Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Monday, April 13, 2015

"A peculiar, but unmistakable phenomenon..."




The New York Times's Sunday editorial expresses what reasonable people have known all along: The GOP's "...peculiar, but unmistakable phenomenon:  As Barack Obama's presidency heads into its twilight, the rage of the Republican establishment toward him is growing louder, angrier, and more destructive."

As an example of this destructive rage, the Times points out that even before Mr. Obama was inaugurated, the loud mouthed jackals of the GOP proclaimed to the media that they hoped he would fail.  The reigning bigots of the GOP allowed questions about Mr. Obama's citizenship and his religion to be taken seriously to the point where even members of Congress joined in on the attacks.  The most recent example (the ones in the past are too numerous to list here) is that of the 47 US Senators who signed a letter to the leaders of Iran, warning them that whatever negotiations they and President Obama agreed on, the next president could overturn. Treachery of the worst sort.  The Times wondered how the GOP would have reacted to Congressional Democrats authoring such a letter to the Kremlin while Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan were negotiating a nuclear arms agreement.  It would have been unthinkable, and yet the current GOP Congress (most of whom never even read the letter) had no regrets taking part in their treachery.

Mitch McConnell just recently told foreign governments to "ignore the carbon-emissions goal Mr. Obama was trying to set by international agreement.  Because climate-change deniers in Congress and in some states oppose the efforts, setting those goals is pointless, Mr. McConnell pronounced last month."

The Times continues:  "If this insurrection is driven by something other than a blend of ideological extremism and personal animosity, it's not clear what that might be.  But it is ugly, it deepens a mistrust of government, and it harms the office of the president, not just Mr. Obama."

The TPer GOP's maniacal hatred of this president and his wife is about more than policy differences (remember, the ACA was based on a REPUBLICAN idea), it's about something deeper, darker, more shameful, and destructive than mere ideological differences.  History will not be kind to the GOP and how they've behaved during Mr. Obama's presidency.

The good news is that overall, the Obama presidency will be seen as a success, and the TGOPers will be seen as utterly insane in their uncontrolled rage and hatred of Mr. and Mrs. Obama.


A different perspective:



Paul Krugman:



"...Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn't deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. 

His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it's working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it's much more effective than you'd think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy. 

 I'll go through those achievements shortly. First, however, let's take a moment to talk about the current wave of Obama-bashing. All Obama-bashing can be divided into three types. One, a constant of his time in office, is the onslaught from the right, which has never stopped portraying him as an Islamic atheist Marxist Kenyan. Nothing has changed on that front, and nothing will. 


And this not so satirical satire from Andy Borowitz:


Republicans Promise Smooth Transition of Hate from Obama to Clinton 


WASHINGTON - Republicans today promised that there will be a "seamless transition of hatred" if President Obama is succeeded in office by Hillary Clinton. "Like many Americans, we will be saddened to see our lawsuits, investigations, and general harassment directed towards President Obama come to an end," said House Speaker John Boehner. 

"But we want to reassure everyone that we are very much up to the challenge of transferring our hatred to a President Clinton." Boehner promised the American people that the tormenting of the new Democratic President would begin on her first day in office. "The fact that we began this process while she was still Secretary of State will really enable us to hit the ground running," he said.

9 comments:

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, if their criticism of Pres Obama and his policies is as principled as some would argue, perhaps conservatives could explain their love for presidential candidates Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and soon Ben Carson.

Candidate Obama was pilloried for a lack of experience as he was running, yet his resume was longer and more detailed in 2008 than any of these three.

Yet that does not matter any more.

Candidate Obama was deemed ineligible by many GOP partisans because he was not a "real American" because he was not born here and his dad was not a citizen.

Yet those facts are happily ignored in the case of Cruz, as these facts are not even in dispute with him.

Either they are choosing to willfully be intellectually dishonest and inconsistent, seeking only a partisan advantage, or, they really do have a peculiar, unexplained issue.

It cannot be both.

BB-Idaho said...

Hatred and its sister Fear, have comprised and continue to comprise
the GOP raison d'etre.

Rational Nation USA said...

Marco Antonio Rubio (born May 28, 1971) is the junior United States Senator from Florida, serving since January 2011. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives (2007–2009).

A Cuban American native of Miami, Florida, Rubio is a graduate of the University of Florida and the University of Miami Law School. In the late 1990s, he served as a City Commissioner for West Miami and was elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2000, representing the 111th House district. He was elected Speaker in November 2006.

Rubio announced a run for U.S. Senate in May 2009 after incumbent Republican Mel Martinez resigned. Initially trailing by double-digits against the incumbent Republican Governor Charlie Crist, Rubio eventually surpassed him in polling for the Republican nomination. Rubio won the Republican nomination after Crist opted instead to run with no party affiliation. In a three-way split against Crist and Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek, Rubio won the general election in November 2010 with 48.9 percent of the vote. He is one of three Latinos in the Senate, along with Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Ted Cruz of Texas.[1]


SOURE LINK


Further is appears as Rubio rarely if ever voted present.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Interesting about Rubio, but what does it have to do with my post?

Rational Nation USA said...

I believe it was in response to comment with respect to qualifications Obama -vs-Rubio.

It would seem Rubio is at least in the same league as Obama in 2007/2008.

My apology for pointing this out. Won't do so in the future.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Oops, didn't see the reference in Dave's comment.

Anonymous said...

Marco Rubio?

Voted against raising the minimum wage.

Walked back his immigration proposal.

Wants to repeal Obamacare --no replacement plan.

Denies climate change science.

If that's considered an attractive candidate that appeals to all voters, not just the Tea Party voters, good luck.

Dave Miller said...

Ah... but Les, the point being, if conservatives support Rubio, after having said Obama was unqualified, because of lack of experience, we must ask why they opposed Obama and his election on those grounds.

Was it principled, truly based on experience, which we can now see was not true, or was it due to some other issue?

These are truly peculiar problems for GOP partisans.

Rational Nation USA said...

Ah... but Les, the point being, if conservatives support Rubio, after having said Obama was unqualified, because of lack of experience, we must ask why they opposed Obama and his election on those grounds

Smart conservatives opposed because of his agenda and what they perceived, rightly or wrongly, his push to the left.

Liberals then must acknowledge that Rubio possesses qualification s equal to Obama.

It's what you ultimately do with your qualifications that matter if elected.