The Bashing of a President Before He Even Takes Office

[Pythagorean]

Maybe this is the first election I've paid so much attention to, but is this not the first president to get bashed so much before he even made it into office?

Even with Bush it seems the bashing didn't come until after he proved his incompetence well into his presidency.

 

[turbo]

Maybe this is the first election I've paid so much attention to, but is this not the first president to get bashed so much before he even made it into office?

Even with Bush it seems the bashing didn't come until after he proved his incompetence well into his presidency.

Part of it is due to racism, part is due to the right's revulsion to moderate/liberal ideals, and part of it is due to the dog-in-the-manger attitude of the GOP who desperately want to de-legitimize Obama's victory in the eyes of the public. They lost the race for President, and they want to set Obama up as a fall-guy should he fail to correct the problems left by the Bush administration. There are a lot more facets, of course, but I see these as main themes.

 

[Pythagorean]

Part of it is due to racism, part is due to the right's revulsion to moderate/liberal ideals, and part of it is due to the dog-in-the-manger attitude of the GOP who desperately want to de-legitimize Obama's victory in the eyes of the public. They lost the race for President, and they want to set Obama up as a fall-guy should he fail to correct the problems left by the Bush administration. There are a lot more facets, of course, but I see these as main themes.

When you say GOP are you thinking of the campaigners and administration or the Joe Sixpack writing blogs? I tend to see a lot more of it from Joe Sixpack. The admin/campaigners seem to have shut up for now.

 

[turbo]

When you say GOP are you thinking of the campaigners and administration or the Joe Sixpack writing blogs? I tend to see a lot more of it from Joe Sixpack. The admin/campaigners seem to have shut up for now.

It's a lot more than Joe Sixpack, though. There's a nod, nod, wink, wink relationship with the right-wing their propaganda arm (headed up by Faux news and the Murdoch empire), and they are spinning stuff furiously.

 

[Evo]

The hard core religious right fear that a lot of the control they've gained over the past 8 years is lost now that Obama has been elected. They're not going to let that control go quietly.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's a lot more than Joe Sixpack, though. There's a nod, nod, wink, wink relationship with the right-wing their propaganda arm (headed up by Faux news and the Murdoch empire), and they are spinning stuff furiously.

Yeah, Fox has always been a good parallel universe fiction. O' Reily cracks me up. What's "Murdoch empire"?

edit: found him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

 

[Moonbear]

I don't see any more Obama bashing than anyone else elected. Actually, I see less. I see a lot more "Obama can do no wrong" type worshipping, far more so than I've EVER seen. Of course, when his worshippers cry foul and claim that anyone who is simply pointing out flaws in his plans or policies is "bashing" him, it may give the impression he's being bashed more. I'm not sure why there are so many more this time around who can't see that like every president that preceded him, he is still human and subject to human flaws and that for each good idea he has, there's still likely to be bad ones or bad implementation.

Actually, what you may be noticing more is that Obama is simply getting more attention overall in this interim between election and taking office. I'm having a hard time remembering so far back to when Clinton and earlier presidents were elected to recall if this used to be common. You have to keep in mind that for both of GW Bush's terms, we didn't know this soon that he was definitely president. There were so many disputed election results and close calls that the media focus was on the recounts and court battles, not the newly elected president.

He has also set himself up with some lofty campaign promises, and the ones made early in the campaign are not likely to be achievable now that the economy has come crashing down around him, so I'm sure we'll hear a lot about broken campaign promises too. Every president experiences that as well; people like to ignore that changing circumstances might change the relative importance of certain campaign promises in favor of whining that promises were broken.

Let's face it, it's a favorite past-time of US citizens to complain about their politicians.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't see any more Obama bashing than anyone else elected. Actually, I see less. I see a lot more "Obama can do no wrong" type worshipping, far more so than I've EVER seen. Of course, when his worshippers cry foul and claim that anyone who is simply pointing out flaws in his plans or policies is "bashing" him, it may give the impression he's being bashed more. I'm not sure why there are so many more this time around who can't see that like every president that preceded him, he is still human and subject to human flaws and that for each good idea he has, there's still likely to be bad ones or bad implementation.

Actually, what you may be noticing more is that Obama is simply getting more attention overall in this interim between election and taking office. I'm having a hard time remembering so far back to when Clinton and earlier presidents were elected to recall if this used to be common. You have to keep in mind that for both of GW Bush's terms, we didn't know this soon that he was definitely president. There were so many disputed election results and close calls that the media focus was on the recounts and court battles, not the newly elected president.

He has also set himself up with some lofty campaign promises, and the ones made early in the campaign are not likely to be achievable now that the economy has come crashing down around him, so I'm sure we'll hear a lot about broken campaign promises too. Every president experiences that as well; people like to ignore that changing circumstances might change the relative importance of certain campaign promises in favor of whining that promises were broken.

Let's face it, it's a favorite past-time of US citizens to complain about their politicians.

Well, first, my exposure is the internet. I don't watch much tv. I found that both left and the right are pretty bias lately on the networks.

I really haven't seen much Obama praising. I see a lot of banner ads on most sites I use, all against Obama (complete with unflattering shots).

Another explanation could be that there's a higher volume of political internet users this time around.

 

[turbo]

I don't see any more Obama bashing than anyone else elected.

Our local newspaper has pretended to be "fair and balanced" by alternating columns from creampuffs with no political chops (like Garrison Kieler) with strident right-wingers like Mona Charen and Kathleen Parker (who once wrote that Obama shouldn't be running for president because he didn't have "the bloodline").

 

[Moonbear]

I really haven't seen much Obama praising. I see a lot of banner ads on most sites I use, all against Obama (complete with unflattering shots).

Our local newspaper has pretended to be "fair and balanced" by alternating columns from creampuffs with no political chops (like Garrison Kieler) with strident right-wingers like Mona Charen and Kathleen Parker (who once wrote that Obama shouldn't be running for president because he didn't have "the bloodline").

Wow, I'm really not seeing anything like that. I visit a few political/news forums (so I don't have to worry about behaving myself as I do here ), and they're mostly still busy attacking Palin as if the election wasn't already over (those seem to be the sore winners who don't know what to do with themselves now that they've won and have nobody to pick on anymore ). There's a little bit of Obama bashing from the extreme right wing, but no more so than is typical, and it's still not as bad as people were at attacking Bush. There's a lot more praise of Obama and proudly announcing everything he's already doing.

I haven't seen it in the news at all. A lot of the news coverage has been incredibly non-critical of Obama. But, that could be that it's still the "honeymoon" period. Nobody even seems to be blinking at his cabinet choices as they are being announced, which is pretty much the big topic in the news. Since the vote in this state went to McCain, I would have expected to see more critical coverage of Obama than if I lived in a state more favorable to Obama's election. But we also don't have much of the rabid, religious right in this state. The population is more Democrat than Republican, but is overall pretty centrist. So, maybe I don't see as much as in the states that lean heavily to the extremes.

 

[turbo]

The most reasoned criticism I'm seeing of Obama is actually coming from progressives, who are concerned that he is recycling too many Clinton appointees and Washington insiders as he builds his administration.

Criticism from the right-wing columnists in the local papers often takes the form of:
Attribute a view to Obama (valid or not), extrapolate it to an extreme, claim that he is pursuing a radical agenda, and attack him for that. It's typical Rush Limbaugh "journalism" - construct a straw-man argument and use ad-hominem attacks to denigrate Obama's performance. I'm surprised that you're not getting "opinion" columns like this in your papers, Moonie. Maine is not a super-polarized state, but you wouldn't know it from reading the local papers.

By all signs so far, Obama is ahead of the curve in building his administration and should be able to hit the ground running. He has not waited for months to name people to top positions, nor has he named inexperienced friends to sensitive posts. He has also made himself available to the press and kept his process as open as possible, given the secrecy that must surround feeling-out, vetting, and defining roles for appointees. It is very important for the stability of US and world markets that Obama is making so many critical appointments (especially at commerce, etc) early and openly.

 

[Redbelly98]

I thought Bush was getting bashed plenty before taking office, but I mainly hang out with other Democrats and listen to NPR. Haven't seen much criticism of Obama, but I know for sure it is coming. You can count on extremists to bash away nonstop whenever the other side is in power, no matter what the president actually says or does.

 

[Moonbear]

The most reasoned criticism I'm seeing of Obama is actually coming from progressives, who are concerned that he is recycling too many Clinton appointees and Washington insiders as he builds his administration.

That would be a reasoned criticism, but I don't get any of that locally. They're just all happy he's trying to appoint Hillary.

I'm surprised that you're not getting "opinion" columns like this in your papers, Moonie. Maine is not a super-polarized state, but you wouldn't know it from reading the local papers.

Oh, do people actually read the opinion columns and letters to editor in the local papers? I don't. I gave that up probably a decade ago. I came to the conclusion that people who wrote letters to the editor were long on opinion and short on brains, so just skip that page. I rarely read the actual printed papers anyway. Not much of interest in local news, and I can get the national stories without wasting paper.

 

[turbo]

That would be a reasoned criticism, but I don't get any of that locally. They're just all happy he's trying to appoint Hillary.

According to Elizabeth Drew at the New York Review of Books, Obama is NOT trying to appoint Hillary. She and her staff claimed (falsely) that Obama offered her Sec of State, to box him in. His transition team was pretty upset. I'd been getting hints of this for some time, and the story appears to have legs.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1977001&postcount=50

Oh, do people actually read the opinion columns and letters to editor in the local papers? I don't. I gave that up probably a decade ago. I came to the conclusion that people who wrote letters to the editor were long on opinion and short on brains, so just skip that page. I rarely read the actual printed papers anyway. Not much of interest in local news, and I can get the national stories without wasting paper.

I read nationally-syndicated opinion columns in the newspaper because I want to keep in touch with what the rest of the country might be exposed to in the press. Unfortunately, the local rag chooses to run columns from the most moderate Democrats and the most extreme right-wing Republicans. Columns from thoughtful conservatives like Chris Buckley (and yes, I loved to read his dad's columns even when I didn't agree with him) never get printed. As a result the political opinion page of the paper alternates in character between
Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood and Carl Rove on meth.

I do have some interest in local news, including economic conditions, and the papers are a wonderful way to kindle fires in the wood stove. I sometimes wish that I didn't have to get a sports section to save that paper, but sports burns just as well as local and national news and classifieds.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The right-wing nuts have been bashing Obama, but lately, even the likes of Bay Buchanan and John McLaughlin [not to mention people like George Will, David Brooks, and even Chris Buckley], have been praising Obama for his cabinet appointments. So the Obama bashers are even right of the far right.

What's more, politicians in the past have been around long enough to have made plenty of enemies. What I think is unique about Obama's case is the completely unjustified outrage. He hasn't been around long enough to earn such contempt. It is clearly irrational. That's probably why the attacks have been a moving target. It's something different every day, but nothing sticks because its all nonsense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Something else, from my pov, is that the Obama-mania is not so much about Obama in that he walks on water and the like. The fervor results more from the importance of electing the best man for the job. The fervor is a latent manifestation of desperation in desperate times. Bush has taught us all just how bad a bad choice can be. But I do also think that Obama is the best candidate that I have ever seen. The legendary campaign that he ran serves as evidence that I am right about this, so I have high hopes.

He has also come out of the gate on a dead run. His choices so far have pleased many Republicans, as well as Democrats. The only people I hear crying are the extremists and ideologs - both, liberals, and neo-conservatives.

 

[Moonbear]

Something else, from my pov, is that the Obama-mania is not so much about Obama in that he walks on water and the like. The fervor results more from the importance of electing the best man for the job. The fervor is a latent manifestation of desperation in desperate times. Bush has taught us all just how bad a bad choice can be. But I do also think that Obama is the best candidate that I have ever seen. The legendary campaign that he ran serves as evidence that I am right about this, so I have high hopes.

The fervor is just that, fervor. It's not rational. There's nothing to base the fervor on. It's all just riding on Bush hatred rather than anything meritorious that Obama has actually done. He has no record to base any decision about him on.

It's unjustified outrage at this point, but also unjustified praise. Not knowing much about him works both ways. There's no reason to support or bash him yet, and thus it boggles my mind that he actually got elected based on a non-existent record. I guess people just are naive enough to believe that no record is better than one with flaws...even if it really just means the flaws haven't been found yet.

But the media doesn't even seem interested in asking questions about this. When I say they aren't being critical, I mean it in terms of critical thinking...asking questions, checking facts, ensuring that claims are backed up with evidence...I don't mean picking for bad things. They don't seem to be doing any of that. Whatever his campaign states, they parrot without question. I've never seen such unquestioning support for any political candidate before, and it's not a good thing, in my opinion.

But, on the upside, all the things I really had a problem with about his positions will be thwarted by the current economy. They just aren't feasible with the economic downturn and will need to be put off while he fixes that first. And, it sounds like he's at least realizing this, so maybe there's some hope.

 

[turbo]

But the media doesn't even seem interested in asking questions about this. When I say they aren't being critical, I mean it in terms of critical thinking...asking questions, checking facts, ensuring that claims are backed up with evidence...I don't mean picking for bad things. They don't seem to be doing any of that. Whatever his campaign states, they parrot without question. I've never seen such unquestioning support for any political candidate before, and it's not a good thing, in my opinion.

The media has stopped doing its job, and hasn't performed credibly in years. Instead of developing stories, they find it cheaper and easier to quote "sources" and parrot the things that they are told in press conferences. Investigative journalism is practically dead. Network "journalism" has degraded to the point at which the hosts of a "news" program invite mouthpieces of the opposing parties onto the show, and let them spout off without providing background nor context for their claims. I don't find it entertaining, and it sure is less-than-informative unless you are willing to spend a lot of time digging and fact-checking - something that the networks have apparently decided to stop doing.

 

[Pythagorean]

...thus it boggles my mind that he actually got elected based on a non-existent record. I guess people just are naive enough to believe that no record is better than one with flaws...even if it really just means the flaws haven't been found yet.

You really believe it's naivety? I think it's naive to think McCain would have been better just because he has a record. I guess I'm just saying that knife cuts both ways.

In the end though, we have to admit that naive people voted for both as did people that aren't naive. A lot of McCain supporters (to me) seemed like they just had a blind loyalty to the republican party (which has succumbed to the neo-con movement lately).

I'd actually be a republican if true republican values were in place. Instead, I have to be an independent because the republican party identity is confused and what most people think of as republican today I don't want to be associated with. I've never been much for democrats (but I voted democrat when George W ran and when McCain)

It's four years, though, a wink of the eye. I gave that four years to Obama because I'm interested in what he'll do. Intuitively, I trust he's the best choice for someone like me (a student of science) but I'll know for sure in four years.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

People see a very smart and uniquely talented person. I didn't need to know anything about Bush's record to know he was an idiot who would make a mess of things. Likewise, no record can speak to Obama's unique talents, his keen intellect, and his first-class temperment. Rarely do we see natural leaders with this mix of skills emerge in such a timely fashion. What's more, McCain was clearly not up to the task, hence the third-class campaign that he ran. For all of his experience, a Freshman from Illinois kicked his butt. Proof enough in its own right. Hussein Obama, the black man, the terrorists, the radical Muslim, the radical Black-Christian, had the odds heavily weighted against him. McCain had the advantage. He was the Maverick.

 

[turbo]

I'd actually be a republican if true republican values were in place. Instead, I have to be an independent because the republican party identity is confused and what most people think of as republican today I don't want to be associated with. I've never been much for democrats (but I voted democrat when George W ran and when McCain)

The Republicans have always claimed to be conservatives, but they have abandoned fiscal conservatism, and they have abandoned conservatism in foreign entanglements (among other things) and have sucked up to religious fundamentalists, all of which have peeled me off. I voted for Ronnie the first time around, believing his routine about shrinking government and taking government off our backs. In his first term, he grew government by over 25% and laid the "trickle-down" tax cuts on the backs of us working stiffs. Our government (both parties, let's be fair) have been hijacked by big business to the point that we voters get one chance every 4 years to pick the lesser of the evils.

 

[Pythagorean]

The Republicans have always claimed to be conservatives, but they have abandoned fiscal conservatism, and they have abandoned conservatism in foreign entanglements (among other things) and have sucked up to religious fundamentalists, all of which have peeled me off. I voted for Ronnie the first time around, believing his routine about shrinking government and taking government off our backs. In his first term, he grew government by over 25% and laid the "trickle-down" tax cuts on the backs of us working stiffs. Our government (both parties, let's be fair) have been hijacked by big business to the point that we voters get one chance every 4 years to pick the lesser of the evils.

yeah, pretty much. But then, as much as someone like Ron Paul as aligned with my ideals, I don't think his ideas are practical at all. We're kind of stuck with the "grand old farts" and "young whippersnappers". They own the media and as you implied, are in bed with some of the richest members of our country. In the end, it's those richest members that have the most clout.

Speaking of old farts and whippersnappers:

This year, I'm with the whippersnappers, let's make the leap! So long, old farts, you're not in the way anymooooooooorrrrrrrre... *crash*

 

[edward]

The right is outraged that they lost the election and it certainly shows locally.

There was an article in todays paper about the Russian military ship that docked in Venezuela,

Among the comments referring to Obama as if the incident were his fault:

"Pandering Prince"

"Ob-ba-ma-man"

"Nov. 4th will become the day many people figured out they voted for the wrong person. The chant O- BAM -A will become a curse rather than a phrase for HOPE.

The only hope is someone rules in favor of the law suit brought by those individuals who sees Obama for what he is...a liar and someone who was not born in this country"

All Democrats are hate mongers.

I grabbed those few from the first 12 of over 120 hate posts. And this was a slow day.

 

[Dale]

Even with Bush it seems the bashing didn't come until after he proved his incompetence well into his presidency.

Did you forget Florida?

 

[OmCheeto]

The fervor is just that, fervor. It's not rational. There's nothing to base the fervor on. It's all just riding on Bush hatred rather than anything meritorious that Obama has actually done. He has no record to base any decision about him on.

I thought I proved this wrong in the "https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=208900&highlight=vote+obama&page=4"" thread?

He does have a record.

On the other hand...

If he just sits on his hands for the next four years, he'll do much better than G.W.

imho

 

[Proton Soup]

The fervor is just that, fervor. It's not rational. There's nothing to base the fervor on. It's all just riding on Bush hatred rather than anything meritorious that Obama has actually done. He has no record to base any decision about him on.

It's unjustified outrage at this point, but also unjustified praise. Not knowing much about him works both ways. There's no reason to support or bash him yet, and thus it boggles my mind that he actually got elected based on a non-existent record. I guess people just are naive enough to believe that no record is better than one with flaws...even if it really just means the flaws haven't been found yet.

But the media doesn't even seem interested in asking questions about this. When I say they aren't being critical, I mean it in terms of critical thinking...asking questions, checking facts, ensuring that claims are backed up with evidence...I don't mean picking for bad things. They don't seem to be doing any of that. Whatever his campaign states, they parrot without question. I've never seen such unquestioning support for any political candidate before, and it's not a good thing, in my opinion.

But, on the upside, all the things I really had a problem with about his positions will be thwarted by the current economy. They just aren't feasible with the economic downturn and will need to be put off while he fixes that first. And, it sounds like he's at least realizing this, so maybe there's some hope.

honestly, i don't see how things can get much worse. i don't have membership in any party, and have only ever been a libertarian once, but this is the first time i have ever voted for a democrat. you know why? because the republicans have shown themselves to be completely incompetent under the current administration, and completely incompetent in picking a candidate to replace him.

let me repeat that for you in case it zipped past the first time. i have never voted for a democrat before Obama. it's not that Obama is so great (tho i hope he is), but the other option was so bad. possibly worse than Bush bad.

 

[Tsu]

It's unjustified outrage at this point, but also unjustified praise. Not knowing much about him works both ways. There's no reason to support or bash him yet, and thus it boggles my mind that he actually got elected based on a non-existent record. I guess people just are naive enough to believe that no record is better than one with flaws...even if it really just means the flaws haven't been found yet.

What completely boggles MY mind is that George Bush ran every business he ever owned into the ground before he ran for President and despite that, this country elected him TWICE! Yeah. They gave him two chances to do the same thing to his own country and he stepped right up to the plate and gave it his 'best' by taking it down farther that it's ever been. Unfortunately, we'll ALL be paying for his 'best' for - probably - the rest of our lives.

Moonbear. Why do you always call Obama supporters 'worshipers'? Considering your views on religion, it would indicate that you consider calling us 'worshipers' quite the slam. Would you like to be called a Bush or McCain 'worshiper'?? For someone who thinks Obama got elected based on a non-existant record, your diatribes against him would seem to be unfounded at best. Upon what do you base this venomous dislike?

 

[turbo]

I love my dad, and perhaps one of the most hurtful things he did to me as a kid was to refuse to admit a black keyboardist into our house in the 60's. I grew up listening to the Mills Brothers and the Ink Spots, so it's not as if I was being "contaminated" somehow.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Something else, from my pov, is that the Obama-mania is not so much about Obama in that he walks on water and the like. The fervor results more from the importance of electing the best man for the job. The fervor is a latent manifestation of desperation in desperate times. Bush has taught us all just how bad a bad choice can be. But I do also think that Obama is the best candidate that I have ever seen. The legendary campaign that he ran serves as evidence that I am right about this, so I have high hopes.

He has also come out of the gate on a dead run. His choices so far have pleased many Republicans, as well as Democrats. The only people I hear crying are the extremists and ideologs - both, liberals, and neo-conservatives.

This is more or less what I have seen/heard. The local radio hosts are mostly centrist and so won't disparage Obama without reason. Rush seems absolutely rabid over Obama though. He consistently refers to him as Obamassiah, messiah, the democrat messiah, ect. Always refers to him as a socialist and makes insinuations that he is worming his way into take over the country, apparently for his super secret elitist commie patrons or some such.
Among the rabble I hear all sorts of b****ing and moaning about him supposedly not being a real citizen, supposedly only being 5% black, and of course being a muslim and what not.
All this is boardering on the sort of attacks we saw on Bush, except that those attacks came after he had already been in office.

 

[jreelawg]

I voted for Obama, and I hope it turns out. But, we have to be honest here for a second, and realize that the guy has been selling a whole lot of hope that he won't be able to satisfy.

I wouldn't be too hopeful that he is any less corrupt than the clintons, and if you think that the economic virus infected us in the last eight years, guess again. Bush only spent a lot making it worse. If you thought he was the next Kennedy, think again. But then again, a Kennedy can't survive the white house, and if he hopes to live, he won't do anything to upset the shadows.

 

[Proton Soup]

there's a lot that is different this time. Obama is probably spending more time in the spotlight prior to the inauguration than any other president elect. and even though he came out right away and said to the world that he's not the president yet, he's already acting as though he is. and yes, he's got no real power, but he does have the bully pulpit. president bush staying in hiding from the press except to pardon turkeys only makes it more so.

so, there you go, they're bashing him because he is the president. situation normal is, well, normal.