Newsweek cover: 'Why are Obama's critics so dumb?

Fortunately they quit sending that POS rag to my mailbox. News in this country has sunk so low and so rapidly. It is very sad to me because I've been sort of a news junkie in the past. Now the print and broadcast media is just junk.
 
Come On. Can't you see? This is civility.
They wanted to use a even more disparaging word but Bo reminded them he called for ciivility.
 
If you go to the trouble of reading the piece, which is not that long and has pictures that go with it, it is not a liberal hit piece. The criticism of his opponents is devoted equally to the left and right.

The author's point is that Obama plays chess a few moves ahead and his detractors play one move at a time.

I am not a big Obama fan but that thought has occurred to me on more than one occasion.

The piece is worth the read.

But for those of you who instinctively recoil from anything that might be slightly complimentary of the latest in our long line of lame presidents, feel free to just vent.
 
I read the article and thought it articulated some pretty cognet analysis. The headline was obnoxious, but had it been fairer, Leftwith and I probably never would have noticed it.
I don't agree with everything there, but it offers a point of view and analysis that are a different take on things than I've read elsewhere. It sure beats reading the latest Faux News outrage or the tired crap from uncreative conservatives with "Hussein" and "Socialist" sprinkled about.
 
I expect there to be a long line of columnists writing pieces like this -- falling all over themselves to try to justify this pitiful performance in office. We as a country have extremely low standards provided political correctness is observed.
 
Shiner
This has been happening for 4 years but is really ramping up now.
News commentators at NBC called Romney racist for giving that black woman money out of his pocket.
whiteflag.gif
 
Maybe this is why ninety-one-year-old audio tycoon Sidney Harman was able to buy Newsweek mag for one dollar (plus the assumption of their huge debt).

I gave up my subscription in 2008 when it became totally obvious that they'd lost any pretense of impartiality and were openly rooting for BO. Who do they think they are, Bill Maher?
 
Yeah, Hooklahoma, you might want to do a Google search using the terms Ann Coulter and Book Titles. You should find the kind of terminology of the right. Just note that in Magazines and Newspapers, the folks who write the stuff don't usually write the headlines.
 
There is no conservative equivalent to Newsweek and Time. And there is no conservative equivalent to CBS, NBC, and ABC. Fox, I guess, could be compared to MSNBC and CNN.
 
I read it and thought it interesting and provacative. It wasn't unbiased, but it was intelligent opinion and I agreed with some of it and disagreed with some. Was there some particular fallacy in the logic or did you just see it as unmitigated idiocy.
 
I think that Obama's success is due to being being well protected. Abu Gharib was blamed on Bush and Cheney. Peeing on corpses doesn't have a cute name and surely isn't being foisted on the CiC. Solendra has not been linked to Obama like high oil prices were linked to Cheney and Bush. In fact, high oil prices seem to be ignored these days. Recently, someone posted a list of Obama campaign comments vs. achievements - again this disparate message has been well hidden.

So to answer your question, yes I see a big fallacy in the article. In fact, the main reason for Obama's success lies in the article itself. As Newsweek calls Obama a success and his detractors dumb, it leads to false conclusions. Is Obama successful? His approval rating doesn't indicate success. Are Obama critics dumb? Probably some are dumb and some are brilliant. However, if enough news outlets regurgitate the false message, it resonates as truth. This in the turn should result in higher polling numbers as the message is repeated.
 
Obama detractors in this forum rarely if ever provide persuasive factual info to by which the president's overall performance should be evaluated. It's mostly ad hominem from the right and the left.
I think that is Sullivan's point.
 
Satchel wrote: "Obama detractors in this forum rarely if ever provide persuasive factual info to by which the president's overall performance should be evaluated." I don't always agree with Satchel, but on this one he's right.
Does anybody disagree that conservatives were the ones who first suggested the health care insurance mandate as an alternative to fully public health care? Does anybody disagree that the health care bill's impact on the deficit was more carefully studied and planned than the impact of the Medicare Prescription Drug coverage? There were some facts in the article There was some analysis you could take on point by point, but instead the thread questions the motives of the writer and the publication and disparges the article in general instead of in specifics.
The media would not be doing their jobs (an a lot honestly don't) if everything we read simply reconfirms our prejudices and existing points of view.
 
Really the healthcare issue has as much to do with the WAY in which the bill was processed and passed as much as the substance. Obama promised to run a transparent administration, yet this bill was passed with a cloak of darkness in the middle of the night using every procedural trick in the books. One can disagree with the Bush prescription drug benefit, but I would argue that this process was 180 degrees more transparent than Obamacare.

Likewise foreign policy. You can argue that going to Iraq was a bad idea, but Bush proceeded in Iraq only after getting bipartisan congressional approval. You could argue that Obama's Libya policy may have been a good idea, but he completely bypassed congress to do what he wanted to do in Libya. Once again, Obama is the exact opposite of transparent and he repeatedly bypasses congressional oversight as if he were a dictator or king.

Flame away.
 
Andrew Sullivan is not a liberal- he is actually a moderate Conservative, whom if anyone is familiar with his work was a big Iraq war hawk and GWB supporter (initially.) I used to read his work on the Republic, and he is on Meet the Press often enough for him to share his criticisms of both parties.

Most people stopped reading at the title on the cover to appreciate his message.

And secondly, many people have a tendency to call moderates liberal/conservative depending on where they're coming from, but it doesn't make it so.
 
Sullivan is a "moderate conservative" like Bill Maher is a "libertarian."
rolleyes.gif


Just because they label themselves as such, doesn't mean they are.
 
Dumb:

Romney - JD/MBA Harvard
Gingrich - PhD Tulane
Paul - MD Duke
Santorum - MBA Pitt, JD Penn St.


Yeah...those guys are certainly underachievers in the smarts department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top