The Difference between Obama Critics and Obama Defenders

I am so ask­ing for it by post­ing this, but I can’t just pass up shar­ing this obser­va­tion. If you browse the com­ments of “Phan­tom Birth Cer­tifi­cate,” you may notice an inter­est­ing trend.

Oba­ma crit­ics cite sources, exam­ine evi­dence, and are gen­er­al­ly cour­te­ous to others.

Oba­ma defend­ers, on the oth­er hand, par­rot lies, run away when proven wrong, and dis­par­age char­ac­ter via ad hominem or sim­ple insult. Those who would berate me and claim that I’m com­mit­ting cred­i­bil­i­ty sui­cide have done lit­tle to sup­port that claim, nor have they done much to build up much cred­i­bil­i­ty for themselves.

The main­stream media would have me to believe that the sit­u­a­tion should be the oth­er way around; crit­ics of Oba­ma are sup­posed to be the hate­ful and ill-informed. Big Media gets it wrong again. Big surprise.

I’m post­ing this to ask the sim­ple ques­tion: What is it about post­ing a, if valid, very seri­ous crit­i­cism of Barack Oba­ma’s pres­i­den­cy that makes Obamapol­o­gists bear their teeth and lose all signs of ratio­nal thought?

And is it the same irra­tional­i­ty that would lead them to elect such a despi­ca­ble, oba­man­able man to the high­est office in the land?

Thanks for read­ing, and thanks to the Intel­lec­tu­al Red­neck, lukem­c­gook, Dave C, and Scott for bring­ing their patience and insights into the com­ments thread in ques­tion. (Oh, who am I kid­ding: Thanks to every­one who com­ment­ed; I enjoy all of your com­ments, no mat­ter who you are or what view you bring to the table… Unless that view is of sell­ing via­gra; straight to the spam bin for you!)

And now an exer­cise in fol­low­ing direc­tions: Please don’t use the com­ments form on this post to dis­cuss the issues raised in “The Phan­tom Birth Cer­tifi­cate”; this is a sep­a­rate post for a rea­son. Orga­ni­za­tion FTW.

20 thoughts on “The Difference between Obama Critics and Obama Defenders”

  1. Hon­est ques­tion: why do you find Oba­ma “despi­ca­ble”? I am also a Chris­t­ian, and have friends that can­not find it in them­selves to sup­port Oba­ma, based entire­ly on his abor­tion pol­i­cy — I can under­stand that. But for you, is this the sole issue, or does it go far­ther than that? If so, please explain.

    Note: I am not “bait­ing” for a flame war. I actu­al­ly like your site. I’m not polit­i­cal­ly moti­vat­ed — my “offi­cial” stand (from an online web test FWIW) is that I am smack-dab in the mid­dle between left and right regard­ing pol­i­tics (so I guess I am always correct ;-). 

    I just want to under­stand your thoughts.

    1. His abor­tion pol­i­cy has a lot to do with it. Regard­ing it, I have to agree with Alan Keyes who described Oba­ma as “abom­inable.” His sup­port for not only abor­tion but also par­tial birth abor­tions is barbaric.

      Oth­er aspects of his char­ac­ter col­or my opin­ion as well, such as his sup­port for homo­sex­u­al­i­ty. The Scrip­tures teach that not only are sin­ners guilty, but also those who teach oth­ers to do the same. By advo­cat­ing for so-called alter­na­tive lifestyles while at the same time call­ing him­self a Chris­t­ian, he makes a mock­ery of Christ, tak­ing His name in vain.

      The bot­tom line is Oba­ma knows bet­ter — or per­haps he does­n’t… depends on whether the church he was loy­al to for decades ever actu­al­ly taught the Bible or if it just stuck to Africa-cen­tric teach­ings (no, I’m not being racist here; when I first learned who Oba­ma was, I vis­it­ed his church’s web­site out of curios­i­ty only to find a state­ment of faith which men­tioned all sorts of pro-Africa doc­trines and only one bib­li­cal doc­trine. Such does not a Chris­t­ian church make.)

      If you have fol­low-up ques­tions, feel free to post them. You did­n’t come off as a troll at all, and I appre­ci­ate your courtesy!

    1. When it’s as easy as click­ing a thumbs up but­ton? Heck yeah, I stum­bled myself. :D

      If you don’t like it, feel free to give the page a thumbs down, or join in the con­ver­sa­tion. That’d be cool too!

  2. Thesis Customer

    1. “Oba­ma crit­ics cite sources, exam­ine evi­dence, and are gen­er­al­ly cour­te­ous to others…”

    What are you smok­ing. Lis­ten to the talk radio cir­cuit for 14 min­utes or Fox News. Cur­te­ous? Yah, right.

    2. “Those who would berate me and claim that I’m com­mit­ting cred­i­bil­i­ty suicide.…”

    Use the past tense not the present tense. You have ALREADY com­mit­ted cred­i­bil­i­ty suicide.

    3. “Thanks for reading.……”

    FYI, this is a trade­mark sign-off in the con­ser­v­a­tive media world. Oh, thanks to our listeners/readers, you are the ones who make this blog/show what it is today. With­out you we would not be near­ly as suc­cess­ful in spread­ing our “Crazy Chris­t­ian” message.

    You are free to speak your mind but don’t expect that peo­ple will respect you after­wards. You have lost all the good­will and respect of the com­mu­ni­ty. You are the new poster boy for Crazy Christians!!!

    1. 1) Please go back and re-read my post. I was­n’t talk­ing about the media at all — nev­er men­tioned ’em, but I’m sure they’d be flat­tered they were on your mine. Actu­al­ly, I was refer­ring sim­ply to those who com­ment­ed on my oth­er post. Your reac­tion to this post sor­ta proves my point, too. Thanks for that.

      2) With you per­haps, but even you keep com­ing back, shroud­ed by anonymi­ty. That’s your right, of course, but if you’re going to com­plain about some­one voic­ing their opin­ions, you might as well iden­ti­fy your­self when you do so, extend­ing to the peo­ple you com­plain about the same cour­tesy they’ve extend­ed to you by reveal­ing who they are (in this case, me).

      3) So no lib­er­al media anchors, authors, blog­gers, and so on thank their read­ers? I thought you guys were the cour­te­ous ones? You may not be able to gen­uine­ly thank peo­ple who dis­agree with you, but please don’t assume that oth­ers lack that abil­i­ty. Stereo­types get you nowhere and def­i­nite­ly don’t serve to help your case.

  3. Thesis Customer

    I don’t believe in God. Prove to me s/he exists.

    I’ll accept a birth cer­tifi­cate form Hawaii as proof if you so choose.

    1. I have absolute­ly no idea what this has to do with the top­ic at hand; how­ev­er, your demon­strat­ed refusal to deal with facts leads me to believe that no mat­ter what I say here will be quick­ly dis­missed by you. If you legit­i­mate­ly want to dis­cuss the exis­tence of God, let me know and give me a valid e‑mail address and we can dis­cuss it. I would like to keep these com­ments on-top­ic if at all pos­si­ble; I hope you understand.

  4. I appre­ci­ate that you were will­ing to post about this. Do you think that you will do a “Part 2” to this post? I think many of us would like to hear from you again on this.

  5. It’s pos­si­ble your use of the terms “Obamapol­o­gist and Oba­ma­colyte” and my favorite “Obames­si­ah” may have set the tone for the dis­cus­sion. Your choice of those terms means you went into this think­ing that peo­ple who dis­agree with you on that issue are irra­tional. When you look for trou­ble, you’ll gen­er­al­ly find it.

    One oth­er thing is that it is pos­si­ble to dis­agree with you on that oth­er issue with­out being an Oba­ma sup­port­er. I per­son­al­ly don’t sup­port any politicians–I do sup­port good policy.

    1. I wish I could take cred­it for “Obames­si­ah.” It isn’t so much a term of deri­sion as it is a reminder that peo­ple seem to put a lot of hope in that man — actu­al­ly, that is how he cam­paigned any­way. The oth­er terms “Obamapol­o­gist” and “Oba­ma­colyte” are per­fect­ly accu­rate and again are not meant to be terms of deri­sion. If I defend Christ, I am a Chris­t­ian apol­o­gist; if I fol­low Christ’s lead, I am an acolyte of Christ. I sim­ply applied those terms and mean­ings to those who defend/follow Oba­ma, and made them into cute lit­tle port­man­teaus just because port­man­teaus are fun.

      By sim­ply post­ing about this issue, I knew I was ask­ing for trou­ble, or at least some chal­leng­ing dis­cus­sion. The word­play was the least of my wor­ries, know what I mean?

  6. It’s not sur­pris­ing that the major­i­ty of the com­ments reflect the atti­tude you address in your post. I wish I had your patience to try to make a dent in the mind of the intran­si­gents. Kudos. As a true Chris­t­ian you’re coura­geous­ly tak­ing the arrows.

    1. Claude, all I can say is that I’m very thank­ful that it is just dig­i­tal arrows that we’re talk­ing about. Whether or not the dis­cus­sion goes any­where, I can’t say. I said my piece, con­science cleared. :D

  7. Rick, thanks for the fol­low up. Your thoughts (most­ly) echo the few issues I’ve had as with him well.

  8. Andrew Yu-Jen Wang

    Speak­ing of Barack Obama:

    Barack Oba­ma is a racial-minor­i­ty indi­vid­ual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes com­mit­ted by George W. Bush.

    George W. Bush com­mit­ted hate crimes of epic pro­por­tions and with the stench of ter­ror­ism (indi­cat­ed in my blog).

    George W. Bush did in fact com­mit innu­mer­able hate crimes.

    And I do solemn­ly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush com­mit­ted oth­er hate crimes of epic pro­por­tions and with the stench of ter­ror­ism which I am not at lib­er­ty to mention.

    Many peo­ple know what Bush did.

    And many peo­ple will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

    Bush was absolute evil.

    Bush is now like a fugi­tive from justice.

    Bush is a psy­cho­log­i­cal prisoner.

    Bush has a lot to wor­ry about.

    Bush can tech­ni­cal­ly be pros­e­cut­ed for hate crimes at any time.

    In any case, Bush will go down in his­to­ry in infamy.

    Sub­mit­ted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
    B.S., Sum­ma Cum Laude, 1996
    Mes­si­ah Col­lege, Grantham, PA
    Low­er Meri­on High School, Ard­more, PA, 1993

    I am not sure where I had read it before, but any­way, it is a lin­guis­ti­cal­ly excel­lent state­ment, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were pos­si­ble to ban inven­tion that bot­tled up mem­o­ries so they nev­er got stale and fad­ed.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quo­ta­tion came from my Low­er Meri­on High School yearbook.

    1. Thanks for the com­ment, but I’m not for sure what it has to do with any­thing. I’m also not for sure how being in a minor­i­ty makes one, “inevitably,” exempt from com­mit­ting hate crimes. It seems you have some strong ideas of your own, though, so I encour­age you to start your own blog rather than co-opt­ing com­ment threads on posts unre­lat­ed to your point. ;)

    2. Andrew, don’t feel you have to hold back. Rep­u­ta­tion means noth­ing on this blog, so there is no penal­ty for telling us what you real­ly think of Bush.

    1. Always nice to have you drop by, Jeff! I take it from your incred­i­bly angry com­ment and the boat­load of hate­ful remarks toward me that I’ve lost all cred­i­bil­i­ty with you as well? :D

      “FTW” stands for “for the win.” I’ve seen it else­where, but I’m pret­ty sure I picked it up from Chris Pear­son!

  9. Hi Rick,

    As oth­ers not­ed, the tone of your Birth Cer­tifi­cate post like­ly has more to do with the types of respons­es you got than any­thing. Those who agreed with you prob­a­bly felt com­fort­able com­ment­ing. They knew they’d have a wel­come sup­port­ive forum here, so they respond­ed in a most­ly civ­il tone. 

    Those who dis­agreed like­ly felt unwel­come (or even mocked) and I sus­pect most just rolled their eyes and moved on… leav­ing you with only those who were annoyed enough to post snarky com­ments to rep­re­sent the counter point. 

    But don’t judge the whole based on a small and dis­tort­ed slice of both sides.

    On a per­son­al lev­el, I had a quite ratio­nal response to that post typed out, then decid­ed it just was­n’t worth it. The atti­tude and terms you used (specif­i­cal­ly “Obamapol­o­gist” and Oba­ma­colyte” and “Obames­si­ah” ) made me feel that my com­ments would­n’t be wel­comed, and would like­ly be mocked or dis­missed. I’m sure it’s unin­ten­tion­al, but even the tone in this cur­rent post and com­ments make me feel uncom­fort­able here… from the remarks about the “irra­tional­i­ty” of elect­ing Oba­ma, to what appears to be a belief that you’re qual­i­fied to judge what defines a cer­tain, a church or an indi­vid­ual as Chris­t­ian. Based on your judg­ment of Oba­ma, I’m afraid you’d find me pret­ty despi­ca­ble and “oba­man­able” too, so I’m not like­ly to speak up often, just on that count.

    But maybe more impor­tant­ly, I did­n’t want to be drawn into a snarky polit­i­cal argu­ment with a per­son who I may be beg­ging for cod­ing help from next week, so I closed my brows­er instead of hit­ting submit. 

    Bot­tom line, the com­ments on that post aren’t rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the atti­tudes of Oba­ma’s crit­ics or sup­port­ers… they’re only rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the peo­ple who were moved to com­ment on that post. All polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tions have their share of snarky, mean spir­it­ed, hate­ful and even dan­ger­ous peo­ple, but their vis­i­bil­i­ty varies depend­ing on the forum and the cur­rent polit­i­cal winds.

    In any­case, thanks for read­ing ;) and I think I’ll go back to the orig­i­nal post and pro­vide you with a few of the sources you’ve asked for!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman