« "The Iraq war is over. We won." | Main | The Great National Sissy Hissy Fit »

Is Obama A Democrat Eisenhower?

The presidential election of 2008 was the first occasion since the 1952 election, when neither the sitting president nor sitting vice-president was one of the major party nominees. It may also be notable, that in 1952 the winning candidate was not known for a long political resume, and the sitting president was going through a period of largely undeserved unpopularity. Similarities between the two situations create an opportunity for comparison.

General Eisenhower won the White House in 1952 by a comfortable margin, despite having held no federal office outside his term as a general officer of the United States Army and SHAEF. He was a popular president yet made remarkably few significant decisions, except for his principled stand for desegregation. Eisenhower won re-election in a romp, yet the GOP fared less well, never gaining control of the Senate either during the Eisenhower years nor in the generation following, and though the GOP took control of the House of Representatives in 1952, they lost it in 1954 and the democrats increased their control in each succeeding election through 1960. The popularity of President Eisenhower did not carry over to the republican candidates for the House and Senate. With the present democrats enjoying support at historically dismal levels, there is reason to believe that the American public may separate its impression of Barack Obama from the Democratic Party in general.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (42)

You neglected to mention th... (Below threshold)

You neglected to mention the reason Truman was so unpopular. Winning WWII? Korea?

Why state the obvious, ptg?... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Why state the obvious, ptg?

"For every election victory... (Below threshold)
Captain America:

"For every election victory lies the seeds of eventual defeat" -- Captain America

Look, no one knows for certain how Obama will perform as president. All indications are that he will either assume a mandate for his counter intuitive policies, given the dismal economy, or he will discourage those who put him into power by trying to preserve his changes for reelection.

Either way, his popularity will shrink dramatically once he puts actions to rhetoric. "Just words" will no longer suffice, just ask his soul mate, Deval Patrick.

You'll be able to easily se... (Below threshold)

You'll be able to easily see the True Believers each time he makes a major oops. They'll come out of the woodwork with all kinds of excuses.

Since he's allowed his supporters to see whatever they want to see in him, he's gonna play hell trying to satisfy them all.

This is shaping up to be 4 years of comedy.

It's a bad idea to quote yo... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

It's a bad idea to quote yourself.

Almost as bad as trying to convince folks you're a comic book icon.

And no, posting a comment as "batman" to pretend you have backup is also lame, so ahead of time don't try it.

Eisenhower had a lifetime o... (Below threshold)
Hellboy Comic Marvels:

Eisenhower had a lifetime of experience as a competent military officer and postwar administrator. Obama has voted present 70 million times in the state and federal senate and been cozy with a lot of people who hate the US and the US Constitution. No comparison.

Obama is a moron with a nice voice and good speechwriters. As president, he will be protected from his own ineptness as well as possible. Unfortunately, those who are protecting him are also quite inept.

This thing ain't gonna end very well.

the neocon base has been as... (Below threshold)

the neocon base has been astoundingly wrong about virtually everything for the past several years now

its time for them to get out of the predictions business and just observe with as open a mind as possible

Is anyone still listening t... (Below threshold)

Is anyone still listening to Mr. D.J. Drummond, last heard squealing, "THE POLLS ARE AAAAAALLL WRONG, MCCAIN IS GOING TO WIN?"

Yeah. Whew. How astute. Accuracy city. Let's all pay close attention to what this guy is telling us. Cuz he's famously right.


Peadody300, while your post... (Below threshold)

Peadody300, while your post is 100% correct, they have their crystal balls that they believe in, and they won't change their minds.

Simple fact, the average taxpayer/income earner has realized the so called "trickle down" BS doesn't work, the so called "family values" is BS, etc. But they sure have the "fear/divide" BS down pat, but there again the taxpayers have seen through that also.

Obama had better get it right, or else in 4 years he is gone. And then we can have the wingnuts Palin, you betcha, wink, wink.

I for one will wait and see what happens with the new President's policy's. But the GOP won't, because they are scared it just might work.

Who knows? NOBODY KNOWS, but the wingnuts here sure want you to believe they know. My question to them is HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE IS THINKING, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO?

Simple, none of us know, so why won't you give him a chance to get our country out of the mess the GOP put us in? 6 Years of no oversight, then blame it on the Demo's who had every thing obstructed by the GOP for the last two years.

I'm not a lefty or righty, just a pissed off taxpayer who can see exactly what is going on. Both parties are to blame, the GOP more than the Demo's.

Not so fast. We are in the... (Below threshold)
le combat:

Not so fast. We are in the mess we're in because of democrats and democrat policies:

'Whose policies led to the credit crisis?
posted at 9:40 am on September 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

"The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices -- and Democrats blocked it.

The New York Times reported this five years ago:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

This should have been a no-brainer, right? With hindsight, we can see that the Bush administration had accurately diagnosed the problem in the lending market and had a plan to address it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reluctantly supported the plan. However, Democrats objected (emphases mine):

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said.

Sounds a little like the Democratic denial of problems in Social Security, doesn't it? Nothing to see here, no crisis on the horizon. Everybody just move along, now. The Democrats had forced lenders to assume more risk at lower interest rates in the 1990s, as IBD points out today, and they didn't want to countenance an end to their populist policies:

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.

It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now. After the fit hit the shan, as Michelle says, these same Democrats want to shift blame back to the administration that wanted to increase oversight and curtail risk in lending practices while reducing patronage at the giant GSEs.

The Bush administration isn't blameless in letting this get out of hand, but clearly the origins of the disaster and the efforts to keep bad policies in place fall on the Democrats in this case.'"

allen - i was raised a neoc... (Below threshold)

allen - i was raised a neocon catholic. today im a strictly centrist and an atheist so i wouldnt say i have an agenda myself, beyond wanting to see the US heal itself after years of catastrophic GOP leadership

so i disagree about neocons changing their minds. i dont think our differences are ideological, theyre carefully stage-managed political divisions. the GOP neocon faction has been misrepresenting the left for years, to the point where an army of right-wing zealots are vehemently opposed to an ideological base that doesnt even exist

obama stands a decent chance of dissolving those illusions and bringing a lot of people closer to the center where they belong. everyone wants the same thing ultimately, and once enough people realize it, a lot of neocon (and some liberal) strategists will be out of a job

i look forward to that

le combat - as anti-neocon ... (Below threshold)

le combat - as anti-neocon as i am, i wouldnt put blame for the credit crisis squarely on their shoulders. theres plenty of blame to go around

i will say this though: bu$h never took one step anywhere in the direction of any prudent governance that would have helped head off this crisis. and further, we are a nation much less equipped to deal with the crisis after blowing $2 trillion on an unnecessary war that half the country never wanted and that the other half was mislead into supporting

Gramm-Leach-Bliley A... (Below threshold)

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a bad idea in that it repealed the Glass-Steagall Act among other things.

Sarbanes-Oxley was a bad idea.

Community Reinvestment Act was a bad idea as modified by Clinton.

Dodd-Frank-Schumer and their relations with Fannie and Freddie and ACORN was a REALLY, REALLY, bad idea.

CEO and Board of Director's accountability SUCK in the US.

Traditional media is a bunch of scare tactic light weights.

We keep taxing and borrowing from our kids with no end in sight.

When we have problems, chicken little goes to hearings and bad law is written.

The system is rigged to keep returning the same old set of empty suits to Congress.

The problem isn't usually the President.

Got it?

peabodySo far, we ... (Below threshold)


So far, we have seen Obama recruiting from the same old gang of mostly discredited liberals. We shall see how he does. Heck, I hope he does well. The nation cannot afford for him to screw up. So far, it looks as if the road he will travel will be one that is typically followed by those of liberal persuasion when they use an economic downturn to enact all sorts of things on their agenda that may or may not solve the problem.

i will say this though: bu$h never took one step anywhere in the direction of any prudent governance that would have helped head off this crisis. and further, we are a nation much less equipped to deal with the crisis after blowing $2 trillion on an unnecessary war that half the country never wanted and that the other half was mislead into supporting

I disagree with your take on the war. I have explained my POV before and see no need to repeat it in detail here. The short version is that the nutcases went berserk and committed suicide by going against our force multiplied military. That was better than doing so in our malls among other likely places.

200 Billion Barrels of oil are about to be professionally managed and brought on line by a regime that has no need to fall in love with OPEC - at an average cost of about $25 a barrel.
And they need the money to rebuild their infrastructure. And we need the oil on the world market to hold down the cost.

Nuf said.

They do look alike.... (Below threshold)

They do look alike.

larry - whether or not they... (Below threshold)

larry - whether or not they join the cartel, there is NO WAY iraqi oil barrels will sell for $25 when OPEC barrels will be selling for 3, 4, or 6 times that. no way. theyll sell at or near market price

whatever such accounts youve heard about that, i say dont let the same people who mislead you on the war keep stringing you along like this

con artists always work on that priciple: dangle the carrot eternally just out of reach. when it gets stale, switch to a fresh carrot. a lot of us common folk would knowingly do the same thing for the fantastic sums of money involved

One of Ike's major contribu... (Below threshold)

One of Ike's major contributions was the Interstate Highway System - the freeways.

Sorry peabody, I did... (Below threshold)

Sorry peabody, I didn't say they will sell it at $25, I said the cost was going to be $25. That means the delivered cost to the port. They will sell it for all they can get. The key is that their oil will not carry a loaded cost of extraction that makes it uncompetitive. I should have been more clear.

Finally peabody, nobody but... (Below threshold)

Finally peabody, nobody but nobody did anything to form my opinions but me.

I studied the nutcases and their psychological mind set. Have you ever seen the post I did about my background and education? The War in Iraq had a number of major benefits for the US and for the world in general. And it looks as if the people in Iraq will benefit as well.

I dunno if the consequences of the war were or were not intended by Bush and his bunch. It doesn't matter. We won. And by winning, we not only killed off a bunch of the nutcases who deserved to die, we also killed their spirit and much of their leadership. Still got a ways to go though.

ok if you didnt mean $25 a ... (Below threshold)

ok if you didnt mean $25 a barrel then i can certainly pare back on just how mislead you might be

on the other hand ive heard all those pro-iraq-war rationales, and i understand why they resonate with people, but i dont think they hold water, and i would also make the same rationale if i were bu$hco. im all for using the most brutal of force where it makes sense, and for a multitude of specific reasons i feel ours was misused under a mountain of false information

logging off, good weekend to yalls

"...today im a strictly ... (Below threshold)

"...today im a strictly centrist..."

I stopped reading there. I was laughing so hard I had to wipe tears from my eyes.

Getting back to the article... (Below threshold)

Getting back to the article, in response to Obama being a Democratic Eisenhower, we can only hope Obama leads with such a steady hand.

Eisenhower should be credited with the Interstate Highway system we have today (a very important infrastructural but often unacknowledged achievement), rallying against the military-industrial complex (read his "Cross of Iron" speech), and under his administration conservationism (a forgotten issue after Teddy Roosevelt) became a national issue.

There's a reason why Eisenhower is considered one of the last presidents the majority of Americans thought was trustworthy. He was honest, hardworking, and made progress where he could at a time many where nervous the whole world was against America.

One of the charges leveled ... (Below threshold)

One of the charges leveled at Pres. Bush was that he was not curious. Pres. Bush invited Obama to attend the G20 conference. There he could meet, ask questions, be curious, EDUCATE himself on the economic conditions.....did he go? Of course not, he sent leach and albright. He is a sad, pathetic little man, terribly insecure and frightened, he cannot govern, but will attempt to rule because that is what small men do.

peabodyI recognise... (Below threshold)


I recognise that I will never convince you that the Iraq made the world safer. You are hung up on rational instead of what is. So what if the public information turned out to be false. It doesn't matter. So what if the war was fought for the wrong reasons. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is the way the world's enemies reacted. And I saw world's enemies with complete conviction. Unless you are willing to acknowledge that Muslim nutcases are dedicated to either killing YOU or converting YOU, to include women and children, then we do not have a common ground upon which to discuss anything.

If you don't understand religeous fanatics, there is no discussion possible. Specifically, if you don't understand the mind set of a ninth century religeous zealot who really believes that they will go to a heaven with food, drink and a bunch of virgins to cater to their needs if the zealot dies in the cause, then we really don't have anything to talk about.

Well, except your lack of understanding. To understand, you have to look outside yourself into the mind of someone who is insane by virtue of religeous belief. To fully understand that Islam is NOT a religeon of peace, you must read the Koran, then you must observe conduct.

Observation yields understanding.

I don't see Obama accomplis... (Below threshold)

I don't see Obama accomplishing very much as president since he doesn't
know how to govern and every time he gets a position through an election, he immediately begins running for the next one.
So, the way I see it...he has already started running for reelection, if
he holds true to form.

Eisenhower was a socialist,... (Below threshold)
John Birch's Body:

Eisenhower was a socialist, like Obama. Us John Birchers knew he was a commie mole. His harping about the Military Industrial Complex was really about leaving us naked and unarmed to our enemies!

Dwight D. Eisenhower... Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid...

Truman's popularity plummeted when he sacked MacArthur!. MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese!

You neglected to mention... (Below threshold)
I'm with stupid:

You neglected to mention the reason Truman was so unpopular. Winning WWII? Korea?

1. Posted by ptg | November 15, 2008 8:07 PM |

Posted on November 15, 2008 20:07
Why state the obvious, ptg?... (Below threshold)

2. Posted by DJ Drummond | November 15, 2008 8:14 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
DJ Drummond:

Why state the obvious, ptg?

2. Posted by DJ Drummond

The obvious is that you must be "below the threshold" of stupid to read this blog and comment on it.

We didn't "win" in Korea. It was a stalemate.

I had a friend from work gl... (Below threshold)
arcman Author Profile Page:

I had a friend from work gloat about the election yesterday, and I told him that we don't act like his side. That said, there is absolutely nothing in Obama's past that says that he has any clue of what he is doing and that he will be successful as President. That said, for the sake of the country, I hope I am wrong.

I think that Mr. Obama hope... (Below threshold)

I think that Mr. Obama hopes to be more like Abraham Lincoln than any president. And that's a pretty good president to want to follow.

I do not understand why so ... (Below threshold)

I do not understand why so many people are so unwilling to give Obama a chance? I voted for Obama, but do not have unrealistically high expectations about what he will do. I wouldn't put any president under that kind of microscope, especially with things the way they are now. Obama is clearly a highly intelligent, pragmatic guy who has the intention of surrounding himself with bright, experienced people, regardless of their political affiliation. Sitting here now, taking potshots at someone who won't even take office for another two months is nothing more than a sign of unforgiving bias, and maybe even prejudice. If John McCain had been elected, the RNC would have picked his cabinet and we would have been saddled with an aging, less than brilliant warrior from the Cold War era. Maybe Obama won't be a great president, or even a good one. But, so far, he's done a better job than any previous president-elect, so I would be more hopeful about his administration.

I'm from Massachusetts. I ... (Below threshold)

I'm from Massachusetts. I have polled some of my acquaintances who voted for Obama. Most do not know very much (if anything) about his history or his platform. Some that know a little about him make the statement that he would be insane to do the things he has promised to do. My son works retail, he, too, has asked his fellow workers why they voted for obama....they had little or no idea of his agenda. My acquaintances, when informed of his support of infanticide and a domestic military say that is not possible....obama has made no attempt to hide these items, so I don't know quite what to make of why people voted for him other than hope and change which are open to wide interpretations.

To try to answer your quest... (Below threshold)
arcman Author Profile Page:

To try to answer your question John, it's because Obama is to most people a blank slate. There is nothing in his background that would give us any kind of hint that he can handle the job. While very good at giving a speech on the teleprompter, when you take it away he becomes a stammering idiot. We know virtually nothing about him. He would not release his college transcripts, or records; he would not release his college thesis; he did not release his birth certificate; the Illinois State Senate records were allegedly destroyed. We do know he voted "present" over 130 times. There is no legislation that he wrote, and apart from 2 books that he allegedly wrote, there is nothing else. As editor of the Harvard Law Review, he wrote no articles. He was a part-time law lecturer; a community organizer (whatever the He## that is) and apart from that never really completed a political term, before running for something else. What few people that we know he associated with were rather shady: Rezko, slum lord, convicted felon; Wright, black liberation pastor, anti-white, anti-american; Ayers, unrepentant terrorist, possible ghost writer for at least one of Obama's books; There seems to be no childhood friends, no college friends, and no friends from the present. The press gave him a pass. So, no, I don't have a lot of confidence that Obama will do much other than make Bush look really good.

larry - im really not hung ... (Below threshold)

larry - im really not hung up on the rationale one bit. regardless of intel and public info issues, this is a war that has cost us greatly and gained us nothing

terrorism is a political tool. it is intended to get the exact kind of reactions bu$h has provided. the zealots are just tools of those politics and they dont represent the common muslim. there are plenty of downright disturbing passages in the bible as well as the koran. i come from a religious christian family and ive seen the militancy religion breeds so i certainly do understand those issues

oyster - when youre done la... (Below threshold)

oyster - when youre done laughing, perhaps you can explain what would put me far left of center. i bet you cant without distorting, although thats something you seem to have a flair for

hint: being anti-bu$h, even intensely so, doesnt make one a lefty

27,Actually, you<... (Below threshold)

Actually, you are pretty dense. The way Truman won one war was very unpopular, esp on the left. The fact that the other was even fought pissed of the left and the fact it was not won decisively pissed off the right. That, and every unpopular FDR choice was sticking to him while the victories remained attached to FDR's legacy.

Paul Hooson, I do believe O... (Below threshold)

Paul Hooson, I do believe Obama will be like Lincoln in one sense, he will divide this country. ww

Check your history, specifi... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Check your history, specifically the economy in 1952. And the cnoduct of the war in Korea is the issue, I-w-S, not the stalemate. At the time, though, just stopping the onslaught of 300,000 Chinese troops was a fair success.

But you'd have to understand history and think about things more than you apparently have, for that to sink in.

John: "he's done a better job than any previous president-elect"

That's so absurd a statement that I should not even ask, but on what basis you make that claim? What has Obama done as P-e that should even be considered above average?

Hey, Preside... (Below threshold)


President-Elect Obama is hard at work getting this country back on track, but he's counting on input from all of us.

I just wrote in to share my vision for where President-Elect Obama should lead the country, and I thought you might want to do the same: http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision

James Everitt Check out the video 'Vision of a New America'

Share your vision for where President-Elect Obama should lead the country: http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision

Vision of a New America:

Constitution for the United States of America

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Democrats and Republicans have squandered the Founders' legacy of liberty and justice under the Constitution. Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government ignore their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Seven Principles of the Constitution for the United States of America:

(1) Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

(2) Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

(3) Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

(4) Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

(5) Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

(6) States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;

(7) American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

I am for lower taxes and smaller government, because lower taxes are better for families, property owners, and small businesses. With lower taxes, businesses have more money to invest, hire, and provide services. Less government bureaucracy improves the business climate, promotes economic growth, and reduces unemployment.

And if we limit the scope of the federal government in accordance with the constitution, we decrease spending and reducing taxes, increasing our liberty in several ways:

(1) Liberty is increased when government is reduced to its essential and necessary functions, because there is no longer a role for lobbyists fighting to increase pork for their favorite non-essential, unnecessary programs.

(2) Liberty is increased when more government functions and decisions are handled at the state and local levels, closer to the American people.

(3) Liberty is increased when individual citizens have more responsibility and when government has less control.

(4) Limited government leads to lower taxes, and with lower taxes, liberty is increased because businesses have more of their own money to invest, hire, and provide services. Less government bureaucracy improves the business climate and promotes job growth.

(5) Limited government leads to lower taxes, which is better for families and property owners. With lower taxes, liberty is increased because individuals and families have more of their own money - increased take-home pay - for their needs: food, clothing, housing, education, health insurance, and retirement.

(6) When people are able to provide for themselves, they are more likely to achieve prosperity and less dependent on government programs. In turn, this leads to further reduction in government spending, allowing the remaining money to be targeted to legitimate needs, such as military veterans, orphans, and people with severe disabilities.

Obama is more of a shill fo... (Below threshold)

Obama is more of a shill for the "non-existent" communist party, almost like Totalitarianism 101.

Isn't it obvious that Obama... (Below threshold)
Thomas Jackson:

Isn't it obvious that Obama is a Bill Ayer's Democrat?

I do not understand... (Below threshold)

I do not understand why so many people are so unwilling to give Obama a chance?

Well, John, this is what the sour grapes society does when it has nothing else to do. This is exactly what they did starting a day after Clinton won the election in 92. There is no generosity of spirit for someone who thinks like this.

When Bush first took office, most democrats I knew, including myself, said, "Okay, we didn't vote for this guy, but we'll give him a chance." And we genuinely hoped for the best. Why? Country first, if you want to coin a phrase - and most of us didn't start any criticism until we saw the bankruptcy of deciding to invade Iraq.

What I've seen on the other side for the last 18 or so years has been quite the opposite. There's an ugliness and cynicism that's downright juvenile. A sour grapes republican doesn't get his/her way, they become consumed with the loss because - lets face it - it's all about them. Not the country. Not the majority of the voters. It's all about them, their narrow scope of views and how when it doesn't work out their way, they throw a tantrum.

As for me, whomever wins the office after Obama will recieve my full support at the outset, like they always do. Wish some of the people on this site were that generous.

Just to clarify, there are ... (Below threshold)

Just to clarify, there are some people on this site that are that generous. My comments, of course, are for the others.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy