Let’s think about that for a second. The press asks what progress has been made on these crucial fronts, which you appear to agree is exactly what they are supposed to do. The President, however, mischaracterizes their questions, describes his press corps like impatient children, and claims that his team finds these inquiries amusing.

Is he trying to lower expectations? Of course he is. Do you really think misleading the public and trivializing the press is an acceptable way to go about it? It’s telling that even you feel compelled to defend him by suggesting that the press were probably asking just that sort of questions, despite the fact that Jake Tapper — who was there and who is part of the press corps the President is tarnishing with a smile on his face — says otherwise. Think about the position that he has put you in here.

I might be prepared to cut the President some slack if he weren’t doing this kind of thing all the time. Rather than addressing his critics on substance, he offers up insulting mischaracterizations of their positions and dispatches strawmen of his own creation instead. In his first prime time stimulus appearance, he made the jaw dropping, inflammatory, assertion that “some” conservatives “just want to burn down the public school system.” Perhaps he’s trying to lower expectations of bipartisan governance. I’d call it lowering public discourse into the gutter.

There is a reason that this President has already proven to be the most polarizing in the history of polling on the subject. Democrats just spent 8 years complaining that Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider, at every turn. Obama upped the ante on that campaign promise by orders of magnitude — and has successfully sent those expectations crashing before the traditional honeymoon is even over. Perhaps you should think a little longer about about whether he is just doing his job.

Obama wasn’t asking for patience when he pushed the most sweeping and most expensive expansion of government in U.S. history through Congress. When it comes to foreign policy, he certainly doesn’t have to lower my expectations which were at rock bottom before he even took the oath of office. He only has to deal with the folks who have trouble thinking critically in such arenas. In this case, that would be his own supporters, not the opposition.

It’s gonna be a long 4 years.

ANV on April 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

I’m not optimistic at all…..

First we planted our national head in the sand.
And now we are cultivating the ground with our sightless flappings as our enemies and competitors abuse us.
And we are already reaping the harvest of injuries, loss of security, power, financial strength and respect that go with our undignified position.
It’s gonna be a long 4 years.

Mr President, when you were in Iraq you noted the significant progress which has taken place. Did you apologize to Iraqis for advocating that Iraq be abandoned to the tender mercies of al Qaeda and Iran – even to the point of saying the threat of genocide wasn’t sufficient reason for American forces to finish the job?

Mr President, twice in the 20th century the U.S. rescued Europe from its own dung heap and then spent 13 billion dollars (115 billion in today’s dollars) on the Marshall Plan rebuilding Europe and billions more defending it from itself. What have Europeans ever done for America?

And what does you Administration expect from European nations (and others) when you you apologize for what some Americans would call an essentially false and indeed anti-American narrative of our history?

Mr. President, when you met the Queen and Prince Phillip you gave a respectful nod of the head. When you met King Abdullah you bent forward from the waist to such an extent that your body was on a 45 degree angle and your right knee was bent. Why the extreme difference in body language and why is your office insisting your deep bow was not a bow?

Mr. President, why did your campaign turn off the Address Verification System for credit card donations?

Mr. President, is it still your opinion that Iran is a tiny country and not a threat to the United States?

Mr. President, why did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contribute to your campaign? Why are GSEs allowed to contribute to politicians who are supposed to regulate them?

Why hasn’t your government objected to bonuses paid to employees of the government and employees and board members of these GSEs?

FOR STARTERS

What’s your point?
That saying Obama has a messianic complex is not dissent (Disagreement with the ideas, doctrines, decrees, etc. of a political party, government or religion.) but amateur psychoanalyst by people who want to think the worst of this person for political purposes.

Tom_Shipley on April 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM

You know–it takes a bit of hubris to say Obama does not try to portray himself as a deity after the Greek columns acceptence speech. Obama brought this on himself and the media gobbled it up and regurgitate every chance they get.

There are just some images so engrained into our minds that nothing will erase them.

I believe a very good discription for Obama would be Hubris.

Is this word in the air today? Because that is exactly a thought I had this morning.

Really did I pick that up from something someone else said? I want to know if there is a subliminal brainwashing tactic happening. I like to think my own thoughts and don’t want anyone messing with my brain.

If you and I both had the same thought what does that mean? I do think diligence is necessary on both the right and the left… Sometimes even paranoid people have enemies.

That saying Obama has a messianic complex is not dissent (Disagreement with the ideas, doctrines, decrees, etc. of a political party, government or religion.) but amateur psychoanalyst by people who want to think the worst of this person for political purposes.

Tom_Shipley on April 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Believing Obama is a deity is a political doctrine. And the political party in power is the media. The media’s primary doctrine is that Obama is a deity.

I DISSENT!

You do not.

I pity you.

Tom_Shipley on April 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM

And your amateurish blathering eliminates you from credible criticism of anyone.

But that is par for a donkey shit eating libtard like yourself. You aren’t special ya know. We deal with turds like you on a daily basis.

amateur psychoanalyst by people who want to think the worst of this person for political purposes.

Tom_Shipley on April 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM

I believe a very good discription for Obama would be Hubris.

I don’t believe anyone here has anything to gain personally or politically by pointing out Obama’s “warts.” Rather, I think everyone is tired of MSM’s fawning over him and not reporting the facts. For example, I watched CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and listened to her interview AG Holder.

She threw in the line: “that he (Obama) inherited…” Frankly, I am so sick of this excuse. How long before the media starts calling Obama on the problems he has created?

She also tried several times to get Holder to say that Cheney was “inappropriate” in his remarks about Obama making the world less safe. Luckily Holder didn’t fall for her bait.

By the way, CBS must be counting on Couric’s legs to give them better ratings. It seems most every night we are treated to a full body side view with her in a dress and her legs crossed. Wish they would get some male journalists to do the same…

amateur psychoanalyst by people who want to think the worst of this person for political purposes.

Tom_Shipley on April 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM

You’re saying I percieve Obama as arrogant because of my political biases or because ‘I know it isn’t true but if I say it maybe it will score my side political points’?

You don’t think Obama is arrogant and has a massive ego?

That saying Obama has a messianic complex is not dissent (Disagreement with the ideas, doctrines, decrees, etc. of a political party, government or religion.) but amateur psychoanalyst by people who want to think the worst of this person for political purposes.

Tom_Shipley on April 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM

So exploring the possible motives of a politician is off-limits or amateurish (perhaps to understand why he does the things you disagree with)? Or just this particular examination? I think Obama’s arrogance is an important factor in considering how he operates and makes decisions.

Q: What’s the difference between Obama and Jesus?
A: Jesus doesn’t think He’s Obama.

you might want to reconsider that.

Chimpy II is wet behind the ears, and it will not dry off before his term ends.

unclesmrgol on April 9, 2009 at 11:03 AM

That’s obvious. I mean, have you seen the size of those ears???

Why am I not surprised that someone in these comment sections believes using the proper definition of a words is somehow “newspeak.”

What’s your point?

That saying Obama has a messianic complex is not dissent (Disagreement with the ideas, doctrines, decrees, etc. of a political party, government or religion.) but amateur psychoanalyst by people who want to think the worst of this person for political purposes.

Again, you call this dissent?

Tom_Shipley on April 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM

What’s your point?

Again, you call this dissent?

1. Disagreement with the ideas, doctrines, decrees, etc. of a political party, government or religion.

2. An act of disagreeing with, or deviating from, the views and opinions of those holding authority.

pwned (verb):

To be defeated, especially in an extremely humiliating way.

Well, you asked for it. Obama has big ears. And his daughters? they’ll probably grow up to be men-hating feminists.

What’s that? his appearance and his children are off limits? yeah, right, just as much as GWB’s and Palin’s children and appearance are off limits…

Ah, I see…the shoe is now on the other foot, and it pinches. Gotcha.

I also wonder how people would have reacted had he told us then that in order to fix the financial crisis he would:

* Allow Pelosi/Reid to create a pork laden bill of astronomical proportions that expands government to fund all sorts of liberal pet projects and is in no way sustainable all in the guise of stimulating the economy
* Run up the national debt even further than Bush (who he was criticising for running up the national debt)
* Fire CEOs of companies who had received federal aid
* Hire an incompetent tax cheat to run the Treasury, but not actually staff any other top position at the Treasury
* Raise taxes on most Americans already paying taxes (oops there goes another campaign promise!)
* Stoke populist rage against the executives who are working towards making failed companies viable and able to pay back their obligations to the federal government and had no stake in the decisions that caused the company’s failure (e.g., AIG)

gwelf on April 9, 2009 at 10:53 AM

This is what I call dissent – pointing out the myriad ways in which I disagree with Obama and how he’s handling the problems that face us as a nation.

You call this dissent?

Tom_Shipley on April 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I guess this is what passes for dissent in your mind?:

ZOMG!!!eleventy!!one!!1111!! Bush is shredding the constitution and our rights and and and and he’s Chimpy McBush Hiter and he invaded Iraq so Cheney could get their oil and and and he’s a retarded chimp or something…!111eleventy111!!!

And again – you have no bones to pick with Obama?