Politics of Spite

Paul Krugman continues to demonstrate that brilliance in one field doesn’t necessarily translate into sound insights into others. He’s upset that some Republicans took pleasure in President Obama’s embarrassment in not landing the Olympics for his adopted Chicago and their cynicism in positioning themselves as the defenders of Medicare in order to fight his health care reform proposals. His explanation for both: “the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama.”

But that’s rather silly. The Olympics matter was one of schadenfreude. I know plenty of people who voted for and continue to support Obama who nonetheless question his hubris and the cult of personality that surrounds him. And the Medicare issue is one of tactics, choosing a politically expedient means to an end.

Moreover, Krugman continues this to Friedmanesque extremes.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern. Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.

Reagan won landslide victories and was still opposed by Democrats at every turn, often in vitriolic terms. Who can forget the late Teddy Kennedy’s vicious harangue against “Robert Bork’s America”? And goodness knows, George W. Bush wasn’t exactly treated with kid gloves. Our politics have taken a nasty turn this generation — hardly unprecedented in our history but magnified by a changed media climate — and now it’s Obama’s turn to feel the heat.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance.

Only because the Democrats have long since embraced the same rhetoric, forcing the Republicans to either adopt extreme positions or be “Me Too.” They’ve done some of both.

Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.

Again, this has been equally true of Democrats when they cycle out of power. It requires blindness or sheer partisan hackery to think what Obama’s facing now is any more ruthless or impolite than what Bush did during his eight years.

FILED UNDER: General, , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Ed, Watertown MA (but a frequent Chicago visitor) says:

    But the Olympics crowing on Friday by the more extreme right went beyond just criticising Obama. It was downright giddy that an American city in need of jobs and revenue was defeated solely because it would look bad for Obama. This is, dare I say it, verging on unamerican.

  2. G.A.Phillips says:

    Again, this has been equally true of Democrats when they cycle out of power. It requires blindness or sheer partisan hackery to think what Obama’s facing now is any more ruthless or impolite than what Bush did during his eight years.

    And the funny thing is that the treatment that Bush received hasn’t stopped. It’s to bad that Bush is to decent of a man to come out and do a daily Clinton like Jimmy”the peanut brain” Carter, Bill”oops I think thats gonna leave a stain” Clinton, And Barrack “the Hussein” Obama do.

  3. Trumwill says:

    It was downright giddy that an American city in need of jobs and revenue was defeated solely because it would look bad for Obama.

    In my experience, those that hate Obama the most are also critical of the notion that the Olympics would leave a city economically better off than it found it anyway. They may be wrong, but from their perspective, they’re not even wishing ill on Chicago. Well, that’s some of them. I’m sure there are people that hate Obama more than they love America. But simply being glad that Chicago did not get 2016 should not be taken as proof of that.

  4. G.A.Phillips says:

    But the Olympics crowing on Friday by the more extreme right went beyond just criticising Obama. It was downright giddy that an American city in need of jobs and revenue was defeated solely because it would look bad for Obama. This is, dare I say it, verging on unamerican.

    It’s somehow unfair to get giddy when Mr. personality can’t go smile somewhere and get his cronies crap loads of money for the use of their slum sites?

    dude, say culture of coruption for me, please…

  5. Eric Florack says:

    His explanation for both: “the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama.”

    But that’s rather silly.

    Silly? Perhaps. But it also is projection.
    Consider the positions Democrats took as regards anything that might make Bush look good.

  6. Wayne says:

    Many including myself saw the whole deal as a way to line the pockets of many of the corrupted Chicago establishment with money. We are not for corruption which includes U.S. corruption.

    According to a Chicago newspaper survey, a large portion of those from Chicago apposed getting the games. Does that mean they want Chicago to fail?

    Where is the typical concern from the left about being fair to the rest of the world? U.S. just had the summer games in 1996. Or is it the typical left philosophy that people should be fair unless it involves the left.

    How about for those who are concern that Obama is demeaning the position of U.S. President?

    I want Obama to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq but that doesn’t mean I want him to succeed in pushing socialize medicine or that I won’t condemn bonehead moves in those countries.

  7. floyd says:

    “”But the Olympics crowing on Friday by the more extreme right went beyond just criticising Obama
    It was downright giddy that an American city in need of jobs and revenue was defeated solely because it would look bad for Obama. This is, dare I say it, verging on unamerican.””
    “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

    The Olympics lament this week by the more extreme left has gone beyond their Obama cult of celebrity. It has gone all sackcloth and ashes over the loss of a scam that was about to punish the people of Illinois and the taxpayers of this country solely because they thought it might make their demigod look good!
    The worship of political leaders, I daresay, is definitively unamerican.

  8. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Guess you will not be able to pay $14.50 for a polish sandwich in Chicago at the olympics. The speech Mr. and Mrs. Obama gave was all about them, not the country, but what a feather in their caps. The only people who would have greatly benefitted from a Chicago Olympics would have been the slum lords and those who bribed their way into the venue. Obama has a war going on in Afghanistan, an economy that is in the toilet, Government spending is out of control and he worries about whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics, the capstone of his presidency. The Europeans are beginning to see what some Americans refuse to. We have an empty suit leadinmg this country. The most corrupt leader in our history. A man who has malevolent feeling about our country. Who seems not to care his policies will break our bank and our backs. We cannot even see how he did in school and fools take his word for nearly everything.

  9. odograph says:

    The Olympics matter was one of schadenfreude. I know plenty of people who voted for and continue to support Obama who nonetheless question his hubris and the cult of personality that surrounds him.

    You mean question that there is one, outside the minds of crazed rightists?

  10. odograph says:

    Enjoy Ixtapa, and consider this at your leisure (the first graphic is particularly striking) as more meaningful than deflation of imagined cults of personality that aren’t really there in the first place.

  11. Drew says:

    Gawd –

    Wayne gets it right. The view here in Chicago was 50 / 50, because people knew it was a taxpayer nightmare, and a political insider deal. Period.

    As for Obama, spare me. Had Chicago won, all the blather would have been how he “delivered” it. Now that he didn’t please don’t hide like wimps at the notion the he wasn’t tasked with “delivering” it. You gotta pick one point of view. He didn’t.

    Also, screw the fat, rich chick. Dopie, or Opie, or Oprah……….or whatever her name is.

  12. Pug says:

    …a scam that was about to punish the people of Illinois and the taxpayers of this country solely because they thought it might make their demigod look good!

    This is the official line until there is another Republican president. That is all.

  13. Pug says:

    Also, screw the fat, rich chick. Dopie, or Opie, or Oprah……….or whatever her name is.

    And you are what, Drew? A fat poor dude? Much better. At least you aren’t rich.

  14. An Interested Party says:

    Where is the typical concern from the left right about being fair to the rest of the world America first? U.S. just had the summer games in 1996. Or is it the typical left right philosophy that people should be fair unless it involves the left root for the president unless there is a D behind his name.

    Fixed that for ya…happy to be of help…

  15. TangoMan says:

    You mean question that there is one, outside the minds of crazed rightists?

    Yeah, those crazed conservatives (defined as anyone not a liberal) who are just making up this cult of personality charge out of ether:

    Barack Obama isn’t really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

    This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae – or no antennae at all – to all those who just don’t understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama’s aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe.

    To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics?

    No, it’s not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn’t have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

    Dismiss it all you like, but I’ve heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who’ve been intuitively blown away by Obama’s presence – not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence – to say it’s just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.

    Here’s where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

  16. An Interested Party says:

    Yeah, those crazed conservatives (defined as anyone not a liberal) who are just making up this cult of personality charge out of ether…

    So if we go back to Bush’s glory days and find love letters written in a similar vein about him, by the likes of Peggy Noonan, among others, I guess an argument can be made for his cult of personality too…and it is rather rich that you, of all people, would be talking about a cult of personality considering the regular tongue baths you give Sarah Palin…

  17. TangoMan says:

    So if we go back to Bush’s glory days and find love letters written in a similar vein about him, by the likes of Peggy Noonan, among others, I guess an argument can be made for his cult of personality too…and it is rather rich that you, of all people, would be talking about a cult of personality considering the regular tongue baths you give Sarah Palin…

    You serve a very useful purpose in the blogging ecosphere – you show us the folly of arguing via logical fallacy.

    If you believe that a cult of personality centered on Bush then demonstrate your claim. Engaging in hypotheticals and false equivalence arguments doesn’t convince anyone.

    As for Governor Palin, every comment I’ve made here has been supported by facts that are generally unacknowledged in the SRM in that they run contrary to the manufactured narrative about her. I even link to the evidence in support of my arguments so that readers can examine whether the evidence is as I claim it to be. Since when does relying on facts and disputing agitprop count as being a follower of a personality cult?

  18. G.A.Phillips says:

    This is the official line until there is another Republican president. That is all.

    Naw,I think it’s gonna be “Bush did it”.

  19. sam says:

    @Tman

    If you believe that a cult of personality centered on Bush then demonstrate your claim.

    Dunno if this counts a evidence for a cult, but it’s certainly one of the most bizarre political mash notes of recent memory:

    It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

    John Hinderaker, Powerline

  20. odograph says:

    All I can add to that, Tango, is that the only time I hear of such a cult it is from rightists, who want to puff it up at the same time they want to knock it down.

    They want to imagine it was big, and then that they beat this big thing.

  21. Eric says:

    You serve a very useful purpose in the blogging ecosphere – you show us the folly of arguing via logical fallacy.

    Could you please cite by name the implied logical fallacy? Your argumentation is unclear here.

    If you believe that a cult of personality centered on Bush then demonstrate your claim. Engaging in hypotheticals and false equivalence arguments doesn’t convince anyone.

    Can we just get away from the whole “cult of personality” thing here? Let’s start by looking at the definition of what a real cult of personality is (via Wikipedia):

    A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.[1] Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.

    A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

    Just because some people may have over-idealized Obama doesn’t make it a “cult of personality.” In any event, should we really be surprised that some people may have over-idealized Obama? After eight years of generally acknowledged dismal leadership under Bush, I think Americans were simply in a malaise and wanted–dare say, even hoped–Obama would lift that malaise. Is that so irrational? Emotional, perhaps, but certainly understandable. But that does not prove a personality cult exists around Obama (at least not any more than any other President) as one may commonly think, and it is certainly not proved by definition. Your (and others) characterization of it thus is just as emotional a response as others’ over-idealization of Obama.

    I can certainly recall the adulation over Bush from certain quarters of the Republican party, and An Interested Party is spot on bringing up Palin in this regard.

    As for Governor Palin, every comment I’ve made here has been supported by facts that are generally unacknowledged in the SRM in that they run contrary to the manufactured narrative about her.

    So, if facts are unacknowledged, are they actually “facts?” And what precisely is the “manufactured narrative” about Palin? I think it is pretty clear from the actual facts that Palin dug her own hole, from not being able to answer a simple question on what she reads to claiming that being “next door” to Russia gives her foreign policy experience to pretty much saying voting for Obama means voting for The Terrorists. The media hasn’t been unfair; that’s the real Sarah Palin you’re seeing.

    I even link to the evidence in support of my arguments so that readers can examine whether the evidence is as I claim it to be. Since when does relying on facts and disputing agitprop count as being a follower of a personality cult?

    Since when does examining your “evidence” and coming to the opposite conclusion mean liberals are followers of a personality cult?

  22. Derrick says:

    Consider the positions Democrats took as regards anything that might make Bush look good.

    This is such bs. Democrats supported W on Afghanistan. They were willing to support him on immigration reform, and you can easily find all manner of quotes about this. And let’s be honest there was broken trust between Bush on really big issues before you saw any of the extreme vitrol later on. Republicans have started from day 1 and obviously won’t stop. Ignore the facts if you’d like.

  23. floyd says:

    Eric;
    Thanks for the definition confirming the Obama “cult of personality!
    The “dismal leadership” claim is subjective nonsense at best, since it was “generally acknowledged” only by those who have proven themselves to be both jealous of the office and incompetent to lead!
    The present administration has made it clear that they would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, and their every action is geared toward that very goal.

  24. Our Paul says:

    Love it, just love. A classic pincer movement on President Obama:

    On the right flank the heavy artillery and Panzer attack lead as usual by the Fat Man with Big Cigar, the Fully Dressed Ladies gracing Fox’s calendar and True Patriots. The later are easily identified, for they are not criticizing Obama, but either defending our Constitution or the American Way of Life (what ever that may be).

    On the left flank, there is no waving of yellow flags with a Snake and Don’t Tread On Me or distorted pictures of Obama as the Joker, a cartoon character. They are serious and deep thinkers, charging forward, in support of the Right flank with this cry: What ever we say is permissible, for they have done worse. Or to quote our host:

    Only because the Democrats have long since embraced the same rhetoric, forcing the Republicans to either adopt extreme positions or be “Me Too.” They’ve done some of both.

    Poor dears, forced, no less, into the vitriol against Obama and even worse, into “Me Too”. The later of course being (gasp) the recognition that President Bush left ours, and the worlds economies facing disasters, and that every potential solution does not bring forth constructive criticism or alternative approaches but cries socialism?

    The Center Right, since the days of Nixon’s Enemies List has thrived in a climate of personal destruction (attack politics, now quaintly referred to as Swiftboating), subliminal racism, and the politics of fear. Why even the Sainted Man that lived in the Shining City on the Hill opened his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi preaching the validity of (wink, wink) States Rights no more than 100 miles from where 3 Civil Rights workers were murdered!

    Nothing new here, says Glenn Greenwald of left wing acid pen fame, as he contrast the Center Right assault on Clinton to the vitriol inflaming Obama’s Presidency. A couple of snips might whet the appetite of those with a historical bent:

    The Wall Street Journal called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the possible “murder” of Vince Foster. Clinton was relentlessly accused by leading right-wing voices of being a murderer, a serial rapist, and a drug trafficker. Tens of millions of dollars and barrels of media ink were expended investigating “Whitewater,” a “scandal” which, to this day, virtually nobody can even define… And, of course, the GOP ultimately impeached him over that sex scandal… — in the process issuing a lengthy legal brief with footnotes detailing his sex acts (cigars and sex talk), publicly speculating about (and demanding examinations of) the unique “distinguishing” spots on his penis, and using leading right-wing organs to disseminate innuendo that he had an abandoned, out-of-wedlock child. More intense and constant attacks on a President’s “legitimacy” are difficult to imagine.

    Quite right Glenn, the “Birthers” cry for Obama’s birth certificate cannot really compare with a looksee at Clinton’s penis, but hey mon, it has only been 10 months since Obama was elected, a consistent vitriolic attack takes time to develop. For the truly committed, but allergic to tea bags I suggest a web search with impeach and Obama as the key words.

    Its easy, Dr. Joiner, to understand what is going on, one has to consider the ever constant vilification of Jimmy Carter. I mean, what other way is there to defend an ineffective President than to point to Carter, and say he was much worse?

    And if that is not close enough to home, consider the on going Caption Contest in this blog that depicts five Indian kids honoring Gandhi birthday by dressing in the traditional garb he used to tour India. Just a bit of brown skin and its enough to bring out your Obamaphobe hissing, spitting, and howling crowd. Does not take a neurologist to tell you these guys and gals have a serious brain synapse problem.

    Psssst 1#: No sweetbreads in Mexico, but I do hope you enjoyed your brief respite. Welcome back to the fray!!!

  25. TangoMan says:

    Could you please cite by name the implied logical fallacy? Your argumentation is unclear here.

    Fallacy of biased sample = cult of personality charges against Bush don’t rely solely on a Peggy Noonen type column which praises Bush. Neither do the charges against Obama rely on the editorial I linked to. These are just one example drawn from many instances (fainting, brainwashing kids, pledges of fealty and devotion to the great leader by leading celebrities, etc.)

    Fallacy of False Equivalence = establishing that Peggy Noonan may have written an editorial complementing Bush doesn’t mean that her editorial is equivalent in form to the editorial which claim that Obama is a spiritual marvel who exists in a different plane than the rest of society.

    A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.

    Check. The Charlie Gibson “interview” of Obama:

    GIBSON: Senator, I’m curious about your feelings last night. It was an historic moment. Has it sunk in yet?
    GIBSON: What did your grandmother say?
    GIBSON: Public moments are not your own. There’s a million people pulling you in a million different directions, but when everybody clears out, the staff is gone, you’re in your hotel room at night and you’re alone — do you say to yourself: “Son of a gun, I’ve done this?”

    So, if facts are unacknowledged, are they actually “facts?”

    Sure, they’re facts. Facts exist independent of popular awareness. Facts are not defined by a conditional clause, say like popularity, where popularity can’t exist apart from the approval of a segment of a population.

    Here’s a challenge for you, find me a newspaper or TV account which reports the following:

    Any article which compares Governor Sarah Palin’s fiscal management, using State Budget Data, either in comparison to her predecessors or to other governors. Governor Palin reduced, year to year, budget allocations in good fiscal times. Governor Palin’s predecessor, Governor Murkowski, put forward his last budget, FY 2007, and it authorized spending of $9.95 billion. Governor Palin’s first budget, FY2008 authorized spending of $7.825 Billion, the Legislature marked it up to $8.087 Billion, and after Governor Palin’s vetoes, the final budget came in at $7.972 Billion. Further, she reduced reliance on Federal transfers by over 20%, the dumb ox that she is. The other “dumb” move she made which accounted for 60% ($209 million) of the 5% year over year operating budget increase (inflation included), was to top up School District retirement deposits, which Governor Murkowski had neglected to fund. Again, like the dumb ox she is she only needed a $30 million supplemental budget, which after legislative input and her vetoes, totaled $78.5 million, but if she was a “normal” or “genius” politician, like say, Governor Murkowski, she would have submitted supplemental budgets of $1.396 Billion. supplementals.

    Further evidence of her efforts to reduce the size of government can be found in requests for Federal Appropriations. Governor Murkowski’s FY2007 requests totaled $349.5 million for 63 projects; Governor Palin’s FY2008 requests came to $256 million for 52 projects; her FY2009 requests came to $195.1 million for 31 projects; and her FY2010 requests were $69.1 million for 8 projects.

    I discovered these facts by looking into the Alaska budgets. These facts exist even though the media doesn’t consider a comparison to previous Governors or to other Governors worth reporting.

    And what precisely is the “manufactured narrative” about Palin?

    Compare the questions that Gibson asked Palin to the questions he asked Obama. Now compare Palin’s experience at executive leadership, as demonstrated by facts, to Obama’s experience at executive leadership, as demonstrated with no evidence. The narrative constructed around Palin versus the narrative constructed around Obama are both independent of history and evidence. There was plenty of evidence in Obama’s past of his ties to ACORN, to Ayers, to Rezko, to corruption, etc and this evidence didn’t lead to the questions that would aid in forming a public image of Obama, similarly as I noted above, there was plenty of evidence of Palin’s executive abilities and this evidence wasn’t marshalled during interviews which helped form a public image about Palin. Instead the narrative was constructed to paint her as lacking experience in foreign affairs while Obama, only having served 154 days in the Senate was presumed to be a foreign policy expert. These narratives were not developed organically, they were decided a priori.

  26. Steve Verdon says:

    So if we go back to Bush’s glory days and find love letters written in a similar vein about him, by the likes of Peggy Noonan, among others, I guess an argument can be made for his cult of personality too…

    Yes. I love how you libs think: Well, we’ll just point out its true for Bushitler and they’ll back off!!!!!!

    Uhhhmmm, I think there is a cult of personality around the Presidency. Whomever we elect to that office is often seen as having special abilities to save the country from external threats, internal threats, and economic calamity.

    All I can add to that, Tango, is that the only time I hear of such a cult it is from rightists, who want to puff it up at the same time they want to knock it down.

    And here is Odograph demonstrating the truth of Tangoman’s claim that to a liberal anything not a liberal is a right winger. Fail.

  27. odograph says:

    Ah Steve, remember that I test out as a moderate. That allows me to see pretty clearly who is to the left of me and who is to the right.

    If you want more than one axis you can go back to politicalcompass.org, I center on both of them.

    FWIW, I’m serious. The (weakly)liberal outlets that I listen to (NPR, The Daily Show) are not boosters of Obama as a person, or as a person-cult. That only comes … here, really.

  28. odograph says:

    BTW, Tango’s SFGate is sooo far to the left of me that I wouldn’t encounter it, really. It is so far left that it is SanFranciscoLeft! It doesn’t show me anything mainstream.

    If anything it might demonstrate the old saying that if you go far enough out on either extreme you come around again on the other side.

  29. An Interested Party says:

    Compare the questions that Gibson asked Palin to the questions he asked Obama.

    Yes, indeed…how dare Gibson ask Palin about the Bush Doctrine! Of all the nerve…

    Yes. I love how you libs think: Well, we’ll just point out its true for Bushitler and they’ll back off!!!!!!

    Nice hyperbole, Stevie…but I’m not one of those “libs” who think of the former president as “Bushitler” although I will concede your point that, all too often, a cult of personality does seem to develop among certain groups of people towards most, if not all, presidents…I wonder who among us would think that such cults exist in regards to our first president or even our Founding Fathers…

  30. odograph says:

    Another way to look at this is that there are true beliefs, and then there are useful beliefs. It’s best when they overlap of course, but it’s the poorest option of the four when a belief is both false and not useful.

    Conservative belief in an Obama cult is a belief of the fourth kind. It is both false and not useful to you, yourselves.

    I marginalizes you and sets you up for mockery from the middle.

  31. TangoMan says:

    Ah Steve, remember that I test out as a moderate. That allows me to see pretty clearly who is to the left of me and who is to the right.

    How about that, I took the test and I too came out a moderate. I lean Right but I’m far closer to the center of the graph than to the edge, in fact, if the x-axis is broken into 3 sections, the left third being Left, the middle third being moderate, and the right third being Conservative, then I’m well within the moderate range. On the Y-axis I lean Libertarian but again I’m only a two blocks off dead center.

    So, take it from me, the moderate, for I now can claim the same authority you claim, that I too can clearly see those to the left of me and those to the right, and there were many people on the left who were orgasmic about Obama, despite his lack of substance. A personality cult developed around him, especially within media circles, as even media critics are now acknowledging.

  32. An Interested Party says:

    …there were many people on the left who were orgasmic about Obama, despite his lack of substance.

    Once again, that is terribly rich coming from someone who is orgasmic about Sarah Palin…

  33. odograph says:

    Excellent move, Tango! Now do you have any “cult sightings” more mainstream than sfgate?