Obama criticism shuts down conversation

[shagdrum]

Obama criticism shuts down conversation
BY LAURA VARON BROWN

Parties were more fun when George W. Bush was president. You could debate, argue even, praise and condemn, throw darts and laurels and solve the world's problems over a bottle of wine.

No more. At least not in my circles. If you want to stop a conversation in its tracks, just question something President Barack Obama has said or done. It's not open to debate -- and I don't think that's healthy, for the country or the president.

It's especially unsettling for a free speech girl like me. The First Amendment is important -- but lately, it feels like my right of self-expression is being squashed.

One example: Obama's comment to Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show," comparing his bowling abilities to someone in the Special Olympics.

Can you imagine the uproar had Bush said that? He'd be banished from bowling alleys for eternity. His bowling average and IQ would have immediately been compared in Twitter messages demanding his resignation.

But instead, media and water cooler conversations the next day were about bowling scores and how tough the game can be. Anyone bringing up the insensitivity of the president's remark heard, "Come on, give the guy a chance. So he said one thing wrong. Anyone could have said something like that." End of discussion.

Anyone remember poor Dan Quayle, the vice president who misspelled "potato" at a school spelling bee in 1992? No second chance for a Republican. Five months after the resulting media field day, Quayle and the first President Bush were voted out of office.

And doesn't anyone want to debate the wisdom of Obama's people allowing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who derides the "imperialist United States," to hand the president a book in an embarrassing publicity stunt that rocketed the leftist tome, "The Open Veins of Latin America" to the top of the best-seller lists? A couple of months ago, we were refusing to buy Venezuelan gas; now we're rushing out to buy copies of an anti-American book. This is certainly fair game for party talk.

Don't get me wrong, there is a whole lot to like about Obama. I want his smart ideas and policies to work. I love his youth, his inclusiveness and the way he cuts through the minutiae of public policy. But when auto execs get the boot, foreign meanies mock us and Special Olympians are insulted, I'm sorry, he rates some disapproving chatter.

Of course, if you move in circles with disaffected conservatives who are feeling powerless these days, I suppose mentioning Obama in a favorable way risks drawing the wrath of those who can't wait to tell you that socialism is upon us.

Hey, this is OK. We need to hear both sides. We must hear both sides. But we ought to be listening to each other, not waiting to pounce and then closing down the conversation.

The point is, whatever side you come from, you have the right to talk -- which comes with an obligation to listen.

We have changed leaders and yes, probably for the better, yet we seem to remain as polarized as ever. Half the country wants to argue and the other half doesn't want to talk about it. That's not progress. And certainly not the progress Obama talks about wanting.

Not to mention it makes parties a lot less interesting.

 

[hrmwrm]

moral of the story.
the right is whining and the left's not listening.

 

[shagdrum]

moral of the story.
the right is whining and the left's not listening.

leave it to you to take something from the story that isn't there.

 

[Calabrio]

moral of the story.
the right is whining and the left's not listening.

No, that wasn't the moral of the story.
The moral of the story is actually represented by your post.
Discussion and debate by the left has completely devolved into "Shut Up."

Here's another story from Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aWVgBVC0L05w

Obama Democrats Accent Bullying Over Governing
Commentary by Amity Shlaes

May 5 (Bloomberg) -- So Michele Bachmann’s version of history is “from another planet.” Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, is “chronically stupid.” And Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking Republican in the House, is “busy lying constantly.”

That at least is according to posts on three left-leaning blogs.

Writers who are not pro-Barack Obama are suffering character assassination as well. George Will of the Washington Post, the nation’s senior conservative columnist, has been so assaulted by bloggers that his editor, Fred Hiatt, recently wrote, “I would think folks would be eager to engage in the debate, given how sure they are of their case, rather than trying to shut him down.”

The disconcerting thing isn’t that the bloggers or their guests did this slamming. We’re used to such vitriol in campaign time. What is surprising is that the attacks are continuing after an election.

In the past, politicians and policy thinkers tended to be magnanimous in victory. They and their friends focused, post- victory, on policy and strategy -- not on trashing individuals.

It ought to be especially true this time, given what wonders are befalling the Democrats. Between Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Al Franken in Minnesota, it looks like the Democrats are in the process of making their Senate majority filibuster-proof. Then there’s the president’s new opportunity to mold the Supreme Court, with the resignation of David Souter.

Still, somehow, the magnanimity isn’t there. Indeed, he closer the Democrats get to total power, the nastier the commentators friendly to them have become.

Wild Internet

The explanation for this perpetual venom is threefold, and starts with the Internet. Years ago, out of a sense of civics, gentle and gentlemanly newspaper editors used to allow a certain honeymoon period post-election. Winners got to bask, and losers sulk.

Internet scribes are not into civics. Most bloggers lack editors: Even as he attacked Bachmann for errors, the author on The New Republic’s Plank blog misspelled her name. Even when editors are involved, they often leave blogs alone, on the lazy premise that spontaneity outranks accuracy.

Another force at work is the relevance of history. The most recent attack on Bachmann came after she misspoke and called the 1930 tariff “Hoot-Smalley” rather than its accurate name, Smoot-Hawley. Bachmann also implied that Franklin Roosevelt signed the tariff into law, rather than its actual signator, Herbert Hoover.

Biden’s Slip

Vice President Joseph Biden made much larger slips when talking about the same period on the campaign trial. In an ecstasy of anachronism, he told Katie Couric, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

The problem for Bachmann was also her implication that the New Dealers’ policies failed to bring recovery. Since this happens to be accurate, it’s a sensitive point, as I myself have noted watching the bile poured on my own 2007 book on the period.

But the most important factor here is Democratic weakness. The party isn’t comfortable yet at the summit of political power.

The unsteadiness began with Obama: Instead of shaping the stimulus package himself, according to his own principles, he handed over the work to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Appropriations chairman, who in turn produced a porky package without discernible philosophy.

Unsure Policies

Unsure of whether it wanted to punish or stimulate -- and so choosing to attempt both -- the administration generated legislation to help financial institutions and legislation that hurts them by restricting rates and terms for the credit cards they issue. Obama’s call for putting more student loans in federal hands is clever politically, and may even save students money in the short term, but it likely will restrict the availability of such loans in the future.

In short, Obama speaks beautifully but is on his way to a “D” grade when it comes to making the U.S. attractive for international investment, a fact the Chinese are already noting by shopping for non-U.S. bonds.

The Democrats of 2009 are showing less awareness than their predecessors did in President Bill Clinton’s time on the importance of low taxes and reasonable regulation. Only these permit strong growth, a point made articulately by none other than Bachmann herself, in the now-infamous “Hoot-Smalley” TV clip.

Mission to Distract

Because the ruling Democrats have tilted too far left, their allies are out on a mission of distraction, trying to prove that everyone else is too far to the right. On the key question of trade, Americans are pretty sympathetic to Bachmann’s pro-trade views, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Citizens don’t necessarily line up with the protectionist unions and House Speaker Pelosi.

So here’s a new motto: more leadership, less bloggership. Voters tend to tire the ad hominem approach. By smearing others, rather than putting forward ideas, the scribblers smear themselves instead.

(Amity Shlaes, author of “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Amity Shlaes at amityshlaes@hotmail.com

 

[foxpaws]

Obama criticism shuts down conversation
Of course, if you move in circles with disaffected conservatives who are feeling powerless these days, I suppose mentioning Obama in a favorable way risks drawing the wrath of those who can't wait to tell you that socialism is upon us.

Shag, thank you for the article... a nice viewpoint.

I do have to agree that Obama and Reagan have something in common - the label 'teflon' does appear to apply to both of them (actually 'teflon' in reference to a politician was first used with Reagan). The love affair the media has with Obama is a bit over the top, and he has made mistakes that need to be called out and addressed (Ms Brown seems to have forgotten that most democrats in line for cabinet positions failed to pay taxes, and that wasn't ferreted out by the administration's nominating committees, another thing the press has glossed over.)

Will this glow fade over time - are we still in the 'honeymoon' stage? I hope so, and I hope soon. The press needs to task the administration more. It will make it better for both sides. The administration needs to know there are watchdogs out there, and the press could use a big shot of 'reality', and regain some credibility.

However, this point Ms Brown made (the one in the quote above) is very true here...on this forum

I would love to get into a 'real' discussion about some policies, such as health care. But, if I go there with anything other than 'leave it alone' or 'get rid of any government intervention' the 's' word will rise to the top, and irrationality will set in, on both sides.

And Cal, do you think we (the American people) are paying too much attention to 'blogs'? I wonder if they are part of the odd distress and strange 'panics' that happen now. A news bit is flashed like wildfire throughout blogs, such as the story about 'registering personal weapons if you are in the military', but, if actual 'good' reporting had taken place, like interviewing the commanding officer or the PR department at the base, the story would have been interesting, but certainly wouldn't have had the odd 'the administration is going to take away all of our guns, run for the hills' slant. Your article above, by Shlaes, points to the left, but it happens on both sides of the fence. I wouldn't know which side is more 'at guilt', you would say 'left' I would say 'right,' but needless of assignation of guilt, perhaps when reading blogs, we mostly need to remember, heck, I can write a blog, so can my 10 year old niece (who actually has a very good one ).

 

[fossten]

The debate shouldn't be about policies. It should be about principles. Less government expansion versus more; less individual freedom versus more; less government looting from the rich and giving to the poor.