Newsweek asks ‘Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?’

Newsweek asks ‘Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?’
Share
posted at 1:07 pm on January 16, 2012 by Howard Portnoy
printer-friendly

It has long been gospel among liberals that they are intellectually superior to conservatives. (If you have the time, they will also tell you they are more tolerant, peace loving, and open-minded.)

But you needn’t take liberals’ word for it. The opinion that liberals—are at least those who still support Barack Obama—are smarter than those who don’t is the subtext of an article in the current issue of Newsweek. The author is a self-described “conservative-minded independent” who “has disagreed with decisions Obama has made.” His name is Andrew Sullivan. (We can go on once you’ve stopped snickering.)

The issue just hit the stands today, but the teaser for the article, which ran on the cover with a photo of the president, was the subject of a weekend post at The Daily Caller. The writer, Alex Pappas, doesn’t himself hazard a guess at why liberals think Obama critics are so dumb, but he does note:

Newsweek has come under fire recently for its photo choices for Republicans they put on the cover. Much was made of the magazine using a photo of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in a running outfit on its cover.

And during the 2012 Republican presidential primary, the magazine chose an especially unflattering photo of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann with a crazed look for its cover.

I am not going to spend time on Sullivan’s 3,000-word defense of Obama’s record, other than to say the data he occasionally uses to make his case are often wrong and seldom documented. He writes for example, that “when Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month.” If true, the nation would have lost 9 million jobs in 2008 instead of the actual number, 2.6 million. (In its worst month, December, the nation lost 524,000 jobs.)

To his credit, Sullivan does offer the occasional laugh, if unintentionally:

We’ve already elected the nation’s first black president and replaced a tongue-tied dauphin with a man of peerless eloquence.

Then again, maybe to need to be an Obama supporter to appreciate his peerless eloquence.

Typical liberalism. Call everyone who doesn't like or agree with his policies, a moron. We're just too dumb to realize how great he is, even Obama's wife has said in a recent interview that the American people "don't know what he's done".

No bias here. Move along..........

That anyone even doubts the blatant bias of the MSM is just mindblowing.

How ideologically blind does one have to be to miss this?

Why Is Andrew Sullivan So Dumb?

Joel B. Pollak
BigGovernment.com
Jan. 16, 2012

“Why Are Obama’ Critics So Dumb?” That’s the question posed by Andrew Sullivan in the cover story of this week’s Newsweek.

But you’d have to be stupid, fanatical, and dishonest to argue–as Trig Truther Sullivan does–that Barack Obama’s failures are part of an ingenious “long game” that is destined to succeed.

If this is the best Obama’s supporters can do, Obama’s only hope for re-election is the weak Republican field.

Sullivan, who claims to care about national debt, begins by arguing, contrary to reality, that Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus (actually, $862 billion) turned the economy around. He offers no proof other than the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy familiar from basic economics. Sullivan also ignores the composition of the stimulus, which shoveled cash to cronies and bloated big states with their massive public sector obligations.

In addition, Sullivan claims that Obama’s auto bailout succeeded–when in fact it pushed aside property rights and subsidized failed “green” cars, rather than allowing car makers to rebuild through normal bankruptcy. He also commends Obama for continuing George W. Bush’s bank bailouts–but does not mention the Dodd-Frank financial “reforms” that enshrine “too big to fail,” hurt small businesses and fail to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Next, Sullivan tries to defend Obama on taxes, pointing out that the president passed tax cuts as part of the stimulus. He ignores the numerous new taxes and tax increases that Obama signed into law–from higher cigarette taxes to the many ObamaCare taxes–as well as the glaring fact that Obama has been campaigning for the past several years on the promise to raise taxes on the rich, and would have done so if not for Congress.

Sullivan’s defense of ObamaCare is that it is more “moderate” than it might have been. That is hardly a measure of success–and after devious accounting tricks, thousands of waivers, and the abandonment of ObamaCare’s Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program, the law is clearly on a path to failure. Fundamentally, it is unconstitutional–a reality Sullivan does not care to note in his encomium to Obama.

On foreign policy, Sullivan hails Obama’s success in the death of Osama bin Laden–giving a fantastical account of the president’s courage, and perpetuating the false meme that Bush had “ignored” Al Qaeda. In fact, it was the war in Iraq–and the interrogation methods that Sullivan decries–that produced the intelligence that led to bin Laden.

Aside from the war on Al Qaeda, Obama squandered every diplomatic and military success bequeathed to him by Bush. He destroyed missile defense in Europe, and wasted hard-won gains in Iraq by withdrawing troops against the advice of the military. While appeasing Iran and gutting the future of our defense, Obama alienated and undermined U.S allies. Sullivan, who detests Israel, even applauds Obama’s pointless confrontation with Benjamin Netanyahu–hardly a way to sell a second Obama term.

Having dealt with conservatives (in his own mind at least), Sullivan lists reasons that the left should be pleased with the president they elected. He’s correct that liberals should back Obama; they will never again see a U.S. president with such radical policies and pedigree. But he overlooks the degree to which Obama has discredited left-wing theory by exposing its flaws in practice–the real reason the left is distancing itself from him.

What is most telling in Sullivan’s admonition to liberals is his use of Obama’s inaugural metaphor of the “clenched fist.” The president, he says, “begins by extending a hand to his opponents” and outwits them when they respond “by raising a fist.” Yet Obama was referring to foreign policy, not U.S. politics. Once in office, of course, Obama embraced America’s enemies and bullied domestic opponents–as even the left knows all too well.

Sullivan quotes George Orwell: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” What is in front of Sullivan’s nose is Obama’s incompetence. He has coasted on the military success of his Republican predecessor, and is taking credit for moderate economic progress enabled by a Republican Congress that has held taxes, regulation, and spending in check. If he wins in 2012, Obama will again have Republicans to thank.

Ahhhh... and the MSM apologists for Obama's dismal performance as president start ramping up for November.

How "stupid" does one have to be to buy this crap?

I wonder how Obama's "independent" critics are going to take this insult.

Well, damn! I thought that was a right good likeness!

Arx Ferrum wrote:

Though I'd change the spelling to Il Douchee...

dblboggie wrote:

Arx Ferrum wrote:

Though I'd change the spelling to Il Douchee...

LMFAO! Okee dokee, I can live with that!

Arx Ferrum wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

Arx Ferrum wrote:

Though I'd change the spelling to Il Douchee...

LMFAO! Okee dokee, I can live with that!

I thought it appropriate.