Your Liberal Media

Via the Benenator, this unsurprising chart:

One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1. The assessments of the president in the media were substantially more negative than positive in every one of the 23 weeks studied. In no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the President positive in tone.

If the only thing you ever read was the comments section here, where a dozen or so disaffected loudmouths are constantly reminding us that Obama is the worst President ever and that everyone in the universe was an OBOT, this would be surprising to you. The reality, of course, is quite the opposite. This President has received a sustained drumbeat of criticism on blogs and in the media that is unlike anything I’ve seen. So, brave progressive truth tellers busy speaking truth to power because no one dare criticize the President, get over yourselves. If you paid attention to this weekend alone, where the President was flayed alive by some for sending 100 people to track down a murderous cult leader in an action authorized by Congress and begged for by HRW, this would be no shock.

The fact of the matter is that the outliers in the national conversation are the few people who say anything nice about Obama, not you highly principled misanthropes.

BTW- who will be the first to claim that JOHN COLE CAN NOT HANDLE DISSENT? My money is on Corner Stone.






196 replies
  1. 1
    Raven (formerly stuckinred) says:

    Fuck em.

  2. 2
    Tony J says:

    JOHN COLE CAN NOT HANDLE DISSENT!

    Money please. Gold if you have it.

  3. 3
    Corner Stone says:

    Sounds like you and burnspbesq need to seek out a personal life coach, or motivational speaker.
    You both don’t seem to be handling the stresses of life very well lately.

  4. 4
    Joel says:

    I’d like to see a comparison to past incumbent presidents, although the graph does not surprise me.

  5. 5
    Lysana says:

    It’s darkly comforting to see my suspicions confirmed with statistics. I’m not crazy; they really are out to get him.

  6. 6
    BGinCHI says:

    I’d like to see that chart with all the Murdoch news outlets taken out.

    ETA: I don’t mean it would flip around. I’m just curious how much, by comparison, the Murdoch Empire skews these numbers.

  7. 7

    Tony J – October 17, 2011 | 5:29 pm
    __
    JOHN COLE CAN NOT HANDLE DISSENT!
    __
    Money please. Gold if you have it.

    Corner Stone – October 17, 2011 | 5:30 pm
    __
    Sounds like you and burnspbesq need to seek out a personal life coach, or motivational speaker.
    You both don’t seem to be handling the stresses of life very well lately.

    Hilarious.

  8. 8
    Kola Noscopy says:

    The fact of the matter is that the outliers in the national conversation are the few people who say anything nice about Obama, not you highly principled misanthropes.

    John “the best person in the world is my dog, get off my lawn” Cole calling others “misanthropes.”

    That’s rich. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

  9. 9
    Dave says:

    Is this post abjectly retarded, or what? How is “progressive criticism” anything remotely like “negative coverage in the media”?

    LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE ORANGES, THERE ARE SO MANY ORANGES, WE HAVE NO NEED OF APPLES, THANK YOU.

  10. 10
    Xboxershorts says:

    @Lysana:

    It’s darkly comforting to see my suspicions confirmed with statistics. I’m not crazy; they really are out to get him.

    I’m convinced that if we somehow managed to elect someon even more progressive than Obama, say, Russ Feingold, the “out to get him” factor would be even more profound

  11. 11
    Brachiator says:

    Great chart. I am amazed that some of these clowns, especially somebody like Santorum, could get more positive press than Obama.

  12. 12
    Shinobi says:

    Hey Gingrich is still getting more NEGATIVE stuff. Obama just has less positive stuff.

    When you’re in the same bracket as Newt, you’ve got problems.

  13. 13
    schrodinger's cat says:

    I think I asked this question earlier, but did Clinton get this treatment before the Lewinsky scandal? I didn’t follow politics very closely back then. I remember how deferential the media was to Bush, right up until Katrina. The media certainly doesn’t like Obama much, my theory is because he is smarter than them.

  14. 14
    Strandedvandal says:

    @Dave:

    Is this post abjectly retarded, or what?

    Yes, yes it is.

    Oh, wait, you mean Cole’s post.

    Nope.

  15. 15
    Kola Noscopy says:

    This President has received a sustained drumbeat of criticism on blogs and in the media that is unlike anything I’ve seen.

    Call the Obot Whaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance!

    Gosh, do you think that criticism might have anything at all to do with his…performance in office? It’s not like he didn’t come into office with a huge groundswell of progressive support and optimism and then piss all over it or anything.

    Oh that’s right: I just remembered, it’s because he’s BLACK and anyone who feels he is a turncoat or bumbler is a RACIST.

    Nice troll post, by the way. I’m guessing 300+.

  16. 16
    PeakVT says:

    On one level it doesn’t surprise me that the President gets the worst coverage: he’s in charge, and there are lots of specific policies initiatives that can be criticized. And justified or not, the state of the economy is always attributed to the President.

    But that doesn’t excuse the media’s fluffing of others. I mean, 32% positive coverage for Perry? Texas is a mess and prayer is no answer to long-term water problems. And how does Gingrich even get to 15%?

  17. 17
    BGinCHI says:

    OT, but if there is anything more fucked up and funny than this, I’m all ears.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....?ref=fpblg

  18. 18
    David M says:

    @Kola Noscopy: Wow, it’s like the House and Senate don’t even exist.

  19. 19
    FormerSwingVoter says:

    @Kola Noscopy:

    Gosh, do you think that criticism might have anything at all to do with his…performance in office?

    This would be a bit more convincing if Bush hadn’t been given a free pass for his first six years in office. Democrats eat their own. Republicans hold together, then wonder how it is they got so screwed in the end.

  20. 20
    Shade Tail says:

    By the way, just in case there are any Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferers holding out on this, the President’s action against the LRA is quite explicitly authorized by Congress, and has been since 2010.

  21. 21
    Jesse says:

    @Kola Noscopy: That “piss all over” is (how do I say this) a subjective phenomenon.

    I’ve seen substantive criticism of Obama, based on facts and reason. But I’ve rarely seen it on BJ and never from you.

  22. 22
  23. 23
    EconWatcher says:

    OT, but good lord that new MLK memorial is horrible. Looks like something you’d see for the Dear Leader in North Korea. The man with the dream deserves better.

  24. 24
    Kola Noscopy says:

    @FormerSwingVoter:

    Democrats eat their own.

    Many of us feel that Obama has, by his post election actions and lack thereof taken as a whole, most clearly shown himself to NOT be one of our own.

    The Nazi party held together too. Is that a good thing?

  25. 25
    taylormattd says:

    @Kola Noscopy:

    It’s not like he didn’t come into office with a huge groundswell of progressive support and optimism and then piss all over it or anything.

    Gotta love firebagger zombie narratives.

  26. 26
    r€nato says:

    what PeakVT said. There is something fundamentally different about coverage of Obama vs. coverage of the candidates. Obama is the president, and he has to actually do things which can be criticized, rather than the rest of the lot who can promise free beer fountains and vagina trees all day long, and pundits can debate endlessly about the merits of such proposals without the reality of enacting such proposals ever crashing in.

    Add in the fact that shit is fucked up and bullshit, and it’s really not a terribly surprising state of affairs.

  27. 27
    r€nato says:

    I thought that too. It’s rather Stalin-esque.

  28. 28
    taylormattd says:

    @Kola Noscopy:

    The Nazi party held together too. Is that a good thing?

    Holy fuck, you are crazier than most of the wingnutty firebaggers. Godwin violation as it relates to democrats, and it’s only comment 24.

  29. 29
    Woodrowfan says:

    JOHN DISSENT CAN’T COLE HANDLERS!

    I mean, um, never mind. (damn it, I knew I’d choke.)

  30. 30
    Satanicpanic says:

    @Shinobi: When you’re a fish in the same barrel as Newt, you’ve got problems

  31. 31
    Malraux says:

    Shrodingers cat: prior to lewinsky there was whitewater. And the clinton murder list. Lewinsky was the end result of the scandal not the start. The start of the scandal was investigating a land deal that the Clintons lost money on.

  32. 32
    Emma Anne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Yes, Clinton was hounded by the press from the moment he looked like a serious candidate all the way through. It was fake scandal after fake scandal until they finally found something he actually did (canoodling with an intern).

    My father in law was a real Clinton hater, so he regaled me with everything the WSJ had to offer on the matter. First he held up planes by getting a haircut at the airport, and then he fired someone in the travel office and then Hillary made money on an investment one time, and also he and Hillary lost money in a partnership another time. There were questions raised over a staffer who committed suicide. Rumors that Clinton was a drug dealer. And I know I am not remembering even a tenth of the outrage.

    At the time, people speculated it was because he was such poor white trash that TPTB couldn’t get comfortable with him. Now I just think it is because he was a Democrat.

  33. 33
    slag says:

    Wow. Perry and Palin almost tied for first. And then Bachmann. Clearly this situation is just a reflection of what stellar leaders and all-around human beings those three are.

  34. 34
    taylormattd says:

    @Malraux: Exactly. And btw, this started during Clinton’s campaign in 1991. It ended up being a jihad carried out by “liberals” at the New York Times and the Washington Post in 1993, 1994 and onward.

  35. 35
    lamh34 says:

    @EconWatcher: have you seen it in person?

    Everyone I know who has seen it up close have an entirely different reaction.

    Oh, and I think it’s funny that anyone actually cares about the memorial anyway, particularly since only a few “major” non-African American blogs even deemed the dedication of the memorial important enough actually warrant a post about it.

    But I digress, as I said the people I know who’ve actually seen it like it.

  36. 36
    maya says:

    Well, I can understand the librul media’s disenchantment with Obama: Given the lousy job market with a surplus of unskilled labor applicants, since just before he took office, that lazy, shiftless, you-know-what should have cleaned up all the Bush vomit and diarea stains on the White House carpet long before now. Instead, what does he do? Goes on 200 million taxpayer dollars a day exotic trips to foreign places. And, and, all those cigarette breaks. Probably Camels.

  37. 37
    Keith G says:

    One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all: Barack Obama.

    I think that this is beyond being horribly sucky. I hope it can somehow be changed.

    That said, Obama is leading the USA during a time of vast economic uncertainty. This is the expected treatment. This is what we do to our leaders. If the GOP is able to buy some sanity and nominate Romney or (especially) Huntsman, we will get to see what type of game Obama really has.

  38. 38
    Satanicpanic says:

    @Satanicpanic: Wait, that doesn’t mean what I thought it meant. Please disregard my lame attempt at snark.

  39. 39
    Kola Noscopy says:

    @taylormattd:

    Godwin violation as it relates to democrats, and it’s only comment 24.

    Idiot. I refer to the Republicans. Plus, the Godwin rule is stupid.

  40. 40
    Mike in NC says:

    Things will only get worse with the corporate media over the next 12 months.

  41. 41
    Jay B. says:

    Your rant here is completely unconnected to reality, John.

    Not one of the loudmouths here thinks everyone in the universe is an Obot, mostly just you and your choir. And few of us think “Obama is the worst president evah!!11!!” either, I’d say exactly none, actually. I’d say the responses range from “mediocre sell out” to “astonishingly inept”, with a few obvious examples where he’s almost literally the same as Bush (but not ALL the time about everything!).

    It’s also possible that the media failure is unconnected to the President’s failures. That both, in fact, can be failures to different degrees over different things. They also tend to be inept over the same things — both fretted incessantly over the deficit, say, while unemployment stayed at 9+% for 18 months. Or sharing the same stupid fealty to the fetish of bipartisanism, to no apparent end, other than tone-deaf ignorance over what really matters to voters.

    But you’ll get your hits here anyway. Even if it has no actual point.

  42. 42
    slag says:

    @r€nato:

    Obama is the president, and he has to actually do things which can be criticized, rather than the rest of the lot who can promise free beer fountains and vagina trees all day long, and pundits can debate endlessly about the merits of such proposals without the reality of enacting such proposals ever crashing in.

    Ummm…you do realize that two of the top three are currently holding public office. It’s not like they don’t have responsibilities to the public now. And the other one just lost an election less than two years ago.

  43. 43
    Tony J says:

    In all seriousness though, this won’t touch the Wingnut Hivemind. Just yesterday I was lurking on the ‘current politics’ offshoot board of a Yahoo site for one of my favourite wingnut authors and reading the very, very Teabaggery community’s views on OWS. Post after post after post where these ‘smart, realist conservatives’ all gravely shook their heads at the blatant Liberal bias being shown in the MSM’s coverage of the protests. This, of course, in shocking (not really) contrast to the instant savaging the poor old Tea Party received as soon as it emerged from its grassy root.

    Yes, they genuinely seem to think that 2009/10 was a period of unrelenting MSM hostility towards the Tea Party, and that the current MSM coverage of OWS is somehow positive. Looking at the links they provide while engaged in their circle-jerk it’s pretty obvious that they don’t actually see any of this coverage for themselves, they just rely on the likes of Free Republic, Redstate, etc, to – tell – them what the MSM is doing, so they can bitch about how unfair it is.

    If any of them did see the chart you have up there, I’m pretty sure they’d head off to their trusted sources of opinion and come back sneering that “It all depends on what the Liberal Media means by ‘neutral’.”

    27% of your countrymen are dedicated cocknockers. It’s sad, but at least it’s an ethos.

  44. 44
    John O says:

    @BGinCHI:

    Thanks for that one, BG. Still laughing. Is it just me or do all fanatics of any stripe look vaguely similar, at least in their mug shots?

    And the names!

  45. 45
    Nikki says:

    @Keith G: Are you kidding me? The man has already proven he’s got game. Despite the relentless media bashing, people are still standing behind him and believe in him enough that he has already out-raised the entire GOP field in campaign donations.

  46. 46
    BGinCHI says:

    @Kola Noscopy:

    Plus, the Godwin rule is stupid.

    You know what’s also stupid? Gravity.

    And the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Totally fucking stupid.

  47. 47
    EconWatcher says:

    @lamh34:

    I am going by the pictures. I work in the region, so I’ll check it out in person soon. Hope your friends are right.

    In my opinion, the WW II memorial is also a hot mess and an embarrassment. (What, exactly, were they trying to do? It looks like they had competing designs and decided, what the heck, let’s just combine them).

    Vietnam and Korea monuments, on the other hand, are excellent.

  48. 48
    handy says:

    But this is kind of what I would expect. The GOP primary season is torquing up, which generates more interest among the base for politics generally, and the candidates in particular. On the other side you have an incumbent president and 3 years of economic gloom, who hasn’t even really started campaigning yet.

  49. 49
    John O says:

    I’ll never get what magic wand the Obama detractors wanted him to wave to get all of his progressive goals accomplished.

  50. 50
    BGinCHI says:

    @John O: It’s like Reverse Evolution.

    Darwin would be stumped by the Mullets.

  51. 51
    West of the Cascades says:

    I look at that chart, and besides agreeing with Cole I wonder “how the hell does Gingrich get 15% favorable coverage”?

  52. 52
    ABL says:

    @Jay B.: So you’re unfamiliar with snark and sarcasm, then.

    Got it.

  53. 53
    WereBear says:

    I also thought the MLK memorial had a “stone Stalin” look to it, but scout around for some wide shoots and you see how conceptual it is, and how his statue fits into it.

  54. 54
    Tony J says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Hilarious.

    It’s true then, every second really does count.

  55. 55
    JPL says:

    The amazing repub machine painted the media as liberal starting decades ago and since then the media wants to prove them wrong.
    The other thing repubs did was talk about political correctness. That threw common decency out the window.

  56. 56
    slightly-peeved says:

    @49: it’s the magical president wand, the one that gives him the power to pass legislation (as opposed to proposing legislation which the House and Senate can and have ignored). Only those who can draw the magical president wand from the bully pulpit truly deserve to be president.

  57. 57
    Boston Boomer says:

    Think the media is making up for the lopsided coverage of the 2008 primaries- As we all remember, Hillary Clinton got destroyed and Obama was lionized. The media has now been disabused of the myth that Obama was “the one” and no more thrills are going up their legs. They’re realizing that the pathetic meme that “experience isn’t important” was naive at best and certainly stupid. They got this guy and his lack of resume elected and now they’re trying to make up for it by finally vetting him. Shame on them.

  58. 58
    handy says:

    @JPL:

    I think when Obama starts campaigning in earnest, and the Repubs choose their guy Romney, those poll numbers will change.

  59. 59
    ABL says:

    @taylormattd: funny how you can predict the comment without even reading the post.

    did it whinge “whyfor everyone says all criticism of obama is racist?” i bet it did. no firebagger shell script is complete without it.

  60. 60
    kindness says:

    Might I suggest that we be able to nominate and crown the disaffected loudmouth King of the Thread title? Since we are such humble egalitarians here, let us also consider that there will be times that crown will be shared. When that happens, Thunderdome time! (what? Showing my age? OK) Cage Match time. (better you whippersnappers?)

  61. 61
    Amir Khalid says:

    @slightly-peeved:
    This magical Presidential wand, the one wielded by Obama, is it by any chance made of elder wood?

  62. 62
    Morzer says:

    @West of the Cascades:

    It’s the Tiffany’s Manwhore demographic. Favorable mentions of Newt on Zombie Politicians Do The Shopping Channel and Celebrity Bling Adulterers go a long way these days.

  63. 63
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    All I am going to say is GW Bush would have got his agenda threw a Republican controlled House and passed a GoP filibuster in the Senate by now, yet Obama can’t.

    Obama, worse than Bush. Internets FACT Obamabots.

  64. 64
    The Spy Who Loved Me says:

    @EconWatcher:

    Embarrassingly enough, it was made in China. Hope no one tells the Senate.

  65. 65
    mk3872 says:

    Isn’t this the result of every site highlighting every negative comment that spews from anyone’s mouth about the prez?

    Say something bad about Obama and you are guaranteed a top spot on HuffPo and Politico.

  66. 66
    lahru says:

    I’m a Democrat, and as such I don’t have any pearls to clutch and I am wondering if anyone has a set I could borrow.

    The race for the White House is comprised of one guy driving a lightweight car fueled by jet fuel and a bunch of people driving a 4 cylinder school bus.

    And the republic party nominee will try and win the race with the same 99 HP schoolbus.

  67. 67
    Mnemosyne says:

    @mk3872:

    Say something bad about Obama and you are guaranteed a top spot on HuffPo and Politico.

    Ding ding ding. One wonders if the Obama haters on the left are unaware that they’re being used by the MSM to construct the “everybody hates Obama!” narrative that the Republicans used for 2010 and will use for 2012 or if they just don’t care.

  68. 68
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques: It’s almost as if there are big differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, also, too: Social Security privatization.

  69. 69
    wobblybits says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques: “threw”? I think you mean “through” or something. I dunno.

  70. 70
    Tom Q says:

    The sentence that jumped out at me: coverage of Obama was dominantly negative even during the week bin Laden was killed. This to me wipes away all the “well, the economy sucks and he’s in charge” rationalization. The economy was poor throughout most of Bush I’s term, but I guarantee you, the week the Gulf war ended, his coverage was not net-negative.

  71. 71
    geg6 says:

    Amir Khalid @60:

    Heh. As long as it has a unicorn hair core. And that’s how we get our UNICORNS!

  72. 72
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Amir Khalid:
    Not being familiar with the H. Potter canon, I looked this up to see if it was a double entendre or not.
    Sambucus nigra (Black Elder), perhaps?

  73. 73
    taylormattd says:

    @ABL: A, to the men.

  74. 74
    John O says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    911, dude. Changed everything, and the spineless and slightly but significantly more principled Dems refused to abuse the filibuster. Hope they’ve learned their lesson and man up in 2013.

  75. 75
    taylormattd says:

    @Boston Boomer: OMG, one of Alegre’s PUMA kossack refugees shows up. Jesus Christ, are you really saying the same insane shit you were vomiting all over Daily Kos back in 2007 and 2008?

    Get a fucking life already. Hillary moved on and became Secretary of State. Take a clue from her.

  76. 76
  77. 77
    Keith G says:

    @Nikki: Oh Nikki, Nikki, Nikki. Why so sensitive? I never said he doesn’t have game. I was saying that given the obstacles in his path, we will see just how good the President is (if the GOP is able to avoid an “own goal”)

  78. 78
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    I award you the internets for the day. Well done, sir or madam.

  79. 79
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @taylormattd: Alegre! There’s a blast from the past. The rumors about the Hillary/Biden swap seems to have stirred up a little PUMA boomlet.

  80. 80
    Irving says:

    Hate to break the mood, but this has absolutely nothing to do with politics. The media’s going to talk down Obama and talk up his opponent in the name of a good horse race – they have to make it sound like a nail-biter even if it isn’t. It’s that same irritating let’s-you-and-him-fight mentality the “impartial” press always takes.

  81. 81
    taylormattd says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Oh, is that it? What’s wrong with Biden?

  82. 82
    Mnemosyne says:

    @harlana:

    Happy dance!

    Though I’m sure the haters will whine that having soldiers guard the US embassy in Bagdhad just like they guard every other US embassy in the world is “proof” that we’re never leaving.

  83. 83
    harlana says:

    ruh-roh, Grover doesn’t like 999. Cain is toast.

  84. 84
    The Populist says:

    John, Corner Stone has proven nothing except that he/she/it is a loudmouth who can’t back up a position.

    Trolls are annoying but they exist. Why not just say that this particular troll is another clueless buffoon with no idea how to debate a point and move on?

  85. 85
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Mnemosyne: I looked at the FDL main page yesterday just to see if Tbogg was being un-personed, and caught D-Day’s “he’s doing the right thing for the wrong reasons” post.

    @taylormattd: the idea is that Hillary will re-ignite “the base”. I think Carville polished off a bottle of Jim Beam and drunk-dialed Mike Allen.

  86. 86
    The Populist says:

    Oh yes, I am also convinced Corner Stone has other aliases on this site.

  87. 87
    Keith G says:

    @mk3872:

    Say something bad about Obama and you are guaranteed a top spot on HuffPo and Politico.

    If true, that would be an interesting observation leading to a question of why.

    Everything they do is about page views. Might they feel that there is more profit is “knocking” Obama than not? If indeed an “anti” story generates more views that others, why would that be?

  88. 88
    TenguPhule says:

    The race for the White House is comprised of one guy driving a lightweight car fueled by jet fuel and a bunch of people driving a 4 cylinder school bus *with* *a* *bomb* *attached*.

    What is the difference between the GOP nominees and a car bomb driver?

  89. 89
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Bill Arnold:
    Very good, sir! This particular ancient wand, though, one of the Deathly Hallows, is reputed in wizarding lore to render its master unbeatable in battle. Voldemort steals it from Dumbledore’s tomb to assure victory over Harry.

  90. 90
    Catsy says:

    @Kola Noscopy:
    @BGinCHI:

    Neither y’all seem to understand what Godwin’s Law actually means.

    Hint: it’s not the sort of “law” that you can “violate”. It’s an expression of probability, not proscription.

  91. 91
    The Populist says:

    @Jay B.: What choir are you referring to? The ones over at Red State or any other rightie site where the minute you trash their sacred cows, you are ostricized?

    Sorry bud, you can disagree on this blog and still be allowed to come back. The majority of the posters are some of the most intelligent I’ve read on the net.

    Kindly get a clue, thanks.

  92. 92
    Emma says:

    @Mnemosyne: I vote for “don’t care.” They want their ponies, they want them now by golly, and if the President doesn’t deliver they will stomp all over him. Then, as soon as the Republican is elected, they go back to their usual whingeing mode.

  93. 93
    The Populist says:

    @ABL: LOL, apparently so. Funny how people come here and make such ridiculous comments.

    I’ll take BJ over most any site for commentary. This place beats Huffington, beats any of the rightie ditto sites AND it is better than a lot of hard left sites that also tend to ostricize anybody who dares question something.

    I make fun of the trolls here because it’s funny. Outside of that, I lurk more than I post and I enjoy many of the observations posted by the majority of the regs here.

  94. 94
    harlana says:

    @Mnemosyne: Finally, thank God! :)

    (I finally got my “pony,” I think)

  95. 95
    JenJen says:

    @Boston Boomer: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Good one.

  96. 96
    Corner Stone says:

    @The Populist:

    Oh yes, I am also convinced Corner Stone has other aliases on this site.

    And I’m convinced you’re the pure synthesis of clueless douche.
    One of us is right.

  97. 97

    The MSM seem to take every opportunity to twist something into a sign that Obama is going to hell in a handbasket. It seems that everyone hates him but the people of the US.

    Now as to honest criticism: The economy is a mess. I fully understand some of the bitching about that. And Obama’s devotion to bipartisan efforts has been a source of embarrassment. And he is more of a hawk than I am.

    And what about the MSM? Knit one, purl two.

  98. 98
    cinesimon says:

    @ The Populist – you’re right about the multiple aliases – given s/he has accused myself and many others of doing so quite a lot, and his/her behavior is very similar to the average teabagger troll – and as with so many fantasist trolls with a righteous chip on their shoulder; their accusations are more than likely a projection of their own behavior.

    On another note: I think Mr. Cole is giving the guys far too much credit. They’re a minority, their attitudes toward the necessity of people with different cultural and political backgrounds working together to solve society’s problems – a major necessity in a democracy – are no different from the average right wing fanatic.
    Their solutions are never going to be a part of sane problem solving. And their behavior here has done nothing but poison reasoned debate and turn it into a reflection of the current liberal/fascist abuse-a-thon. Even if we’re pointing at laughing at these people, we’re still giving them visibility beyond what they deserve at such a great place as this.
    Of course it’s one thing to laugh at them in the comments – but to give them credit for being fuckwits on the front page? Surely that’s giving them the martyr status they seem to think they need?
    Yes John, I’m telling you how to run your blog.
    Really truly!

    I now stand aside.

  99. 99
    NR says:

    @slightly-peeved: Oh look, it’s the “The president is completely powerless with no ability to influence or pressure Congress” argument. I’m surprised this one took as long as it did to show up, frankly.

    All we need now is a mention of Nader and this thread will be complete.

  100. 100
    John S. says:

    Oh look, it’s the “The president is completely powerless with no ability to influence or pressure Congress” argument.

    Fucking American government, how does it work? Jackass.

  101. 101
    Not All Criticism is the Same says:

    I think you have to distinguish between overall negativity – much of it baseless and coming from Fox News – and criticism from the left which has a basis and which democrats who have an interest in seeing Obama re-elected have not sufficiently addressed. You obviously read Greenwald, so you know what those criticisms are, and I haven’t seen them really addressed here. Maybe you don’t care that he’s assassinating American citizens without due process or that he’s escalating the war on drugs with all of its horrific consequences, among so many other things, so you’re thrilled with the job he’s done. But as someone who volunteered and gave money to him the first time, I’m deeply disappointed in his performance and am seriously considering staying home next November. I honestly don’t know if it would be any worse for soulless suck-up like Romney to be president and the left going crazy at his abuses than Obama getting another four years to prosecute the war on terror and you people cheerleading him no matter how badly he shreds the Constitution.

  102. 102
    cinesimon says:

    NR, the cliches and unrealistic expectations are coming from you.
    The president is not a dictator. If his orders are de-funded by both republicans and Democrats, which is what happened with Gitmo, what would you suggest he do, mister expert?
    If he faces substantial blocking, which he has on unprecedented levels, how can any serious person with a grasp of reality actually blame him?

    Do you want him to declare war on congress? Have them all arrested?

    For the life of me, it blows my mind how childish and black & white ‘thinking’ some of you people are – as with most right wingers of today, it’s as if they simply don’t understand the American system of governance, and they really don’t care – you’re right, we’re wrong and that’s all that matters, reality be damned.

  103. 103
    David M says:

    @NR: What’s your point? Did I miss the part where Obama has been vetoing progressive legislation?

  104. 104
    srv says:

    Well, Obama is President. The others, not so much.

    Obama got a much better pass in tone during his first 100 days than Bush did:

    http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/tone

    I suspect if you could find a study of the tone of Bush in 2008 compared to Obama 2011, you might just discover your visions of inconsistency are not so much.

    It’s the economy stupid.

  105. 105
    mcmullje says:

    I just saw the MLK monument at night and thought it was beautiful. The background is the Mountain of Despair with a piece missing and in the foreground is the piece that’s missing with MLK standing strong. That piece is the Stone of Hope. I’m not black, but I can just imagine how visceral that vision is for someone who is.

    It should be for all of us.

  106. 106
    Anya says:

    @Kola Noscopy: You know, people who always anticipate accusations of racism, or be-little racism, tend to have some issues with, you know, racism. But do not despair, people do get better and change, look at Robert Bird. You just need a lot of self reflection and awareness.

  107. 107
    NR says:

    @cinesimon: Nice rhetoric. Unfortunately, it doesn’t match up with reality.

    The simple fact is that the White House gets most of the bills passed that it really wants to pass. Saying that their hands are tied by Congress because they don’t have the votes for progressive bills simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts on the ground.

    When it came time to block drug importations from Canada as part of their backroom deal with Big Pharma, they went out and got the votes. When it came time to extend tax breaks for the rich in exchange for a pittance for the unemployed, they went out and got the votes. When it came time to shield banksters and kill real financial reform, they went out and got the votes.

    There are far too many examples out there that prove what a ridiculous lie that “The White House can’t do anything because Congress keeps blocking them!” is for anyone to give it any credence at this point. It’s just pathetic to see it trotted out over and over and over again.

  108. 108
    Bob Westal says:

    To paraphrase our president, it’s not criticism of Obama I have a problem with, it’s stupid criticism of Obama.

    In other words, if you’re criticism of Obama is as predictable as a Neocon’s support of every possible war conceivable, if nothing he’s ever done has ever pleased even for a second, then it might be a time for a look in the mirror.

    On the other hand, if you’ve been a manic depressive like some of us…well, at least you can’t be accused of setting your brain on auto pilot, the way a lot of people seem to have.

    And by the way, it’s not like Mr. Cole hasn’t been a bit harsh himself at times — and he doesn’t hate Glenn Greenwald. (I’m to Cole’s left and I can’t read his stuff anymore.) In other words, he might be more conservative than some of us, but he is not a true-blue Obot.

  109. 109
    cinesimon says:

    NR – see you just gave is a classic example of your black and white thinking.
    Because the White House manages to do some things, that MUST mean, it can do anything it wants!
    Which is complete and obvious bullshit.
    And your claim that we think that “The White House can’t do anything because Congress keeps blocking them!” is nothing more than a see-through a lie.
    Sorry kiddo, but that kind of concrete, non-reality defined nonsense is made up by you and people who think like you. Because you think the White House really can do absolutely anything it wants, regardless of the other branches of government, then if we disagree, in your twisted world, we must therefore think that they can do nothing.
    Oh, if only life were as simple as you are pretending it is. Things really would be so much easier!

    Once again, I cannot help but think the logic used in your arguments is very childish. You’re arguing against an idea that you and people who think like you have MADE UP.
    This is why you are no different than today’s average right winger. They also make things up that we believe so they can pretend they’re making an effective argument.
    They, too, are extremely easy to see through.

    If you want to discover what we actually think, how about you actually read what we’re saying some time. Your straw man argument ought to be embarrassing.

  110. 110
    David M says:

    @NR: Is this serious? An actual argument that Obama is getting everything passed he wants? That’s got the be the stupidest thing I’ve read since that comment thread the other day at FDL.

  111. 111
    OzoneR says:

    @Kola Noscopy:

    The Nazi party held together too. Is that a good thing?

    For the Nazis, it was a great thing.

  112. 112
    OzoneR says:

    @NR:

    Saying that their hands are tied by Congress because they don’t have the votes for progressive bills simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts on the ground.

    Yeah, he really didn’t want to get that jobs bill passed. It was all a ruse.

  113. 113
    OzoneR says:

    @NR: :

    Oh look, it’s the “The president is completely powerless with no ability to influence or pressure Congress” argument. I’m surprised this one took as long as it did to show up, frankly.

    Me too, considering HOW FUCKING OBVIOUS IT IS.

  114. 114
    arguingwithsignposts says:

    @OzoneR:

    For the Nazis, it was a great thing.

    For a while.

    And then, the world found out. (Link to the Atlantic’s photo blog essay on WWII Holocaust – graphic imagery)

  115. 115
    cinesimon says:

    Yeah OzoneR – isn’t that a bizarre comment!
    Yeah, Obama really is a dictator – votes for passing bills, getting funding, and to actually get debate on legislation started – all that stuff means nothing!
    If he REALLY wanted a jobs bill, he’d have done it by now!

    Just too bizarre.

  116. 116
    Mnemosyne says:

    @David M:

    You’ve forgotten the unspoken part of the argument: if anything didn’t pass that Obama publicly supported, that’s automatically proof that he didn’t really support it and probably even worked against it behind the scenes. See also Greenwald’s argument that since the public option was dropped from the final PPACA bill, that’s proof positive that Obama lied throughout his campaign about wanting it in the first place and only allowed it to be in one version the bill so he could kill it.

  117. 117
    NobodySpecial says:

    I predict this post will go….6d8+36 hit points, according to Third Edition rules.

  118. 118
    BGinCHI says:

    @Catsy: Gosh, thanks for the condescending explanation. I know perfectly well what it means and how it’s used.

    I was snarking Mr. “I don’t like the law so it doesn’t apply to me.”

  119. 119
    David M says:

    @Mnemosyne: Don’t get me wrong, there’s stuff I wish Obama would do differently, but put the blame where it belongs. The GOP that is obstructing anything and everything and the spineless Dems in Congress that won’t consistently vote with their party.

    DADT is a good example too, someone just the other day was pissed off Obama hadn’t ended it sooner by executive order. For what purpose, so the next GOP president could reinstate it?

  120. 120
    slightly-peeved says:

    Obama publicly lobbied to not extend the tax cuts, and pass a separate ui extension, but congress didn’t want to take the vote before the midterms.
    Apparently, NR knows what Obama wants better than Obama does. Oh, and it’s definitely an elder wand :)

  121. 121

    @Mnemosyne: THey’ve said the same thing about Germany. Of course nobody is shooting at us there, and there are no duties involving the locals. But still, it counts in their minds as occupation…So 160 troops to guard the embassy still counts as an unkept promise. I swear, these firebaggers are constantly looking for Obama to disappoint them somehow, and are upset at the rest of us for not acting like a 14-year old who gotten out of a crush.

  122. 122
    OzoneR says:

    @cinesimon: yeah dead end logic
    “Why can’t Obama make Democrats stick together even though they shouldnt because the Nazis or whatever, and why can’t he get Republicans to vote for his bills but we shouldn’t get Republicans votes cause if we do, the bill must suck”

  123. 123
    OzoneR says:

    @David M: ,

    someone just the other day was pissed off Obama hadn’t ended it sooner by executive order. For what purpose, so the next GOP president could reinstate it?

    had to be a troll. no one is this fucking stupid

  124. 124
    Mnemosyne says:

    @David M:

    It would be nice if we could have a discussion about actual failures (HAMP, I’m looking at you) without having to wade through the screamers.

    I remember some people arguing for the Executive Order route when we were knee-deep in getting the law repealed, but anyone still arguing that an EO was the way to go even though DADT is gone can be written off as a dead-ender.

  125. 125
    mk3872 says:

    @Keith G: You would be correct, sir, yes! I do agree with that assessment …

  126. 126
    NR says:

    @cinesimon: When it comes to the bills it really wants to pass (meaning, bills that benefit big corporations, banksters, and/or rich people), the White House is always able to get them passed. The “We don’t have the votes!” excuse somehow magically never applies to these bills.

    But when it comes to progressive bills, well gee, suddenly there are just enough Democrats defecting to sink them, and gosh darn it, there’s just nothing the White House can do about it. They’re completely helpless and impotent in the face of an all-powerful Congress.

    Which, of course, is bullshit. As we’ve seen over and over and over again throughout Obama’s presidency, when he really wants something, he goes out and gets the votes for it. The only question is what he really wants–which, again, given the past three years, shouldn’t even be a question anymore.

  127. 127
    Rook says:

    Oh for crying out loud John. You point out about how there is all this negative talk about Obama, they you talk negative about your own commenters. Sheesh! Kettle, met pot.

  128. 128
    OzoneR says:

    @NR:

    When it comes to the bills it really wants to pass (meaning, bills that benefit big corporations, banksters, and/or rich people), the White House is always able to get them passed. The “We don’t have the votes!” excuse somehow magically never applies to these bills. But when it comes to progressive bills, well gee, suddenly there are just enough Democrats defecting to sink them, and gosh darn it, there’s just nothing the White House can do about it. They’re completely helpless and impotent in the face of an all-powerful Congress.

    LMFAO, this is almost too delusional to be true. Well, gee, this obviously has nothing to do with conservative Democratic Senators who have shown pleasure in undermining their President.

    when he really wants something, he goes out and gets the votes for it.

    which would explain why the jobs bill passed, right NR? Or did he not really want that either.

    Suddenly, the “Clinton didn’t really want healthcare passed and got Danny Patrick Moynihan to kill it and promise to retire from the Senate six years later so the First Lady can run” conspiracy theory actually sounds sane.

  129. 129
    David M says:

    @NR: Please, stop and think before typing, just to make sure it’s not a big steaming pile of nonsense smelling up the place.

    bills that benefit big corporations, banksters, and/or rich people

    Did you ever stop to think of why these could pass, but progressive bills might not? Have you heard of the GOP? Here LMGTFY

  130. 130
    David M says:

    @Mnemosyne: HAMP certainly, judicial and executive branch nominations are another glaring problem. Not getting them confirmed, but getting people nominated in the first place.

  131. 131
    OzoneR says:

    @Keith G:

    Might they feel that there is more profit is “knocking” Obama than not? If indeed an “anti” story generates more views that others, why would that be?

    The same reason people pick up the National Enquirer and Star, because they like to see people better than them suffering.

  132. 132
    different-church-lady says:

    @David M:

    @NR: Please, stop and think before typing, just to make sure it’s not a big steaming pile of nonsense smelling up the place.

    Why are you assuming that wasn’t his entire intention?

  133. 133
    Mnemosyne says:

    @NR:

    When it comes to the bills it really wants to pass (meaning, bills that benefit big corporations, banksters, and/or rich people), the White House is always able to get them passed. The “We don’t have the votes!” excuse somehow magically never applies to these bills.

    You mean bills that conservative Democrats like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson are happy to vote for?

    But when it comes to progressive bills, well gee, suddenly there are just enough Democrats defecting to sink them, and gosh darn it, there’s just nothing the White House can do about it. They’re completely helpless and impotent in the face of an all-powerful Congress.

    You mean bills that conservative Democrats like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson are happy to vote against?

    The funniest part is that you answered your own question without even realizing it: conservative bills pass because conservative Democrats in Congress like them, and progressive bills don’t pass because conservative Democrats in Congress don’t like them. It’s almost like Congress is the branch of the government that votes bills into law or something, innit?

  134. 134
    NR says:

    @David M: Gee, have you heard of the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress from 2009-2010? Sorry, blaming the GOP doesn’t hold water.

    Oh, and if anyone has any doubt as to where Obama’s loyalties lie, just look here. This was an EPA regulation, not subject to a vote in Congress, so the standard apologetics don’t apply here. Not that facts matter to blind loyalists like you guys.

  135. 135
    different-church-lady says:

    BTW- who will be the first to claim that JOHN COLE CAN NOT HANDLE DISSENT? My money is on Corner Stone.

    Now Cole really is trolling his own blog.

    @Corner Stone:

    One of us is right.

    That’s yet to be proven.

  136. 136
    Allan says:

    @Kola Noscopy:

    Nice troll post, by the way.

    And here you are. It was a very effective troll post indeed.

  137. 137
    OzoneR says:

    @NR:

    Gee, have you heard of the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress from 2009-2010? Sorry, blaming the GOP doesn’t hold water.

    Except if you actually paid attention, some of us are blaming the GOP AND CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T HAVE INFLUENCE OVER.

  138. 138
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @NR: the persistence of your willfully infantile stupidity is amazing.

  139. 139
    OzoneR says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    All I am going to say is GW Bush would have got his agenda threw a Republican controlled House and passed a GoP filibuster in the Senate by now, yet Obama can’t.

    oh that’s why Social Security died in the stock market.

  140. 140
    NR says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Ah, the standard defense around here when confronted with facts that go against your blind idol worship: Insult the person who dares inject reality into the discussion. You really don’t disappoint.

  141. 141
    different-church-lady says:

    @NR: Point of order: I’m pretty sure Jim’s insult was directed at you, not someone who injected reality.

  142. 142
    OzoneR says:

    @NR:

    Insult the person who dares inject reality into the discussion.

    wait? Who else did Jim insult? I thought it was just you

  143. 143
    Mnemosyne says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Apparently ignoring the fact that Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu are Democrats is reality. Or something. I’m never quite sure what NR’s point is since s/he seems convinced that all Democrats in Congress vote in lockstep with whatever Obama decrees, so any vote that goes against what Obama publicly asked for is clearly them doing Obama’s secret bidding.

  144. 144
    different-church-lady says:

    @OzoneR: I like your version better.

  145. 145
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @NR: What facts and reality, dumbfuck? Not all Democrats are progressives. Some of them are in fact quite conservative. It’s really not complicated, and it’s certainly not news. You keep up your endless tantrum about Obama, never offering any notion how he is supposed to influence Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. Or Jon Tester or Olympia Snowe. I get that you’re fourteen years old, and all your poutrage makes you feel really important and smart, but you’re wrong. You’re a silly, self-important little dolt.

    You’re grow out of it.

  146. 146
    NR says:

    @Mnemosyne: Fact: Obama cut a secret backroom deal (which ultimately didn’t stay secret) with big Pharma to kill drug reimportation in the health insurance bill.

    Fact: Together with the Senate leadership, he then rounded up enough votes to kill it.

    So yes, Obama has the ability to influence members of his own party in Congress when he chooses to do so, despite what people around here repeatedly claim.

    Oh, and one more fact: When he doesn’t have to deal with Congress at all, Obama does shit like this.

    To all but the most blind loyalists, it’s been obvious whose side Obama’s on for a long time now.

  147. 147
    David M says:

    Let’s imagine this magical world, where if Obama clapped just a little bit louder for progressive goals even the GOP would support him. Such a happy place, with unicorns and ponies.

    Back in our dysfunctional Congress, it’s the opposite. Remember health care reform and Lieberman changing his mind on the Medicare buy in because liberals liked it?

  148. 148
    Another Bob says:

    Are you saying that you can’t tell the difference between “the librul media” and the liberal media? Please. Anyone with a brain takes it for granted that anything coming out of ABC News or the WAPO has a rightward bias and might consist of outright lies. That’s what’s reflected in the chart. On the other hand, the criticism of Obama from real liberals like Greenwald or Digby or Krugman is almost always on the mark. In fact, if Obama had been taking their advice over the likes of Rahm Emanuel or Tim Geithner, he’d probably be doing a better job of running the country AND have higher poll numbers to boot.

  149. 149
    OzoneR says:

    @David M:

    if Obama clapped just a little bit louder for progressive goals even the GOP would support him

    re: jobs bill, I can’t imagine how he could have clapped harder and two Democrats voted to not even allow a vote.

  150. 150
    OzoneR says:

    @David M:

    if Obama clapped just a little bit louder for progressive goals even the GOP would support him

    re: jobs bill, I can’t imagine how he could have clapped harder and two Democrats voted to not even allow a vote.

  151. 151
    Keith G says:

    @mk3872: I would love to see someone round up the numbers and study the economics of political “reporting”.

    For some time now, I have wondered if our republic can survive the era of “money is speech”. Now I wonder if the notion that political news is a profit driver wont do us in first.

  152. 152
    amk says:

    The amazing thing John, is that he is still the most popular pol despite the 24×7 attacks from the third rate fourth estate msm and the pathetic & whiny pl. This must burn the asses of two-bit punks like corner stone, mclaren et. al. here.

    Of course, it is a double whammy for that head-in-my-ass troll here.

  153. 153
    OzoneR says:

    @Another Bob:

    On the other hand, the criticism of Obama from real liberals like Greenwald or Digby or Krugman is almost always on the mark. In fact, if Obama had been taking their advice over the likes of Rahm Emanuel or Tim Geithner, he’d probably be doing a better job of running the country AND have higher poll numbers to boot.

    If the economy is really the issue, I don’t see how this is true…the economy would still not have improved because the advice they gave him would never have come to fruition.

  154. 154
    soonergrunt says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    One wonders if the Obama haters on the left are unaware that they’re being used by the MSM to construct the “everybody hates Obama!” narrative that the Republicans used for 2010 and will use for 2012 or if they just don’t care.

    Here, let me help you with that–they WANT to be used this way. It gives them a feeling of importance that nothing else in their lives ever has.

  155. 155
    soonergrunt says:

    @Bill Arnold: No. The Elder wand is the most powerful wand in the HP universe.
    Black Elder is a wood that has traditionally had associations with death, hence the nickname of the The Elder Wand, “deathstick”.

  156. 156
    wilfred says:

    It must be very strange to be President Obama. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

  157. 157
    OzoneR says:

    @wilfred:

    A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

    right man, wrong country.

  158. 158
    amk says:

    @OzoneR: pearls before swines and all that.

  159. 159
    soonergrunt says:

    @NR: We wouldn’t be in this mess if that fuckwit Nader and the fuckwits who voted for him in 2000 didn’t throw the election to Bush and the neocons.

    No need to thank me. I’m here to serve.

  160. 160
    Another Bob says:

    @OzoneR:

    If the economy is really the issue, I don’t see how this is true…the economy would still not have improved because the advice they gave him would never have come to fruition.

    I think Obama wasted a lot of initiative and a lot of goodwill among his supporters by indulging Republican bad faith. How did debt reduction and fiscal austerity became top priorities of the administration — endorsed by Obama himself — at a time like this? Of course Obama couldn’t have unilaterally enacted a 2 trillion dollar stimulus, but there’s been too much dithering around and too much muddying of the water.

    That said, I am more encouraged by the administration’s more combative tone towards GOP obstructionism recently. I hope it’s not too little, too late, and I hope it’s sincere acknowledgement of the pointlessness of “compromise” with Republicans.

  161. 161
    OzoneR says:

    @Another Bob:

    How did debt reduction and fiscal austerity became top priorities of the administration—endorsed by Obama himself—at a time like this?

    They didn’t until 2 years into the administration. They weren’t so concerned about the debt and austerity when they were pushing the stimulus, cramdown, healthcare reform, auto bailouts, high-speed rail, etc.

    And keep in mind, austerity, while not a priority for Americans, is popular. A lot of people think it would create jobs, and thought that before the administration concerned itself with it.

  162. 162
    Kola Noscopy says:

    @mcmullje:

    I’m not black, but I can just imagine how visceral that vision is for someone who is.

    That’s very presumptuous of you. Borderline racist, I’d say. You can only comment on such things after having your racial makeup analyzed by ABL and its minions.

  163. 163
    Corner Stone says:

    Lovin’ this. U3 of +9.1% for like next to forever. U6 of almost 30M.
    Not allowed to mention anyone in particular.

    Congress! You bastards!!

  164. 164
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Another Bob: I wasn’t happy with the language he used during the debt ceiling debate either, but in the two years that preceded it, Obama passed an historic health care bill and the NRs of the world whined that it wasn’t progressive enough; he passed a 750 billion dollar stimulus package, and the NRs whined that it was too small; he withdrew 100,000 troops from Iraq and the NRs whined that it wasn’t enough; he bailed out the auto industry and the NRs of the world said “who cares?”. Through all the Democratic obstruction of the first two years, the NRs of the world blamed Obama, because they’re very stupid and don’t really get how our politics is intended to work, much less how it actually works. He campaigned like a motherfucker in fall of ’10, and first time voters from ’08 couldn’t take the initiative to get off their asses and vote, leaving him, and us, to have John Boehner and Eric Cantor to deal with. That’s why Obama is so “obsessed” (as some of our NR-like trolls like to put it) with bipartisanship and “compromise”. Because the Republicans control half the legislature, and effectively control the other half.

  165. 165
    Another Bob says:

    @OzoneR:

    And keep in mind, austerity, while not a priority for Americans, is popular. A lot of people think it would create jobs, and thought that before the administration concerned itself with it.

    Considering that fiscal austerity is exactly the opposite of what real economists say we need right now, I don’t see how it made any sense to promote that lie, especially when it’s bad politics to boot. Having empowered the likes of Alan Simpson ranting about tits on a milk cow and then endorsing in principle the idea of cuts to “entitlements,” how did that set the stage for Obama to now promote his jobs bill? It was complete folly, and I hope they still have time to get an honest and forceful message in place. They wasted so much time and so much of the good will of many people who helped get them elected in ’08.

  166. 166
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Another Bob:

    How did debt reduction and fiscal austerity became top priorities of the administration—endorsed by Obama himself—at a time like this?

    It wasn’t until voters decided that Republicans should be in charge of the House in 2010 that the rhetoric changed. Up until that point, you would hear about the deficit occasionally, but never about fiscal austerity.

    The voters spoke, and the president listened. If that wasn’t what the voters meant to say, they should have been more clear.

  167. 167
    David M says:

    @Corner Stone: Or you can look at the votes and blame the GOP and conservative Dems. Pretty easy to figure out who we should be replacing at that point, but I understand how that doesn’t fit with blame Obama narrative.

  168. 168
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Another Bob: You’re right. I got all caught up in the things Obama actually accomplished–imperfect as they may have been–that have saved millions of jobs and made people’s lives better, and forgot about what really matters: Something stupid Alan Simpson said. The Obot scales have fallen from my eyes. O if only some real, effective progressive like Alan Grayson or Howard Dean would save us from Obama with a primary challenge. Frankly, if Romney wins it won’t be so bad, and after four years of Romeny the American people will wake up, and vote for Dennis Kucinich. It worked in ’72 and ’04!

  169. 169
    amk says:

    @Mnemosyne: If only Obama had ruled a dictator …..

    Oh, the lefty nuts pining for shrub like authoritarianism just like the rwnj’s.

  170. 170
    Another Bob says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Through all the Democratic obstruction of the first two years, the NRs of the world blamed Obama, because they’re very stupid and don’t really get how our politics is intended to work . . .

    I do think that people around here are living in denial if they believe that it’s wrong to criticize Obama, or that much of the criticism hasn’t been legitimate. Maybe the Republicans have put up stiff resistance in Congress, but that didn’t mean that Obama had to give top administration posts to the likes of Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, either. And now Wall St. is apparently giving more and more of its campaign contributions to Mitt Romney. I think few people expected Obama to have his way completely, but he didn’t have to play the chump to Wall St. either.

  171. 171
    Another Bob says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    O if only some real, effective progressive like Alan Grayson or Howard Dean would save us from Obama with a primary challenge.

    Yes, it was exactly like that when Digby criticized the existence of the Catfood Commission. Fuckin emo-baggers.

  172. 172
    grandpajohn says:

    @NR: speaking truth is not an insult

  173. 173
    NR says:

    @grandpajohn: You idol-worshippers wouldn’t know truth if it bit you in the ass.

  174. 174
    cinesimon says:

    The Firebaggers really proved just how delusional and dishonest they are on this here thread.
    Apparently, due to the republican(and two Dems) unprecedented use of the filibuster for every single thing the Dems put forward, president Obama hates America.
    This is essentially the argument of these brainless fools. And they think that by cherry picking one or two things he’s done as president that they disagree with, proves that really, if he wanted to, he could be dictator and make progressives happy.
    Except of he began behaving like Bush and Cheney, the vast majority of progressives would not be impressed, regardless of the legislation created. Sure, Firebaggers would be happy – until their delusion is popped next time a president who disagrees with such a dictate comes to power.

    These people are just as convinced that Obama is the Antichrist as right wingers are. Their reasoning is essentially the same – that is, they have no idea how government works, assume a whole lot of nonsense that magically makes their theory fit; call it a “fact”, and, heeeeyyy… PRESTO! They’re right, and the real world are Obots. They KNOW Obama hates America! Their “facts” have proved it! He’s a fascist! He loves banksters more than real people!

    Lunatics.
    No different than Breitbart and Erickson.

  175. 175
    cinesimon says:

    …and poor little NR, now reduced to actually repeating the laughable nonsense of the right wing during the 2008 presidential election.
    NR that really is sad.

    We don’t worship anyone. But as with the tea-baggers, you clearly need to think that in order for the massive straw-argument you’ve built in your head to make any sense at all.
    That’s truly sad.

  176. 176
    Another Bob says:

    @cinesimon:

    These people are just as convinced that Obama is the Antichrist as right wingers are.

    Yes, Paul Krugman calls Obama the antichrist in practically every other column. Fuckin emo-baggers are all the same.

  177. 177
    David M says:

    Any thoughts on why the firebaggers have to essentially make stuff up to criticize Obama with? There’s plenty of actual issues, and they could be useful if they weren’t slightly less credible than the tea party. Are the real issues and work too boring? Wild conspiracies about how Obama is a secret Republican more fun?

  178. 178
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Hey, we hadn’t had one of these in a while. I was starting to worry. Just like old times!

  179. 179
    cinesimon says:

    Another Bob when you say “I do think that people around here are living in denial if they believe that it’s wrong to criticize Obama,” – who in hell are you talking about?
    That’s just another black and white non-argument built on a straw-man to make those who want to blame Obama for things he had no control over, and who saw him how they wanted to see him during the election and were SHOCKED when he began appointing very predictable people – predictable that is, if they’d been listening to him during the election.

    Everyone here at BJ disagrees with Obama on various issues. But that doesn’t mean we think he’s a part of the conspiracy to turn American middle class into a China-style workforce. This is certainly happening, but that push is coming from the mainstream right. The people the Firebaggers are enabling by amplifying their straw-men and outright lies.

    I would not want to live in a country where a sizable number of people agreed with EVERYTHING the president does or believes.
    That’s another thing: I find it bizarre that these people who claim themselves to be all-knowing about politics, when Obama can’t get exactly what he was aiming for in legislation, claim that he really didn’t want it in the first place.
    The fact is, as we say over and over again; Obama cannot rule America as his personal kingdom. And the criticism I see from those on the Firebagger left, seem to be criticizing him because he’s not behaving like Bush: he’s not dictating. He’s trying to work with people(as presidents are supposed to), and listen to the concerns of the moderate center – being a well-known pragmatic centrist and all…) – therefore, he HATES AMERICA!

  180. 180
    cinesimon says:

    Another Bob, grow up. Krugman doesn’t even come close to such nonsense.
    I wonder if you realize that by showing you can’t be honest in even one small sentence, you’re once again showing you have more in common with the hard right than anyone else?

  181. 181
    cinesimon says:

    David – it’s called laziness.

  182. 182
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    If you O-Bot-Baggers weren’t so stupid, you would recognize that Obama wasted his first two years saving jobs, passing health care, winding down the Iraq War, while doing nothing to fix the real problems we have. People saying things! Alan Simpson said things! And Rahm Emmanuel said things! About Jane! And verbally punched hippies! Two wasted years of advancing progressive causes, while people were saying things.

    Pathetic Idol-worshipping sell-out cultists.

  183. 183
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @David M:

    Toss a handful of manic progressives, PUMAs, racists and ratfuckers into a bag, shake it up, dump it on a baking sheet and bake half way. Remove from oven and do not let cool off, serve FDL as is.

    :)

  184. 184
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @David M: The reality is too mundane — and too discouraging to do much about. “There are things Obama can’t do no matter how good they are, how much he wants them, and how hard he tries, because it turns out the whole political system relies upon a handful of conservative Democrats blundering into doing the right thing once in a while” isn’t exactly heartening. So an alternative theory that Obama just doesn’t want it enough, or doesn’t even bother to try, or wants to fail, or let it happen on purpose, etc., becomes quite appealing. No matter how little evidence there is for it, it’s more comforting than realizing the closest America can get to progressivism for the foreseeable future was when Ben Nelson got a whim not to be an absolute ironclad douchebag for ten consecutive seconds, but it didn’t take.

  185. 185
    Another Bob says:

    @cinesimon:

    Another Bob, grow up. Krugman doesn’t even come close to such nonsense.

    Well who the hell are you talking about then? I’d say that people like Krugman, Digby or Greenwald represent the core criticisms that people on the left have made of Obama. Their concerns seem pretty much centered in mainstream liberal ideology. Who exactly are these “cultists” that people like Jim (Foolish Literalist) are talking about?

  186. 186
    OzoneR says:

    @Another Bob:

    Considering that fiscal austerity is exactly the opposite of what real economists say we need right now, I don’t see how it made any sense to promote that lie, especially when it’s bad politics to boot.

    You can’t promote something that’s already sold.

    How does it help Obama sell his jobs bill? It doesn’t. He couldn’t sell it in 2009, he can’t now. It really doesn’t make a difference if he focused on deficits or not. Americans hate spending, they’ve been brainwashed into thinking its bad. There isn’t anything Obama can do to change that, it’s going to take generations and honestly Democrats with lighter skin colors to change that.

  187. 187
    OzoneR says:

    @Another Bob:

    Maybe the Republicans have put up stiff resistance in Congress, but that didn’t mean that Obama had to give top administration posts to the likes of Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, either. I think few people expected Obama to have his way completely, but he didn’t have to play the chump to Wall St. either.

    See, that’s just the thing. There is no evidence that he’s played “the chump” to Wall Street. Wall Street certainly doesn’t think so. This is an example of unfair criticism. Just because he didn’t dismantle Lower Manhattan doesn’t make him Wall Street’s bitch.

  188. 188
    lol chikinburd says:

    “wand”. huhuh. huhuhuhhuh huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh. “wood.”

  189. 189
    Another Bob says:

    @OzoneR:

    Americans hate spending, they’ve been brainwashed into thinking its bad.

    Are they “brainwashed,” or have the Democrats just done a very poor job of presenting an alternative ideology? Do Republicans have some magic besides mere rhetoric to convince people of things? Why couldn’t the Democrats do just as good of job, especially if what they were saying was actually not a lie?

    There is no evidence that he’s played “the chump” to Wall Street.

    Really? How about this kind of thing:

    In March 2009, in the throes of the financial crisis, Barack Obama told Tim Geithner to focus on a proposal to dissolve Citigroup—but the Treasury Secretary ignored him and never developed a plan, according to former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind’s new book Confidence Men. In the book, which was obtained early by the AP and the New York Times, Suskind writes that Obama’s “authority was being systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers.”

    It seems pretty chump-like to me, especially if Geithner actually kept his job after such insubordination.

  190. 190
    wilfred says:

    Chris Hedges gets it right:

    The liberal class functions in a traditional, capitalist democracy as a safety valve. It lets off enough steam to keep the system intact. It makes piecemeal and incremental reform possible. This is what happened during the Great Depression and the New Deal. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s greatest achievement was that he saved capitalism. Liberals in a functioning capitalist democracy are at the same time tasked with discrediting radicals, whether it is King, especially after he denounced the war in Vietnam, or later Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader. The stupidity of the corporate state is that it thought it could dispense with the liberal class. It thought it could shut off that safety valve in order to loot and pillage with no impediments. Corporate power forgot that the liberal class, when it functions, gives legitimacy to the power elite. And the reduction of the liberal class to silly courtiers, who have nothing to offer but empty rhetoric, meant that the growing discontent found other mechanisms and outlets. Liberals were reduced to stick figures, part of an elaborate pantomime, as they acted in preordained roles to give legitimacy to meaningless and useless political theater. But that game is over.

    That’s exactly right.

  191. 191
    John S. says:

    @Wilfred:

    I guess you missed the part where CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS are not liberals, and have had enough numbers to join Republicans in thwarting a liberal agenda the past 3 years. It was either Blue Dogs in the House fucking things up or a couple DINOs in the Senate blocking things.

    The fact that you cannot grasp this concept says far more about you than it does about Obama, you ratfucker.

  192. 192

    […] The above chart, from the Pew Research Center, shows that only 9% of the media’s coverage of Barack Obama during the nascent 2012 campaign has been positive. Unsurprisingly, this has inspired a wave of grumblings and “a-ha!”s  from the liberal blogosphere. John Cole’s a good example: […]

  193. 193
    MBunge says:

    @Not All Criticism is the Same: “criticism from the left which has a basis and which democrats who have an interest in seeing Obama re-elected have not sufficiently addressed. You obviously read Greenwald, so you know what those criticisms are”

    I gotta throw a penalty flag on that. Where is there ANY evidence that Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, gives a crap about whether Obama gets re-elected or not? Where’s the evidence that Atrios and Krugman actually give a crap about Obama’s re-election?

    When push comes to shove, they may rather Obama be President than a Republican (though I’m not sure that’s true of The Last Honest Man). But when does any concern with the political realities facing Obama show up in anything you get from Krugman, Atrios or the firebaggers out there?

    Mike

  194. 194
    The Populist says:

    @Corner Stone:

    It appears I am. Thanks for playing douchebag.

  195. 195
    The Populist says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Oh loser, where is the data that proves me wrong on the 2010 votes? Can’t back it up? Douchebag troll.

  196. 196
    The Populist says:

    @NR: Sigh. They controlled the house and passed tons of legislation. The Senate was too narrow and the right filibustered everything.

    Where have you been?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] The above chart, from the Pew Research Center, shows that only 9% of the media’s coverage of Barack Obama during the nascent 2012 campaign has been positive. Unsurprisingly, this has inspired a wave of grumblings and “a-ha!”s  from the liberal blogosphere. John Cole’s a good example: […]

Comments are closed.