In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

When I see the naked contempt people have for the government and
for Obama, I assume they really have the same naked contempt for the
entire country.

How about the naked contempt for Bush or even Reagan? Do you assume the
same naked contempt for the entire country.

I said government, too. It may be the crummy economy, but levels of hate
and belligerence are way up from anything I remember. Bush never took the
sort of abuse that's been heaped upon Obama.
Which alternative universe are you in. Called war criminal on
multiple occassions. The general things about Shrub. The vitriol was
just as abusive. It is an ongoing and escalating bipartisan effect
probably since the days of Nixon (who brought it on himself to a certain
extent and wasn't a well-established ball cutter like LBJ). The birthers
of yesteryear were those questioning Bush's Air Guard duty or the
decades old drunk driving record (I even heard talk from Dem talking
heads about him being a dry drunk because he had the adaucity to not go
to AA.)
He took every bit of the abuse except for a few months around 9/11.
This is nothing new to Obama. I am not going to pretend he hasn't gotten
more than his share, but it is hardly "way up".


Republicans decided the form of government that the Constitution dictates
wasn't good enough for them to achieve their goals. They then discovered
there's no reason to have bargain for enough votes to pass a bill, they
could tangle the Congress in procedural knots (as in the massive increase in
the use of the filibuster by Republicans in the last two years).
This, too has been trending up since RMN. Heck it got so bad under
Bush with the Dems playing games that the moderates on both sides felt
the need to tell their respective Leadership to stuff it and thus formed
the gang of 14.
For my information, do you have a website that shows the increase in
filibusters. Couldn't figure out what to ask Google to get that
information.
It would also be interesting to track the use of the filibuster
recently. A few years ago (don't remember if it was late Clinton or
early Bush any more) where they changed the rules and you basically
filed a "hey I'm filibustering" paper and you no longer had to
physically stand in the box and rant to hold things up. I think that
made it too easy to pull the trigger. You should have to work for the
filibuster.


use all sorts of political tactics, some dirtier than others, to get their
way. They've discovered they can override the will of the electorate and
get what they want by threatening to hurt the country if their demands aren'
t met. While some will take offense at the term, it's the classic
definition of terrorism. "Do what we want or we'll hurt something you care
about."

Interesting that when the Dems do that, it is them upholding their
rights and because it is something they Truly Believe In, yet the GOP
does it and fits the classic definition of terrorism.


They were willing to risk a downgrade of our credit rating by holding the
debt-ceiling increase hostage, even though much of that money was earmarked
for the post 9/11 wars and the security fever that followed. Now it's
happening over disaster aid with Mr. Cantor using hurricane victims as pawns
in the budget battle.

PART of the downgrade was related to that. If you read what S&P said
it was also (even largely) related to the fact that the cuts weren't
what S&P had warned both sides ahead of time they needed to be. I am
also convinced that this was about 50% S&P getting back at Congress for
their hearings. You want a hard nosed rating agency, by God you'll get a
hard nosed rating agency. Be careful what you wish for, Congress, you
might just get it.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz