There is a difference between wholesale trashing and reasoned criticism

[cali]

Now granted, where that line is, is certainly debatable. I know where it is for me. And I question the motives of those who go for wholesale trashing of the President.

Ad Hominem attacks and name calling indicate wholesale trashing. If you call Obama a flim flam man in the title of your piece, you're not going for legitimate criticism; you're working on destroying the President- for whatever reasons. If an author has a history of never doing anything but criticizing Obama, he/she falls into the wholesale trashing category.

Misrepresentation and selective quotation indicate wholesale trashing. We all have the tendency to present our case as strongly as possible, but that doesn't mean that dishonesty or leaping to conclusions about motives, is a legitimate form of criticism.

Conspiracy theories. You know the ones. Obama is under the control of his corporate handlers or AIPAC or whatever.

Reasoned and legitimate criticism comes with at least a soupcon of good will. Those engaged in wholesale trashing are not invested in the success of the Obama presidency- and by success, I mean greater economic equality and expansion of civil rights, etc.

Those engaged in wholesale trashing from the left, will rarely be honest enough to state that they want the whole system to be decontructed and that therefore they need Obama to fail.

Obama can be strongly criticized without resorting to wholesale trashing, but denying that there's some wholesale trashing going on here, is deeply disingenous. As disingenuous as the polar opposite: Trying to insist that no criticism is fair or legitimate.

[natrat]

1. looting the treasury and giving it to elite banks,um ...that deserves more than light criticism

[geek tragedy]

9. 'looting of the treasury'

Good thing he isn't doing that, except in the minds of the Leftwing Limbaughs.

[phleshdef]

14. LOL @ Leftwing Limbaughs, I may have to use that sometime

[tavalon]

2. I completely agree with you

I really, really like President Obama but I take my job really seriously. I am to watch his back and keep his feet to the fire. To any less is to usurp my obligation as a citizen.

[Political Tiger]

3. Well Said !! n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I give up, did you even read the article you are calling out?

Here, try again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5345470&mesg_id=5345470

There is no mention of AIPAC, corporate handlers, etc. Instead there is an essay laying out why what the article refers to quite fairly as "The Obama-Geithner-Summers-Bush-Paulsen plan" represents not 'change' but 'more of the same', and in these times, perilously wrong-headed more of the same.

"flim-flam" - deceptive nonsense. That is the point of the essay. The Obama adminsitrations rhetoric here is flim-flam. For example:

"The White House says mean things about capitalist parasites and then proceeds to give the financial overlords yet more of the public treasure - all in the name of restoring the "free enterprise" system."

Change appears to be business as usual. That's the point. It isn't wholesale trashing, at least not in the article you called out, it is pointing out the obvious about what us happening.

This wholesale trashing you are opposed to is coming from such ne'er do wells as Krugman, Gailbraith, Reich. The few progressive economists out there are pretty much all offering the same critical analysis of the administration's actions with respect to the economic crisis. Why is that?

[cali]

5. I certainly have. And I'm familiar with the author.

Sorry, legitimate criticism doesn't start with an ad hom sttack. And this, btw, is not fact, but opinion without quotes to back up the opinion, and with the use of hackneyed and inflammatory language. Fuck, it's not even written well- let alone honestly.

"The White House says mean things about capitalist parasites and then proceeds to give the financial overlords yet more of the public treasure - all in the name of restoring the "free enterprise" system."

[Kdillard]

6. Anything attacking Obama is considered reasoned these days even

if the criticism is far from reasoned or balanced. The bottom line for me is while everyone is free to attack Obama for this or that he is the only one who actually has to bear responsibility for any policies or decisions that are made for this country at the moment.

[geek tragedy]

10. Funny that people like DeLong and Roubini no longer exist

when they support the President.

[ArchieStone1]

7. Ad-hominem attacks are not used exclusively by one group of people

Unfortunately, all sides use the fallacy often.

[tandot]

8. Thanks, Cali. K & R

[emulatorloo]

11. K & R -- thanks cali

EOM

[firedupdem]

12. K&R! n/t

[babylonsister]

13. Rec'd for some sanity. nt

[MadHound]

15. The fact that you, out of all people, are posting this is utterly hilarious

Frankly, given our conversations over the past few months, you wouldn't know the difference between "wholesale trashing and reasoned criticism" if it slapped you upside the head. People, including myself, have continued to give you evidence, quotes, links and other sorts of information that one finds in "reasoned criticism" yet all you can respond with is "wholesale trashing" of those you are talking with. Any conversation with you quickly sees you deginerating in name calling and shit flinging.

Yet here you are trying to define this difference. Of course you would, that way you can make a definition that suits your particular needs and objectives, no matter how divorced from reality that they are.

Still, the fact that you posted this is utterly hilarious, thanks for the:rofl:

[asdjrocky]

16. Am I happy about everything President Obama has done?

Nope. There's a few things I don't like. But every time I find myself jumping to sound off with my leftist views, I always think about what might have been...

... and then things don't look so bad.

Look, I'll never get the President that is 100% perfect for me. I know, I know, people will tell me that's a right wing defeatist attitude, but for me, it's just the way it is.

I like the man and I love his family. I always saw him for what he is, moderate to moderate left at best, and for now that's okay with me.

What many of these people are doing is asking President Obama to fight a political two front war, or maybe even a three front war. He has to fight against the right, who somehow see him to the left of Stalin, the liberal left who are convinced he's a Regan pug in sheeps clothing, and his own party of "moderate dems" who worry about all the white folk voting for them.

Good defense here of our President. I'll give it a K&R.