People do know - that's the point. Obama is "not an American" to his opponents - his skin color, "european style socialism" and Kenyan place of birth (don't even bother trying to convince a significant minority otherwise) are held to be hallmarks of his fundamental un-Americanism.

But this isn't that. This is just a blind hatred for an individual to the point where neither logic nor core principles play any role. And though I've made many trips around the Sun, and I've seen a lot of hatred directed at many a politician, this is a phenomena that I'm experiencing for the first time.

And it's kinda sad.

Perhaps you missed Congressmen Kucinich, Conyers and others trying to impeach Bush & Cheney.

Obama's long-run reputation will of course depend in great part on the perception of the economy during his time in office. But what makes him fundamentally different from Bush and LBJ is that[/quote...]Andy is fundamentally incapable of generalizing anything, and every single thing is different than everything else, and no matter how many similarities you point out he'll just move the goalposts. I mean, no other president in history has ever been called "Barack" by his opponents! Thus, all criticism of him is by nature entirely different than all criticism of every past president!

If he loses in 2012, it will be because people who previously voted for him object to the way he governed, and not because people who didn't vote for him in 2008 were "mean" to him.

Andy is fundamentally incapable of generalizing anything, and every single thing is different than everything else, and no matter how many similarities you point out he'll just move the goalposts. I mean, no other president in history has ever been called "Barack" by his opponents! Thus, all criticism of him is by nature entirely different than all criticism of every past president!

His argument is that many people refuse to recognize Obama's very legitimacy based on purely personal animus. I don't see why that's hard to understand, or that's it's a nit-picky argument.

I can't imagine anyway on election day someone saying, "I voted for Obama in 2008 but now I'm going to vote for Romney". That's a weird person that does that.

"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

It's no different from Bush Derangement Syndrome,

or the dozens of lies presented in Farenheit 9/11 (which many mainstream liberals and Democrats signed on to), etc

or the dozens of lies presented in Farenheit 9/11 (which many mainstream liberals and Democrats signed on to), etc

It's no different from Bush Derangement Syndrome, or the dozens of lies presented in Farenheit 9/11 (which many mainstream liberals and Democrats signed on to), etc.

I can't imagine anyway on election day someone saying, "I voted for Obama in 2008 but now I'm going to vote for Romney". That's a weird person that does that.

That the ACA was, at heart, a Heritage Foundation idea, yet is now attacked as the Devil's own work... well, that tells me what I need to know about many things, such as attacks against Obama for his ideas vs. because he's Obama.

I can't imagine anyway on election day someone saying, "I voted for Obama in 2008 but now I'm going to vote for Romney". That's a weird person that does that.

His argument is that many people refuse to recognize Obama's very legitimacy based on purely personal animus. I don't see why that's hard to understand, or that's it's a nit-picky argument.

I can't imagine anyway on election day someone saying, "I voted for Obama in 2008 but now I'm going to vote for Romney". That's a weird person that does that.

That the ACA was, at heart, a Heritage Foundation idea, yet is now attacked as the Devil's own work... well, that tells me what I need to know about many things, such as opposing Obama for his ideas vs. because he's Obama.

It's no different from Bush Derangement Syndrome,

No, that term refers to an irrational hatred/paranoia of Bush. Not the same.

It was repudiated by Heritage 15 years ago, long before anyone had heard of Barack Obama.

Over 21 years ago, Heritage analysts initially (and mistakenly) considered the idea of a limited individual mandate coupled with appropriate tax incentives as a favorable answer to the “free rider” problem—i.e., citizens who do not buy personal health insurance knowing that, in the event of illness or injury, the government will ensure they get the necessary medical care. Of course, even that limited and qualified position did not demonstrate support for an unqualified individual mandate as structured in the Obamacare statute.

or the dozens of lies presented in Farenheit 9/11 (which many mainstream liberals and Democrats signed on to), etc

Care to name a few of these?

But plenty of other presidents have had their legitimacy questioned, starting with each of his predecessors. And "personal animus"? Do you really think that if he had an (R) after his name, the people challenging Obama (*) would be doing so? Different presidents' legitimacies are challenged in different ways because the specific facts are different, but Reagan was called a senile actor who just read his scripts, and was just a figurehead. Bush 43 of course stole an election, and was just a puppet of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Clinton only won because of Perot, and of course should have been impeached. Etc. There's nothing special about the reaction to Obama. It's no more vitriolic than the reaction to any other president. It's just more recent, so it seems more prominent.

Here is Heritage's explanation of its anti-ACA amicus brief, filed in May. If you can find me a reference to any past repudiation, I'd appreciate it.

It is the same, unless your point is that Bush and Obama are literally two different people.

The Kenya thing is an irrational hatred/paranoia of Obama. With a dose of racism mixed in, but obviously Bush isn't black so racism couldn't have been a motivation of his detractors. The specific facts are different, which is the entire "difference" here. There is nothing different substantively: critics who are irrational and driven by hatred/paranoia will latch on to any possible thing they can. As with Bush.

No. The Kenya thing is a refusal to recognize his presidency as legitimate.

You're not understanding what "legitimacy" means in the context of this argument. The examples above are primarily judgments of competency and/or ability to govern, not of the legitimacy of the presidency, with the exception of Bush 43.

And Bush's presidency was illegitimate because he stole the election.

It's the same attack, brought on by a different mechanism.

No. They're just different ways of challenging the legitimacy. Nobody else was going to be challenged as being Kenyan because that wouldn't have made sense for the specifics of any other president. But they were challenged in ways that were applicable to their situation.

No, I don't. I'm not going to sit here and educate you as to basic facts from several years ago. It would be like demanding to know all the reasons why Jeff Francoeur is not as good as Mickey Mantle was. It's not a crime to be uninformed, but if you are, a little research will go a long way.

Obama campaigned as a post-partisan politician who, among other things, would restore competence to government, rein in the deficits, and get the economy going. Just about every poll gives him lower marks in those areas compared to 2008. I suppose it is possible for someone to not know that type of voters, even if their existence, if not precise number, is pretty obvious. After all, Pauline Kael didn't know anyone that didn't vote for McGovern.

I believe...and I could be wrong...but I believe those cuts were mostly set to take effect a few years down the road.

If the GOP accepts Obama's offer of the "Grand Bargain" last summer, what does the resulting austerity do to the US recovery? Recall: It had cuts upwards of $4.5 trillion, according to Time.

I think you're assuming that policies, or politicians, you agree with are "more competent" than those you disagree with...

In any event, the point is that crazed critics will seize upon any possible argument against a president.

Sure. But it's not about whether some crazies will do this with any candidate/president. It's about the magnitude of this phenomenon re Obama.

Yes, there's always some stated reason why like things are supposedly different.

This reminds me about the lawyer who had no argument for why his client's case was distinguishable from the precedent cited against him. "Your Honor, everything about this case is different -- why, even the parties' names are different."

Obama campaigned as a post-partisan politician who, among other things, would restore competence to government, rein in the deficits, and get the economy going. Just about every poll gives him lower marks in those areas compared to 2008. I suppose it is possible for someone to not know that type of voters, even if their existence, if not precise number, is pretty obvious. After all, Pauline Kael didn't know anyone that didn't vote for McGovern.

See, this is sort of interesting. Yes, if someone switches their vote from 2008, they would likely cite those things. And yet, if they were paying attention, they wouldn't switch their vote. Obama has, pretty unquestionably, dramatically increased the competence level of the federal government, this can be seen most dramatically in our diplomatic relations. He's attempted a number of deficit reduction deals (most significantly to the right of the median voter). The best part, the one about getting the economy going, that was actively sabotaged by Republicans with the debt ceiling nonsense.

Your argument makes no sense. Even if one agrees that Obama had good ideas in these areas, what's the argument, exactly? "Reelect Obama: It's not his fault that he couldn't get anything done."

I think you're assuming that policies, or politicians, you agree with are "more competent" than those you disagree with, although that might well be true for those of different persuasions, too. In any event, Obama and his party had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress until 2011 - making it somewhat difficult to blame the economy on GOP sabotage. Obama got the stimulus he wanted but many voters don't think it was affordable or well spent.

No, they don't "count" because those two challenges rose to about the decibel level of Harold Stassen's 7th run for the presidency. They didn't come within a million miles of being seriously advanced by anyone other than a few forgotten individuals or fringe groups, none of whom you could likely name without resorting to google.

I can't imagine anyway on election day someone saying, "I voted for Obama in 2008 but now I'm going to vote for Romney". That's a weird person that does that.

After Arthur was nominated for Vice President in 1880, his political opponents suggested that he might be constitutionally ineligible to hold that office.[8] A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, apparently hired by his opponents, explored rumors of Arthur's foreign birth.[9] Hinman initially alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old, which would make him ineligible for the Vice Presidency under the United States Constitution's natural-born citizen clause.[9][c] When that story did not take root, Hinman spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada, but this claim also failed to gain credence.[9]

He's been a mediocre steward of the macroeconomy and, for all the testimonials to his "competence" and international "influence," there is little to no harmony between European and US economic policy.

So why is JP Morgan still taking massive trading risks and losing my money 3 1/2 years into the era of presidential "competence"?

particularly in the areas of civil liberties

war crimes

Tshipman, just because you agree with what someone does doesn't make it competent.

Whether or not Bush "stole" the election, it's not a completely crazy position to claim he didn't actually win it.

In 2000, perhaps. In 2004, it's Kenyaesqe.

Your argument makes no sense. Even if one agrees that Obama had good ideas in these areas, what's the argument, exactly? "Reelect Obama: It's not his fault that he couldn't get anything done."

Why would you vote to elect people who at best don't take governance seriously and at worst actively sabotaged their country?

The issue here is Romney or Obama, not Boehner or Obama.

I don't agree with the premise itself, but you're changing topics. The issue here is Romney or Obama, not Boehner or Obama.

Yes, that's another great comparison: A phony issue with obvious racial undertones that's lingered for four years and is still believed by a sizable minority of the main opposition party's base, vs. an equally phony issue that was raised in desperation to deny a candidate the vice presidential nomination---a challenge that didn't survive convention week and is now a decidedly minor footnote to history.

See, this is a great example of my earlier point up-thread. "Little to no harmony between European and US economic Policy." Should we have more austerity? Should Europe have less?

Massive tax breaks do not cause deficits

The debt ceiling forced national discussion of the budget issue and changed the national dialogue re: budget issues for the better.

This is based on the strange premise, promoted by Krugman, that Europe is trying "austerity."

And austerity really is happening in Europe. The best way to see this is to look at the change in the “structural budget deficit” for each euro zone country — that’s the amount of deficit countries have once you factor out economic conditions. (After all, you don’t want to count a surge in tax revenues due to economic growth as “austerity.”) In other words, this is the part of the deficit that governments have direct control over. And, according to data from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook (see table B-7 ), most euro zone countries have been sharply cutting their structural deficits since 2009.

I voted for him in 2008, with the hope of some level of reform -- particularly in the areas of civil liberties, war crimes, and the financial system. He's done nothing but go along to get along since Inauguration Day. He's been a mediocre steward of the macroeconomy and, for all the testimonials to his "competence" and international "influence," there is little to no harmony between European and US economic policy.

That's not true. The party governs. Voting for Mitt Romney is not just a decision about who will be president. It also gives more power to the Republicans in the House, who have already defined his agenda for him. Mitt Romney has very few decisions to make in his first term, and they're mostly surrounding things like appointments. The Republican Party has quite a few decisions related to budgeting, and those are already signaled in advance.

The debt ceiling forced national discussion of the budget issue and changed the national dialogue re: budget issues for the better. Blocking lifetime appointments of judges who would impose policies you disagree with is good governance, not incompetence. Massive tax breaks do not cause deficits - massive spending causes deficits. Republicans are trying to address the structural impossibility of rolling back entitlements.

Indeed. There are three significant non-insane positions, one lined up behind the other: (1) There was never a proper statewide recount in Florida; (2) even if Bush would have legitimately won such a recount, the Supreme Court basically decided the election on politically dubious grounds that ushering him into office quickly was more important than learning that fact; (3) even if the Supreme Court's decision was Constitutionally impeccable and the Florida result correct, Gore still won the national popular vote.

There's a strong case that Bush did not properly win election in 2000

Indeed. There are three significant non-insane positions, one lined up behind the other: (1) There was never a proper statewide recount in Florida; (2) even if Bush would have legitimately won such a recount, the Supreme Court basically decided the election on politically dubious grounds that ushering him into office quickly was more important than learning that fact; (3) even if the Supreme Court's decision was Constitutionally impeccable and the Florida result correct, Gore still won the national popular vote.

I'll let Ezra Klein handle this.