If the response is "well he was a dick so now I get to be a dick as much as I want" we're screwed as a society.

There is something from factcheck.org about the sheer number of things they've had to debunk about this president compared to previous ones. It's staggering and I'm not sure if it's because of people's reactions to Obama or a sense of "it's my turn"

No doubt about your first point, but we appeared equally as screwed to me when people were accusing Bush of being responsible for Katrina in hyperbolic terms. It's not really a new problem or even necessarily a worse problem.

I don't think we're particularly getting anywhere by having this sensibility, certainly, but maybe it makes more sense to individually file one's concern about public discourse away until one personally feels tempted to indulge in cheap shots, rather than to express even more contempt or superiority about other people's cheap shots, not that you are personally doing that Drolefille.

It will be interesting to see what happens with other Presidents. Obama had a relatively short period of time on the national stage so there may just have been a sense that people felt like they didn't know him well so that crazy things seems more plausible. It may be a reflection of more gullible people using the internet as a political forum when previously network news vetted more stuff for them. It may just be the way things are now and it's not particularly Obamacentric. I think the craziness about Palin is comparable in a lot ways. Where do you think that comes from?

I want to know why it's so "rich" that the people in this thread have expressed concern about the level of disrespect in the discourse in this country. I don't know that any of us have been disrespectful to others with differing opinions. Yes, there are rude people who have taunted President Bush from the left of the aisle, but I personally have shown respect towards President Bush in the past, despite whole heartedly disagreeing with him, because he was the president. I didn't vote for him, but he was my President because I am an American.

I honestly don't agree that the level of civility is the same. President Bush was supported by both sides of the aisle at several points in his presidency, but President Obama has gotten nothing but jeering and disrespect for everything he has put forward, even if it aligns with what the Republicans want.

I am sick of the tit for tat claims. Is it really more important to bash everything that Obama does than to consider that maybe something he says might be right?

When I started out commenting, I was careful to say that I wasn't really talking about GCers. I'm not seeing it in this thread really.

I think when Bush got general support, it tended to be when the country felt a sense of external threat and I think Obama would experience similar support if he elected to approach things in this area as Bush did. That isn't how he wants to be perceived, though.

What domestic issues do you feel like Bush got bipartisan support for that Obama isn't getting?

I don't tend to think Obama's policies represent good government, so I don't want to see him get political support for them and I don't think he's owed political support out of politeness.

I don't think he's personally evil* or anything and would like to see him treated with respect and politeness by his opponents, though. ETA: some of my desire to see this is because the office deserves it and some if it is because I think not doing so makes his opponents look terrible.

*as political forum GCers know, he's never really given me warm fuzzies or a thrill up my leg, but I don't believe that my not liking him personally means that it's helpful politically to disparage him as a human being, if my interests really are political improvement.

Agreed.

There's a difference between objecting on political grounds and objecting because Obama said it though. The M.O. of the republicans as a minority party has been "why aren't you making changes to make this bipartisan?" *changes are made, not always big ones, but ones that take ideas into consideration* "We all vote no and will still try and filibuster"

It's not about support "of Obama" but refusing to pass laws that they supported until the Democrats did.

And there is some craziness around Sarah Palin. But she's also utterly unqualified to be president and says some really ridiculous things. And I'm unaware of anyone suspecting her of being secretly born in Russia and therefore a quasi-manchurian candidate and essentially a traitor. I think she became the easy target because, well she is one. But the stupid "boob job" and attacks on her family cross a line.

Particularly I'd like to get rid of the "I'm just raising the question" style bullshit. I'm not saying he's racist, but I'm just saying (that he's something racist)."

Sounds similar to our current occupant in the WH. Totally unqualified.

Drolefille, I just may not be following things as closely as I should. Which policies do you think Republicans supported until Obama embraced them?

I'm not accusing you of anything I don't regard myself as also guilty of, but I think your perception that Palin gets she deserves because she's unqualified is probably at least partially a reflection of your own political bias. While today, I wish she'd just go away quietly, with the emphasis on quietly (and so I do blame her for the continued bs she gets), throughout the race I think she was subject to way beyond anything justified by her public record. There were no born in Russia rumors but there were she's not actually the mother of her child rumors.

Anyway, I'm not that interested in talking about Palin, but my point was just that a comparable level of craziness is/was present directed at the right. We can also look at the Bush Rathergate silliness for examples of relatively relentless interest in stuff that turned out not to be true.

Again, I think we'd be better off without this stuff, but I don't think that we're going to get there with comments from the side in power about what their guy should be entitled too. This is going to have be a lead by example kind of thing.

Back during the 08 election, I said quite a few times here at GC that this was what baffled me about McCain's selection of Palin. Obama's lack of experience was one of the best arrows if not the best arrow in the McCain campaign's quiver. After selecting Palin, he couldn't use that arrow effectively anymore.

UGAalum, I think we're seeing things much the same way.

By pure experience he's now more qualified than most people alive ;). And as MC said, McCain could have owned that angle, and poof that went away when he picked Palin. And it's hard to counter his education on any grounds short of the people who don't believe he really went to school.
Many of the policies in the healthcare bill. The Jobs bill. Voting against the stimulus but writing letters to get money/projects for their districts.

It's why I like Scott Brown, he doesn't seem inclined to be as caught in the "say no, no matter what" game and instead is voting for what he and his constituents want and would benefit from.

I didn't say Palin gets what she deserves, I said I personally would make fun of the really really silly things she said. I had forgotton about the whole "it's not her kid" thing. But yeah that way crossed the line.

For me it's more, I know Obama didn't have a ton of experience. Being from Illinois I'd gotten to know him, and he convinced me he was capable. Palin never could do that, and I didn't like that she was the posterchild for female politicians either.
I don't disagree that it's been there on both sides and that it's gone back for quite a while the Swift Boat people personally offend me as there were people wearing purple heart bandaids. I have no love lost for John Kerry, but you're going to insult every wounded soldier just to make a political point?

I still can't find the graphic but essentially the claim was that within the first 1.5 years they'd debunked way more rumors/myths/etc from either Bush term. Which just makes me wonder whether it's because of this president or because of the internet, or because the opposition has encouraged and sometimes outright said the same things.

But then, I remember yelling at an anti-war protester that no matter what you think Bush is still your president. Do you think I would be wrong in saying that a lot of the opposition to Bush was over what he'd done, while perhaps an uneven proportion of the opposition to Obama is over who he is or what they think he will do? WMDs vs "taking our guns"?

I'm not a fan of ideological "purity." The idea that no democrat could support Bush or any other republican candidate or idea is as silly as saying no republican can support something Obama does or supports. (or support libertarian/green/or i don't know anarchist ideas) Same with "internal" criticism, I like Obama but I think he's screwed things up.

I agree though that we need to get away from the idea that everything we disagree with is destroying America in someway or another. Unfortunately I think it takes more than leading by example. I don't really know what it will take though.

John McCain had zero chance of being elected. The people of the U.S. were tired of Bush in the WH and they were going to elect any member of the opposing party that won their respective nomination. McCain was probably the worst candidate the Republicans could put forth but in the end it really wouldn't have mattered.

We have effectively stated, as a nation, that qualifications do not matter. You just need to be clean, articulate and bright. Whatever the hell that means.

This isn't a new thing, you know. "The most inexperienced president ever" is part of that hyperbolic rhetoric thing we've been talking about.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...lcrHI0f3zAUzYg

I think there's always hysteria over what someone is going to do from the fringes one either side.

I used to refer to the selection of Palin as McCain's Hail Mary pass.

While I agree, in general, I'm just trying to place what is different, because it does feel like there is something different. Perhaps it's as simple, and disappointing, as the whole birther crap. Once you have a group that pretty much says not only isn't he legally president, but he never could be, they have free reign to say anything about him... I don't know.

Ah, youth. :p

I grew up in the land of Jesse Helms -- I remember when he did editorials on the local news, before he got into politics. He was bringing out heaps of crazy from the far right and the far left long before Bush or Obama came along.

FWIW, I think the main thing that's different is the internet, which makes it much easier to dissiminate the crazy. Twenty-five years ago, people pretty much had to rely on print media, radio or word of mouth to get the crazy ideas out there. TV wasn't going to cover it too much. But now you can email the latest absurdity to all your contacts as a WARNING of SOMETHING WE CAN'T LET HAPPEN. There are websites upon websites chock-full of ABSOLUTELY TRUE inanities. The internet has no filter, and it makes it much easier to spread the crazy around.