JD: "Today's speech is unlikely to mollify his most ardent foes, and it won't make health care reform any easier. But it should make it harder for anyone to question his patriotism."

Sadly, not true. Today's wild-eyed uber-conservatives encounter no obstacles whatsoever to dissuade them from attacking Obama's patriotism. Hell, the Governor of Hawaii posts our President's birth certificate online and they still question his U.S. citizenship!

This is not a level-headed group of people attempting to ascertain a politician's relative skills and deficits. Facts don't matter to them; usually don't even enter the discussion. For them, facts reside strictly in the realm of the subjective: we have our facts, you have your mainstream media-fed spin and fabrications. Apparantly this approach saves a lot of time and effort over the boring and untrustworthy method of critical thinking.

To them, it's not about what he says or does; it's about who he is.

Socialist...Communist...Liar..­.Unqualified....secret Muslim...yada...yada...yada...

I sincerely feel sorry for intelligent, moderate Republicans. Their party & platform has been hijacked by a cabal of morons.

Well, liberals constantly question the honesty, intelligence, sanity, and compassion of anyone who dares to disagree with their agenda, why should they expect that a person's patriotism is somehow exempt?

Illinichief: Well, liberals constantly question the honesty, intelligence, sanity, and compassion of anyone who dares to disagree with their agenda, why should they expect that a person's patriotism is somehow exempt?

Only wingnut liberals shy away from honest political discourse. Republican, even conservative Repub critique, is essential to check and balance the power of an majority-Dem Congress and Dem White House. And I happen to be a Democrat. Oh yes... the opposite of that statement also applies.

Regrettably, you will continue to see a vitriolic liberal response to the more egregious & frothing-mouth hyperbole and ad hominem 'grenades' thrown by the far-Right nuts. Honorable? No. Productive? Probably not. Inevitable? Human nature to fight fire with fire or in this case, hyperbole with counter-hyperbole.

I campaigned actively for Obama in the primaries, was thrilled that he was elected, and think that ultimately he prove to be an intelligent & effective President. That said, he has and will continue to make mistakes and errors in judgment and these misjudgments can and should be spotlighted, debated, criticized, and when appropriate, corrected. Just because he and VP Biden represent my values more than Bush-Cheney doesn't make them infallible or immune from rational criticism of their policies.

So please don't take the following as an insult because I doubt it applies to you, but the "Birthers," H1N1 conspiracy theorists, SOCIALIST_COMMUNIST CAPS SHOUTERS, secret Muslim theorists, Obama-hates-whites arguers.... these folks are miles from rational. Just as far removed as the left-wing kooks who posited that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks or who claimed that Cheney's predaliction for a unitary executive was an intentional and subversive attempt to create a military dictatorship.

Shrill, fact-immune, mouth-breathing idiots---the whole lot of 'em. The dangerous gap in our country is not between liberalism and conservatism; its between the educated and the ignorant. This should concern both sides of the political fence

Your second post is a lot less shrill than your first. As someone who views himself as a moderate Republican, I feel that you can make the same statement (that you made at the end of your first post) about much of the leadership of the Democratic party. Specifically, N. Pelosi, who is so partisan about every issue that it is laughable at times; I rarely see her engage in honest political discourse, so would she fit your description of a wingnut liberal? I guess what I'm getting at is that from my view, BOTH parties have plenty of "nuts" in their platform and leadership; both fail to hold their own members accountable for actions that they will cry bloody murder about if the opposition does the same actions.

For example, see this article. I feel that President Obama made a very good, very appropriate, extremely respectful speech. But the gushing worship hymn that this article is...man, you would think that the speech automatically deserves a spot next to the Gettysburg address and the declaration of independance in significance. Now, I feel that President Bush made an equally impressive speech to the country in front of congress after 9/11; but liberals made no note of that, just outrage at the 7 or so minutes it took for him to abort the school book reading after first hearing of the attack. John Kerry even made it a minor campaign issue, stating if he had been commander in chief, he would have reacted much more quickly and appropriately. Yet where is the democratic cry of outrage and disappointment regarding President Obama's first public speech after hearing the news of this slaughter - giving props and a smiling "shout out" to the tribal community before suddenly putting on his serious mood and announcing the news about Fort Hood? Hypocrites abound both sides. And in your first posting, you were almost soundin like one.

bigmac: appreciate your comments and would only add these 4 observations...

1) The 24/7 news cycle is an equal-opportunity bipartisan offender. WAY too much blather pretending to be critical discourse on both sides but it sells soap. In fact, shrill beats (and out-sells) non-shrill any day. So a lot more conservatives inevitably hear Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh instead of reading Will or Buckley or Safire. Same on my side.

2) Many of the critiques of Bush's slow-motion reaction on 9/11 were over-the-top (after all, it turned out that it was unnecessary to order counter-strikes for example. He had to secure US air space and public transport and he/they did). However, comparing his less-than-exemplary reaction to Obama's is (IMO) a little disproportionate considering the relative scope of the two events.

3) If I recall, Bush's post-9/11 speeches (esp his remarks at ground zero) were roundly praised by the pundits and mainstream media alike. This would be easy enough to verify by a Google search and I will attempt to do this. Remember that it is especially easy for both sides (you and me included) to ignore --or miss entirely-- the 'balanced' reactions from the other side - especially when we're not watching. Or when we overly rely on the parsed/partisan sound-bites from our own favorite talking heads (Maddow, O'Reilly, Olberman, Rush, Beck, etc..)

4) Slippery differences between the words "partisan", "ideological" and "principaled." How would you distinguish between the three? And following your definitions, how is Pelosi substantially different than Newt was (is)? Not saying you're wrong about Pelosi; just wanting to see how fair you are on this topic :)

Again, I appreciate your comments and the polite discourse; a nice change in the Fray.

-Oka

We live in a celebrity-worshipping culture and are (collectively) suckers for a good orator. Obama is a very good one; so was Reagan, and both men were (are) over lionized for their inspirational speeches. (Both are also good speech writers as well and both penned their own best speeches.)

Republicans gushed endlessly about Reagan and "Morning in America" and "Tear Down This Wall." Obama supporters similarly swoon over his best speeches.

My point is, this doesn't really matter much. There will always be a percentage of political followers on both sides of the aisle who choose to remain steadfastly uncritical of their own. As such, they render themselves emotionally unable to participate in rational political discourse.

That said, I'm not interested in being distracted by these political cheerleaders. And I'm not automatically going to accuse a conservative of "drinking the Kool Aid" if he/she is openly inspired by Reagan GWB speech. Inspiration is not in itself a bad thing. At worst, the most starry-eyed & uncritical of Dems/GOPer's are annoying -- but even at their uncritical worst, they're merely irrelevant. People employ far worse criteria than 'inspiration' when choosing who to vote for.

Way too much time and venom spent on these "fans" and such invective unfairly lumps in the critical thinkers with the sycophant and cuts off dialogue before it starts. Talk radio is a prime culprit here. Say one good thing about Obama and you're "one of the mindless hope zombies." Why listen and logically react someoone's argument when you can simply shoot the messenger, put him on the defensive, distract him from his main point(s), then cut off his mic and continue to mock him when he's no longer there to defend himself?

Absolutely detest this kind of bullshit 'non-dialogue' whether its coming from Rush or from Air America.

The only thing that matters about Obama is it's Obama.

opus512:

The only thing that matters about Obama is it's Obama.

Exactly the kind of post I'm talking about. A 10-word ad hominem attack based on the poster's own emotional predisposition and lack of interest in objective thought.

No observations, no insight -- just anger and black-and-white over-simplification.

What patriotism? He hasn't shown one scintilla of patriotism in his entire life. He has never risked his life for the sake of another human being. His work as a "community organizer" was far from selfless - it was a stepping stone to a political career.

He is a socialist. He is a liar. He is a coward. He is unqualified.

Put a hot compress on the chills running up your leg and actually READ the text of the speech he gave today. Nearly every sentence stated the obvious.

Soldiers serve.

They face danger.

They have families who love them.

They are heroes.

They protect our liberty.

They are doing good things overseas.

His so-called "stories" were nothing more than brief descriptions providing little depth to any of the deceased, glossing over decades of service with a few impotent words. They wouldn't have amounted to a standard military biography in a hometown press release. If he wasn't going to take the time to give each soldier due justice to their service and sacrifice, he shouldn't have bothered. Or, he should have stated that he didn't know them well and wished to learn more about them.

This was a chore for Obama - a homework assignment - an in classic fashion of a callow pupil who doesn't understand the assignment, he made stuff up at the last minute.

I've given eulogies for fallen soldiers. I've praised soldiers at their retirements. I've given soldiers awards. And this piece of work fell far short of anything which anyone should consider honorific and rousing.

Oka -

I also appreciate your polite remarks. Finally, a discussion without invective, insults and zingers every other sentence! Anyway, since you asked, here are my remarks on your 4 points:

(1) Amen.

(2) You're right - 9/11 looms gigantically over Ft. Hood in terms of tragedy. But this is the biggest tragedy that Obama has faced, and his immediate response did seem inappropriate. I won't argue over whose (his or GHB's) was worse - just pointing out, BHO's reaction was inappropriate, and it wasn't mentioned at all by left leaning programs or democrats, by what I could tell.

(3) Actually, I do remember the praise Bush got for both his "ground zero" speech and the speech before Congress I mentioned. Didn't mean to imply that he didn't get noticed for that - just that the Dems. - especially in the 2004 campaign - made a big fuss over the schoolbook reading, and thus, the point that I restated in (2). Hey, also - in this Slate article (the one I made the "gushing" comment about) - did you notice that not only did the writer swoon over Obama's speech, he couldn't help but get in a dig at GWB? Not sure I understand the need to continue to take swipes at a former politician, especially in a case like this where the swipe is not necessarily a fact but a matter of the writer's personal opinion.....

(4) Ohhhh boy. I'm not gonna define those 3 terms - no pundit uses them according to Webster's definitions anyway. What I will do is define how I meant "partisan" in my post...maybe I really meant "monopartisan" (as opposed to bipartisan). NP promised to attempt to be bipartisan. Now in a way I think that any pol who promises that is setting him/herself up to break that vow - come on, you really aren't going to push your party line most of the time? Yes - Newt was not fully bipartisan either. The thing that stands out to me with NP - and this is with me following her since '06 - is that she seems to be more extreme than Newt, or Hastert, or Tip O' Neil in her pronouncements of credit and blame. Failure is never due to the democrat party - it's ALWAYS the republicans (or, more recently, the CIA and health insurance companies) who are evil. Her tone has seemed to be more confrontational, black-or-white, and less cooperative and compromising than even her 3 predecessors. It also is disappointing to me that while she took office promising to "clean the House" of corruption, she has given the appearance of turning a blind eye and deaf ear to allegations of corruption within her party.

Of course, this is one man's opinion. So....what's my point? I was responding to your comment in your OP about the republican party being overtaken by their right wing fringe. Funny...my republican friends say that it's the democrat party that are being led by their far left component and their moderate members are often uncomfortable with the leader's agenda. See, in my moderate view - I see fringe elements in the leadership and agendas of BOTH parties. And I see people on both sides scared and worried about the other side's wackos, and that "the wackos are leading the opposition, and we must warn the nation!" - I was just disappointed to see you joining that chorus in the OP.

Having said that - I appreciate your tempered and thoughtful posts, mostly:)) - mac

okakura:

opus512:

The only thing that matters about Obama is it's Obama.

Exactly the kind of post I'm talking about. A 10-word ad hominem attack based on the poster's own emotional predisposition and lack of interest in objective thought.

No observations, no insight -- just anger and black-and-white over-simplification.

And it's completely appropriate and correct.

You want an observation? Fine. Obama could have nominated a white male evangelical that openly advocates over turning Roe V Wade to the Supreme Court and conservatives would have rabidly opposed whoever it was. For no other reason than it was Obama nominated him.

They will support nothing Obama ever does, for no other reason than it is Obama doing it. If that's over simplification, it's because the conservative movement is itself simple minded.

okakura:

opus512:

The only thing that matters about Obama is it's Obama.

Exactly the kind of post I'm talking about. A 10-word ad hominem attack based on the poster's own emotional predisposition and lack of interest in objective thought.

No observations, no insight -- just anger and black-and-white over-simplification.

Oh, by they way? I voted for McCain. I'm no Obama apologist or worshiper.

Illinichief:

Well, liberals constantly question the honesty, intelligence, sanity, and compassion of anyone who dares to disagree with their agenda, why should they expect that a person's patriotism is somehow exempt?

It seems to me healthier -- and smarter -- to evaluate other people in terms of what they actually say and actually do (as opposed to what some 3rd party has "explained" for you about their feelings).

For example, just last summer, we saw Gov. Rick Perry of Texas -- the same Rick Perry who professed sorrow at the Ft. Hood shootings -- speaking to a crowd in Austin about his wish for insurrection and secession. When a man in his crowd loudly proclaimed himself to be "An American Terrorist", Perry saluted him and congratualted him. The crowd cheered. Now Perry has gotten a look at what "an American terrorist" means. So far, anyway, he has not recanted his praise for the principles of insurrection, secession, and domestic terrorism. Of course, his fans forgive this, knowing Perry only really loves the "right kind of terrorists".

Forgive me if I don't consider this patriotism. (not!)

What was he supposed to do, give a 10-minute speech about each of their lives? That will come later, by people who knew them. Obama needed to put each of their lives into context of this tragedy and did not have much time in which to do so.

Congratulations on being such a great American. You deserve to pat yourself on the back.

EbenCooke,

"It seems to me healthier--and smarter--to evaluate otheer people in terms of what they actually say and actually do (as opposed to what some 3rd party has "explained" for you about their feelings) ."

How do you feel about the cottage industry of liberal psychologizers who write books about how anyone who holds conservative views must be crazy or at least paranoid? How about Obama's statement that people who disagreed with him on certain issues were "bitter"? Are those examples of healthy debate?

And re Rick Perry, I'm sure Bill Ayer's fans feel the same way about him.