That is all.

No matter how disastrous Bush’s tenure, you refuse to judge him a failure; and, let’s face it, no matter how successful Obama is, you’ll never judge him a success.

So…why not just admit that your a dogmatist on this point, and stop pretending that truth matters to you?

You honestly think that trying to get the votes counted in Fla 2000 was somehow illegitimate? Look, the Dems should have put up MORE of a fuss about the attempt to finalize an election without counting crucial votes. But the important point for our purposes is that liberals basically backed off of Bush despite his attempt to, in effect, steal an election. They squawked less after the disputed election of 2000 than you guys are squawking now about an indisputably legitimate electoral win. (Though to be honest, some of them squawked about Ohio 2004, and that was ridiculous.)

Bush’s 90% approval rating came after 9/11. So that hardly counts. What really counts is the final approval rating, which was, of course, the lowest ever recorded. Face it–he may have been the worst president ever.

And if you object to smooth-talking, good-looking charlatans, then I expect you object to Ronald Reagan? He really didn’t have any actual intellectual heft. Obama, on the other hand, is obviously intelligent (note: he went to Harvard law, and was the editor of the law review). He’s smarter than you are, and smarter than I am. You may not like his politics, but if you deny his intelligence, you’re living in a fantasy world. (Reagan, on the other hand, was a B-movie actor…)

Seriously, guys. These arguments aren’t even vaguely plausible. *No one* makes arguments as bad as yours unless they’ve already got dogmatic conclusions and are frantically trying to flail about for reasons to bolster what they already believe.

I beseech thee: try to be at least minimally objective about these matters.

Speak for yourself. His approval rating is dropping daily. Most people still like him but fewer and fewer approve of his policies. Most people think govt is getting too big. More than half of Dems think the tea parties were a good idea.

if you knew anything about his past you would know he’s not honest. This is the first honest election he ever won, and he did some illegal dishonest things to get elected, but I think he won by a large enough margin that whatever vote fraud his pet election workers in ACORN committed they didn’t put him over the top. But they tried.

His present neither. he has said more than once that economists agree with his economic policies. over 200 of them inc many economics professors and several Nobel prize winners signed a letter to him saying they think his economic policies are bad for the country. So either he isn’t knowledgeable, or he isn’t honest.

He said he would meet with Achmadinejad without preconditions. then he said he never said that. Biden, acknowledged plaigarist, said he never said it. Dudes, it’s on video.

I could go on, but research Obama’s Chicago political past, it’s not pretty. Or research all his attempted cabinet appointments this year. Not pretty.

But you’re the kind of person who gets swept up in the charisma of a smooth-talking good-looking charlatan and you think you are intellectual and sophisticated.

I seem to remember something about lawsuits and hanging chads and blocking nominees until June. Funny how memory plays tricks. I guess you couldn’t ignore it after January 21, 2001.

Terrye, he’s not obnoxious. Little kids acting like little kids are just amusing. It’s what they do.