country is absolutely no exception. Stick your head in a lion's mouth by all means, but don't blame the lion for taking a bite.
1. The fact that there was a warning of a possible attack doesn't mean there were concrete measures that could of been taken to avoid 9/11. Also don't forget that when Clinton had a chance to kill Bin Laden with a drone, he didn't because Bin Laden was with members of the UAE royal family, so by your logic Clinton also shares the blame for 9/11.
2. There was no surplus. Bush never squandered a surplus, because there was none. I won't explain why there was no surplus, I'll leave that up to you to do a little homework to figure it out for yourself. If you still don't know why after a week, email me and I'll answer it.
3. To pull a 13trillion dollar economy off the rails takes a lot of effort, by a lot of people, over time. Did he and the other republicans do it alone?, hell no. Take a look at the actions of Sen. Dodd. Going back to Clinton again,it was he who repealed the depression era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated banks from investment banking, on Nov 12, 1999. Now why would he repeal a law like that only 7days after an election to choose his replacement?
Just like in a failed marriage, it's never 100% the fault of one - both parties are at fault to varying degrees. However, one must look at what steps were taken to initialize progress and then what CORRECTIVE steps were taken to guide things. When one has a philosophy of "I'm never wrong" you will get bad results no matter WHO you are, and on which side. We all recall the almost surreal level of "we're never wrong" we had for 8 years. This can never be productive (or effective) and I really do hope that we will not see this destructive attitude again. I do agree with your assertion that both sides took steps that have been detrimental to our best interests as citizens. Alas, when money talks...
2) I'm going to make a specious argument and then not support it, because I really don't have a point. But no, seriously, look it up for yourself! >.> Burden of proof is on you, buddy.
Yep. I've noticed this "logic" on the forums. Its an attempt to somehow turn the burden of proof off of the person making the unsupported claims.
Sorry nodemsnoreps, if you make a questionable claim then its YOUR burden to show the proof. It's your claim, afterall.
$63 Trillion unfunded liability for social security and Medicare.
No surplus??? What does that mean "to do a little homework"? There certainly was a surplus. What homework are you talking about? And don't give me the link to an obvious partisan right wing think tank or web blog.
And try to frame your opinion about the President receiving the report about Bin Laden wanting to attack America based on the single fact. I know how much all of you want to drag Clinton in to this. Clinton was a failed President for other reasons though. I don't blame Clinton's extramarital affair on Bush Sr. As you might remember, there was an unsubstantiated rumour about Bush Sr having an affair. Is that why Bil Clinton thought he could do it? Of course not. I'd like to hear one Republican address the fact that Bush and staff ignored this briefing just before 9/11, without mentioning how Clinton could have killed Bin Laden himself.
Try this... Imagine President Obama getting a briefing saying a terrorist is determined to attack America, then ignored it, then the attack happened and 3,000 people died. Now what is your opinion on it?
If you think about it, it's really what keeps us from turning in to hypocrites.
If something, like, for instance, a Bin Laden attack, is EVER mentioned at the top of page one of a presidential daily intelligence briefing, it's there BECAUSE the office that preps that document at CIA knew it was important and action needed to be taken.
When similar headlines popped up on Clinton's watch, or Reagan's watch, sudden rushed emergency meetings took place, to plan responses. Bush and Cheney and Rice either intentionally ignored the report, and allowed the attack to happen; or, they're colossally incompetent, and didn't even understand the significance of that daily report, to begin with. Take your choice; there's sort of no third interpretational option, there...
Let me save harry the trouble and point out that it wasn't Katrina itself that caused New Orleans's troubles, it was the faulty levee and floodwall system.
Of course lots of other parts of the Gulf Coast did get severely damaged by Katrina.
I doubt they'd've collectively even admitted those flaws caused the disaster, if we didn't have four or five generations of folk and blues singers, who've been reminding us such a disaster was GOING to happen, since that crap was first built...
Bob,
When I was at Camp Nebagamon, you passed me to pro-marksman in air riflery -- thanks.
Some time later (perhaps at Nebagamon?), I learned that creating a strawman and knocking it down was a lazy, ineffective style of argument. If you have not heard any intellectually serious criticisms of the president, then you are not paying attention.
Cheers.
In today's day and age, such a comment without supporting links IS simply a strawman.
It's also pretty lazy not to include any examples of these intellectually serious criticisms.
I don't think Robert stated anywhere that he hadn't heard any intellectually serious criticisms of the president. What he's suggesting is the vast majority of the most vocal and repeated criticisms of the president from the right are completely absurd, and it hurts to GOP to have it's loudest voices spewing absolute nonsense.
So, are you going to level these criticisms, or just vaguely allude to them?
Can you point to which specific argument qualifies as a straw man argument?
Criticizing a president for things he hasn't done is not the same thing, Bob. Go back and try again.
Don't you think it's kind of "apples to oranges" comparing 8(+) months with 8 YEARS?
Don't you think it's kind of early to compile a list of "sins of omission" ?
Bush DID do all the things Bob is saying. You have just proven to all of us how ridiculously uninformed you are. Stop watching faux news, they are lying to you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
