Obama is no longer my president

[Maedhros]

103. It's an argument born of convenience.

If one casts the debate in terms of "hatred" of Obama, then its far easier in one's own mind to counter the argument by defending Obama from the "hate" than to defend the policy.

Note how disagreement with bad policy is re-cast as scurrilous attacks on the President:

...some all-powerful corrupted man who wants nothing more than to expand state power and dominate the lives of all citizens.

Now he is a tyrant who won't close Guantanamo Bay, won't stop drone strikes, who wants to spy on you, and probably wants to torture you.

He hates anything to do with attempting to fix global warming. He only wants to benefit the 1% (or 0.1%) and all we can do is suffer under this tyrant.

I don't think calling him a bully and insinuating he and his team are the Keystone Cops while also saying they are the modern day Gestapo is the way to go about it.

I would be more accommodating of the Administration's apologists if they weren't uniform in their defense of Obama. For example, if one of them objected to the chained CPI proposal but not the surveillance program, or if one detested drone strike double-taps but saw a need to continue to keep Gitmo open, then I would be more inclined to believe their arguments were in good faith.

However, there is a bloc of posters here that have defended every bad policy decision by Obama using disingenuous ad hominem arguments - criticism originates from racism, critics are Paulbots, etc. There is no substantive defense of the policy. That bloc clearly does not argue in good faith, which leaves open the question of their motives. Are they really concerned for the country, or just engaged in partisan politicking?