In fact, from what I’ve seen it makes a whole lot more sense to talk about Palin Derangement Syndrome than Obama Derangement Syndrome.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 12, 2008 at 10:52 PM

I think you’re right.

I would have agreed with the sentiment in the original post before August 29. But no more.

It would look a whole lot like the recent election.

It’s easy to look at those similarities and become very concerned. If you’re unable to tell the difference between the make-believe and the reality, then you would have Obama Derangement Syndrome. If you’re concerned and watchful, but still rational, you don’t have Obama Derangement Syndrome, you have Obama Distrust Syndrome. He’s given us little reason to just trust him, so I see no need to do so.

As we move forward, we’ll see if he lives up to the worst we’ve feared about him, or is better than we expected. I certainly intend to give him credit where he deserves it. And, unlike the New York Times, Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, Jim Moran, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama himself as a senator, I have no intention of undermining national security or foreign policy just to attack Obama.

So I reject the term ODS as it is meant. There are a lot of people who are off their rockers when it came to President Bush. There will always be a few wild-eyed accusations thrown around about any public figure, and Obama is no exception, but I don’t see anything near the scale or intensity of the BDS we’ve seen over the last 8 years. I do see a great deal of suspicion of Obama on the right, but that is not derangement. That’s a perfectly rational suspicion.

In fact, from what I’ve seen it makes a whole lot more sense to talk about Palin Derangement Syndrome than Obama Derangement Syndrome.

The birth certificate is the thing to hang ODS on, if anything.

And the deliciously ironic part is – it’s probably that issue (which most of us consider slightly deranged) – that is the one which will ultimately sink Obama!

Alana on November 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I’ll tell you why the whole birth certificate issue was not and is not ODS. That’s because requiring a birth certificate is not an unreasonable request, as we have all had to show ours for much less important positions and licenses. One might call the suspicions to be ODS, but the longer BHO refused to do this very simple and reasonable thing the less even that looked like ODS.

I do think the birth certificate might take him down, but I’m not sure if our SCOTUS has the guts to enforce our Constitution against his popular support, anyway.

progressoverpeace on November 12, 2008 at 4:49 PM

That’s exactly the point about the birth certificate. When my daughter wanted her learner’s permit, I had to dredge up her birth certificate, her Social Security card, an application signed by both parents and notarized, and a notarized form verifying she was in attendance in school.

I just don’t think presenting a birth certificate is a huge deal.

The only thing that might seem hostile or overboard about it is the one question, “What does he have to hide?” After hearing that question leveled at President Bush and Dick Cheney repeatedly over the years, I just don’t see it as a big deal.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” – Barack Obama July 2, 2008

Unity not likely

Now that the election is over, you liberals are crying out for unity behind Obama. In that spirit let’s look back on your unifying efforts of the last eight years.

First you started out by going to court claiming George Bush stole the election against Al Gore. Then when Sept. 11 happened, you accused George Bush of manufacturing the crisis, going so far as to blame him for it.

Then along came the slogan “Bush lied people died” which you have chanted like a mantra ever since.

When hurricane Katrina came along President Bush was assailed with wild accusations that went so far as to say he intentionally abandoned the people of New Orleans even though billions of taxpayer dollars were funneled into the city.

You have called President Bush a murderer, a liar, stupid, Hitler and other such things nonstop for eight years. I could go on and on, but the point is clear: you liberals have battled President Bush every inch of the way with a bitterness and anger not seen in our country since Lincoln, and now you cry out for unity! Well forget it. You got your guy, and he will have his four years, but unity is something you have no right to ask for or expect. If John McCain would have been elected there would be no cry for unity, you would be back in court challenging the election results.

Your continuous groundless attacks on Sarah Palin and her family is all the proof we need of your two-faced shamelessness.

Your definition of unity is that everyone must agree with you. Well you will get no unity from me. Hopefully there will be a Republican or two with spine enough to oppose the crazy ideas that will be forthcoming from this administration, but that is probably too much to ask for. Selling out to “unity” is too easy and the current Republican Party always takes the easy road.

David A. Perreault

Redding

More eloquent then I would have put it.

Ouck Fbama!

This is a ridiculous issue
Buy Danish on November 12, 2008 at 5:03 PM

I second that sentiment!

For those of you who insist on cradling your ODS Gollum and his Precious, I’d recommend this: When talking with someone about issues try rephrasing what they have said into what you think you heard and vice versa. Once both have established that the other has accurately stated their position discuss away.
Advice courtesy of Patterico

This vid is must watch. Obama really does seem to have in mind a paramilitary domestic security force. Among many other problems, such a force is, frankly, creepy and dangerous. But it’s difficult to express a fear of a large……

progressoverpeace on November 12, 2008 at 4:49 PM

I was born in France to American parents. I do not have a copy of my original birth certificate. I have xerox copy I obtained by writing the hospital I was born in.

This is a ridiculous issue.

progressoverpeace on November 12, 2008 at 4:46 PM

Thanks, but I doubt our trolls read it.

The birth certificate is the thing to hang ODS on, if anything.

And the deliciously ironic part is – it’s probably that issue (which most of us consider slightly deranged) – that is the one which will ultimately sink Obama!

Alana on November 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I’ll tell you why the whole birth certificate issue was not and is not ODS. That’s because requiring a birth certificate is not an unreasonable request, as we have all had to show ours for much less important positions and licenses. One might call the suspicions to be ODS, but the longer BHO refused to do this very simple and reasonable thing the less even that looked like ODS.

I do think the birth certificate might take him down, but I’m not sure if our SCOTUS has the guts to enforce our Constitution against his popular support, anyway.

Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Well stated.

The birth certificate is the thing to hang ODS on, if anything.

And the deliciously ironic part is – it’s probably that issue (which most of us consider slightly deranged) – that is the one which will ultimately sink Obama!

I’m betting that the majority of conservative posters at this site, even the very opinionated and “vocal” ones, have had to hide their political views at work or church or in social settings. I’d also bet that very few of our liberal colleagues have done the same.

In terms of the topic (ODS syndrome), although I found the images of militant black panthers (is that redundant?) carrying billy clubs at a polling place horrifying, I am able to chalk that up to a secondary rather than a primary symptom of Obama’s political machinery. To some degree, there is truth to the notion that there are nutty supporters on both “sides” and that we have to avoid painting Obama with the thugs who support him. However, the folks that worry me are the educated, well-off Obama supporters because (1) they have no excuse for being so intolerant and vicious and (2) they control the media, our educational system, our unions, and an increasing number of judgeships and civil servant positions.

In my experience working for over two decades in academe, liberals are extremely intolerant of conservative viewpoints. They make an assumption, when safely nestled in the cocoon of academe, that no thinking person, particularly no educated thinking person, could possibly disagree with their points of view. In addition, they (faculty and faculty-wannabees in top administrative roles) see it as their mission, as the intellectual elite, to “educate” the masses to their political ideology. This happens in the classroom, at faculty meetings, in professional settings, and in day to day exchanges with other faculty as well as with the academic “underclass” (support personnel, secretaries, maintenance folks, business clerks, etc).

I am able to carry on a civil, even cordial, conversation with people whose opinions don’t just differ from mine, but that I actually find so extreme as to be dangerous. I rarely initiate these political discussions, certainly never ones that involve partisanship, but am quickly apprised of my counterpart’s point of view (Bush is evil and should be impeached, pro-life people are crazy, conservatives are all bigots, etc etc). These are people I work with, people who like me, but they leave those conversations never knowing that they have been offensive or that I disagree with them.

I don’t much care about ODS as a syndrome we conservatives must concern ourselves with. I have lived through 8 years of Reagan bashing and 8 years of Bush hatred. I think that the conservatives whose patience is at an end and want to vent have certainly earned that right.

The Obama supporters who for whatever reason have decided to post here should reflect on their own behaviors before clicking their tongues at those of us here who have already seen enough of Obama to know that he represents a real threat to the American way of life.

Whether the bailout was necessary or not I have no idea – and NO ONE has any idea, since no one knows that actual depth of the problem. In fact, such little is known about the true dimensions of the problem that none of the bailout money was ever used to do what it was passed to do.

progressoverpeace on November 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM

On looking back at my comment (that I have been saying since the bailout was proposed) I have to profusely apologize for my obvious derangement about what is really going on …

Treasury Not Planning to Buy Bad Loans, Assets

I need to learn to defer to those who are better at the ostrich thing.

RegularJoe on November 12, 2008 at 1:51 PM

I was taking issue with Ed, not with you. Once again, I believe he has picked the wrong issue (Universal Service) to illustrate ODS.

RegularJoe on November 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Ed says it’s okay to criticize as long as we’re dealing with facts. Here’s the problem – what are the facts?

I posted that directly from Obama’s website. What does it mean? Since we don’t know what it means, does that mean we can’t sound an alarm? Should we just hang on to see if it gets erased from his website and ends up in the memory hole, along with most of the content of the Change.Gov website? What is a reasonable amount of time to remain calm, sit back, and say or do nothing?

I don’t want to worry so much about appearing “deranged” that I wake up one morning and discover that this country and the rules have changed beyond recognition.

Buy Danish on November 12, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Did you read my post that you took issue with? The summation said:

“Americans have every reason to be extremely leery of this policy until we know more about it, and should vigorously oppose it until acceptable answers are given. Our Senior Citizens have given too much to this country for us now to threaten to withhold their security in retirement if they are unwilling or unable to ‘volunteer’.”

That the policy lacks details, and that it has unacceptable implications, are facts; and those facts are PRECISELY what should be used to target piffle like this.

RegularJoe on November 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Ed says it’s okay to criticize as long as we’re dealing with facts. Here’s the problem – what are the facts?

I posted that directly from Obama’s website. What does it mean? Since we don’t know what it means, does that mean we can’t sound an alarm? Should we just hang on to see if it gets erased from his website and ends up in the memory hole, along with most of the content of the Change.Gov website? What is a reasonable amount of time to remain calm, sit back, and say or do nothing?

I don’t want to worry so much about appearing “deranged” that I wake up one morning and discover that this country and the rules have changed beyond recognition.

Obama and Biden will work to provide [Senior volunteers] additional income security, including assistance with retirement and family-related costs, and continuation of health care coverage, for people who participate in citizen service.

This is a great example of the sort of thing we’ll need to respond to in the next few years. So tell me, which of the following sounds more effective:

“This is proof positive that Obama and Biden are Neo-Stalinist sociopaths with Nazi-like ambitions to build an army of geezers, whose “continuation of health care coverage” will undoubtedly be some sort of injections that will turn them into Zombies, incapable of violating the will of the One true Obama-ssiah. Anyone who doesn’t fall in line to Heil Obama will obviously be starved, and their organs used to keep the Obama-zombie corps running.”

or…

“This proposal has certain elements that are startling in their potential implications, and as interesting for what is not said as for what is. It seems to imply that those who decline to ‘volunteer’ would NOT receive continuing medical care — which, for Seniors, is Medicaid. Though the language is vague, it also seems to imply that they would not receive retirement income — AKA Social Security. Furthermore — and perhaps most disconcerting — it is unclear what ‘citizen service’ will comprise. Will this service include ‘community organizing’, or other tasks that will have political implications? Who will decide what tasks are suitable? And what of Seniors whose health makes ‘volunteering’ impossible? Americans have every reason to be extremely leery of this policy until we know more about it, and should vigorously oppose it until acceptable answers are given. Our Senior Citizens have given too much to this country for us now to threaten to withhold their security in retirement if they are unwilling or unable to ‘volunteer’.”

Now, the first one might cause some of you to get excited, but that doesn’t add any votes to the total. The second one, though, I would argue has the ability to affect opinions.