[quote=zk]
That all makes sense. You’ve also got several dyed-in-the-wool rightists who are unable to debate using facts and resort to childish and petty ad hominem when confronted.

Perhaps on this type of forum, where the average joe is involved, the anger and stupidity is equal on both ends of the spectrum. Maybe my perception is skewed because the right-wing noise machine that you see every day in the media is wild with anger, far more so than what the left comes up with. It works, though. Obama was vilified far in excess of the mistakes he made almost immediately upon taking office. You see so much hatred and anger out there towards him that wouldn’t exist without that noise machine. That machine is not only angry, it is purposely deceitful. It’s why republicans keep winning despite their awful record recently.[/quote]

Zk: No disagreement from me on anything you’ve said. Regardless of stripe, idiots should be called out.

I also don’t debate the “noise machine”, either. Whether we’re discussing relative volume or content. However, when we get to the idea of signal versus noise ratio, I would ask: What volume of criticism is Obama in for?

More pointedly: How do you think those Libyan rebels in Benghazi feel about Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech right about now? Maybe it rings a little hollow for them as the US sits back and dithers while they get bombed out of existence?

I think there are valid criticisms of the man and his administration (Gitmo, Patriot I/II, etc), and I do believe he has made some significant missteps.

I would also point out that Dubya was subjected to fairly extreme vilification himself (and, ironically for the same policies and programs), as well as being cast as an American President who should be assassinated. He and Cheney were hung in effigy, and left-wing pundits and performers had an eight-year run of mocking the president for everything from his poor grammar and elocution, to his Hitlerian foreign policy.