Being critical of Obama's policies is not the same as the viscous personal attacks that were leveled against Bush
True, because there has been no criticism of Obama's policies, but
only personal attacks.
HE'S A DIRTY SOCIALIST! (yeah, because SOCIALISM GIVES BIRTH TO EVIL DIRTY COMMUNISM doesn't it? oh hi
you and
you and
you you're not communists yet oops)
HE POW WOWS WITH TERRORISTS! (oh wait they served on a few commissions together back on the education board in Illinois and hardly know each other otherwise BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!)
HE'S NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SO HE CAN'T BE PRESIDENT! (oh wait he was born in Hawaii two years after Hawaii became a state and is thus legally a citizen)
HE'S A DIRTY MUSLIM WHO SYMPATHIZES WITH THE TERRORISTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST! (oh wait he was raised Baptist and his allegedly Muslim father was an atheist anyway)
HE'S AN IDIOT WHO HAS NO EXPERIENCE AND WILL THEREFORE LEAD OUR COUNTRY TO RUIN! (well except that he hasn't and his economic policy might actually help BUT WE'D LOOK LIKE IDIOTS IF THAT HAPPENED SO WE'RE JUST GONNA
PRETEND IT'S NOT HAPPENING)
HE'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY ALL OUR LIBERTIES! FREEDOM IS IN JEOPARDY! (oh wait isn't that what
this guy was all on about? oh and we did
this and
this and
this and a little bit of
this too BUT WE DID SO IT'S OK!)
Where's the constructive criticism? I see personal attacks.
I'll be in crowd yelling 'FOWL!" when he announces some new, proto-socialist policy or spending bill, the same way as I would be cheering if he were to do something I liked. The problem is he hasn't done anything I've like yet.
Given some of the things I've heard you say you believe in, I'm not surprised.
He and his cronies wail and moan about compromise and cooperation and a "new tone" in Washington, yet when they're opponents make good faith offers or alternative suggestions that are "not quite" as radical as what they want, they just smile the same smile you give to your dog when taking him to the vet for a flea bath. This is in contrast to most Republican programs under Bush where they went out of they're way to try and get the Dems on board. This leads me to the conclusion that the Dems definition of "cooperation" is actually "my way or the highway".
Oh for the love of...
Obama has gone out of his way to reach across the aisle since he started his presidency. It's not his fault the Republican Party is comprised of the remaining extreme neocons and the relics of the disastrous 1994 election that weren't voted out in the last two elections. That or moderate Republican Congressmen who are so terrified of the RNC or the Republican National Senatorial Committee
pulling their support if they, God forbid,
support the stimulus package. The Republicans have done nothing but
oppose any bipartisan advance made by Obama and then
cheered about it:The bill passed easily despite the opposition of all 177 Republican House members, but party leaders delighted in what they considered a victory after two straight electoral drubbings and much soul-searching about what the party stands for.
...
"House Republicans said we would stand up for American taxpayers at this time of economic hardship for our nation. And last night, standing together, that's exactly what we did," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) wrote yesterday in a memo to his colleagues that was released to reporters. "I am proud of our team."
It's not Obama's fault the Republican Party is run not by the RNC, its constituents, or even its Congressmen, but by fat loud bigoted and obnoxious radio and TV personalities from FOX News and EIB, who even the RNC Chairman
feels he needs to apologize to after
calling them for what they are. It's not Obama's fault the most promising GOP candidates for President in 2012 are an
obnoxious uneducated MILF or an
uncharismatic patronizing governor that makes up stories.
It's not Obama's fault the Republican Party is in complete shambles after fourteen years of a disastrous political policies under neoconservatism and has chosen this moment of economic disaster and toil to "reinvent themselves" and engage in partisan hackery rather than form a healthy relationship with
possibly the most popular newly-elected President since JFK and work towards stabilizing the country. No! It's all Obama's fault for not getting the bipartisan support in Washington he promised, even if the other side REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE WHEN REACHED OUT TO!
As long as we're on the topic, which "good faith offers" or "alternative suggestions" are you mentioning? Their
empty, or rather, practically nonexistent alternative for economic stimulus?Let’s be honest: Yesterday’s House Republican budget rollout was a P.R. disaster for the GOP. “Here it is, Mr. President” was the title of the GOP Leader blog touting that they had answered Obama’s dare to produce a budget. The problem -- their budget rollout didn’t contain any hard budget numbers or deficit projections. They say those hard numbers will come out next week. But now we learn that Reps. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan objected to unveiling yesterday’s “blueprint,” but were overruled by Reps. John Boehner and Mike Pence. But bigger than any internal disagreements or any criticism about a lack of details is the fact that yesterday’s GOP non-announcement moved the attention away from the Obama-vs.-congressional Democrat storyline to the GOP’s lack of a budget. In fact, after yesterday, the White House and congressional Democrats can agree on one thing: The GOP -- at least until next week -- is the “Party of No.” What's more, it puts more pressure on Ryan to truly put out a comprehensive budget alternative; Also, this episode could end up creating a rift in the GOP over how to combat the Obama White House. After all, Senate Republicans wanted nothing to do with an alternative, and now Mitch McConnell, et al are either laughing at their House GOP colleagues, furious at them, or both.
