4 Positions Obama Supporters Attribute to the President That He Doesn’t Actually Hold

With the 2012 campaign in full swing, the president continues to get credit where credit is not due.

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was an exercise in wish-fulfillment. The junior senator from Illinois who wowed Democrats at their convention in 2004 did not make a conventional run for the White House. As Virginia Postrel noted in Reason’s November 2008 issue, “Barack Obama has not run as the typical candidate, selling specific policies, a worldview, experience, or executive competence. He has instead sold himself, a glamorous icon onto whom supporters project their hopes and dreams and, in many cases, their own identities.” What many political observers referred to as charisma, Postrel identified as glamour. The last three years have supported her interpretation; a charismatic president can stir people to follow him, a glamorous one faces difficulty every time the spell is broken. Nevertheless, as we approach the 2012 election, some of Barack Obama’s supporters continue to attribute political positions to him that he just doesn’t hold. Here are four.

4. Barack Obama’s foreign policy is not as destructive as George W. Bush's was (or Mitt Romney's would be). 

During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama leveraged his outspoken opposition to the Iraq War (while in the Illinois State Senate) to appeal to anti-war voters. To hear Mitt Romney tell it, Obama’s foreign policy hasn’t been sufficiently militaristic. This while a list of presidential accomplishments recently released by a Democratic group is riddled with the people killed while Obama has been commander in chief. Even as Joe Biden is calling Mitt Romney’s foreign policy weak, and mocking the sensible sounding idea of “subcontract[ing] our foreign policy to some expert at the State Department” (as opposed to the CIA or DoD, Joe?), the left continues to portray Romney as being more neo-conservative than Obama, the very president that neo-con leader Bill Kristol has claimed as one of his own. The truth is Romney would probably fit right in with Obama’s cabinet when it comes to making foreign policy decisions, and Obama’s foreign policy itself is a natural extension of President George W. Bush’s.

3. Barack Obama’s immigration policies are compassionate and humane.

Obama's pro-immigration reform supporters were already growing disenchanted with Obama when he announced temporary relief for some young people threatened by deportation. While the move is expected to help thousands of people begin to normalize their legal status in the country, it comes as part of a broader approach from this president that has included record-breaking deportations rates and resistance to detention reform. Nevertheless, the “temporary stop gap measure” may have been enough to renew enthusiasm for Obama among Latinos and other pro-immigration voters, even while the unilateral action by the president makes efforts to pass immigration reform in Congress that much harder. Nor did Obama spend any political capital on immigration reform early in his presidency, even though Democrats held both chambers at the time, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

2. Obama’s support for gay marriage is groundbreaking.

When President Obama came out last month and staked a position on same-sex marriage that, as critics noted, Dick Cheney held back in 2004, it was nonetheless heralded as a grand moment in the gay rights struggle. Newsweek even dubbed Obama America’s “first gay president,” burying James Buchanan deeper into the nation's historical closet. What did Obama do to earn such accolades from supporters? Although he voiced support for same-sex marriage early in his political career, as president Obama waited until the day after North Carolina voters amended their Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions before telling ABC News about his personal support for gay marriage. While the president has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, both the president and his aides have indicated that Obama sees gay marriage as an issue best left up to the states. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, on the other hand, supports the right to gay marriage on a federal level.

 1. Barack Obama will end the war on drugs, eventually.

This is the most pervasive and consistent fantasy about former pot-smoker Barack Obama espoused by his supporters. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell went so far as to say that Obama legalizing drugs after the election is the “204th reason to vote for President Obama.” While Mitt Romney might be the kind of neighbor to tell you to extinguish your joint on the beach, Barack Obama is the kind of president that doesn’t understand the economic benefit of marijuana legalization and, more important, who has ramped up federal raids on medical marijuana clinics operating legally under state law, whose government seeks life sentences for medical marijuana dispensary owners whose activities are too profitable, and who refuses to allow any discretion in the execution of a deadly and never ending drug war. Obama is a drug warrior, plain and simple.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Gladstone||

    How about Obama wouldn't try to implement Obamacare because he would be fiscally responsible? Or that Obama being a liar would be for the best?

  • Gladstone||

    So where are Cavanaugh and Gillespie?

  • Restoras||

    Obama has been such an entertaining trainwreck I am tempted to vote for him.

  • Rich||

    Unfortunately, Obama's trainwreck produces more casualties than, say, Britney Spears's.

  • Gladstone||

    We need a Boaz article defending Obama, along with TR, FDR, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Bryan was a lot better than those guys - even his War on (Alcoholic) Drugs position doesn't make him a whole lot worse, whereas in foreign policy he was *against* involvement in disastrous wars unlike the other clowns listed.

  • Gladstone||

    Yes but Bryan was a creationist and Mencken hated him so I imagine Reason would hate him.

  • Gladstone||

    Yes but Bryan was a creationist and Mencken hated him so I imagine Reason would hate him.

  • ||

    Well then write one! Won't Cracked let you do it?

  • General Butt Naked||

    It can't be.

  • Gladstone||

    Nope, I had no one idea there was a fellow on Cracked who shared this name.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Wait, aren't these articles written for Cracked? I'm pretty sure they patented the "numbered list of things that have some trait" form of article.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Cracked inspired Letterman *and* Jehovah.

  • SIV||

    1. Barack Obama will end the war on drugs, eventually.

    This is the most pervasive and consistent fantasy about former pot-smoker Barack Obama espounsed by his supporters.

    Which, in 2008, included quite a few Reason editors and HampersadR commenters.

  • Gladstone||

    Along with not implementing Obama and being a lying pol he was obviously a secretly libertarian.

  • Gladstone||

    Obamacare

  • ||

    I'll admit to thinking he would be better about MJ specifically (better does not mean good). It's pretty much the only thing that has disappointed me about him because I expected everything else to be awful.

  • Killazontherun||

    I would love to see the editors add a follow up question, 'In what way does your choice this election not make you the biggest idiot on the planet?'

    Be sure to ask, who was that one fool with the obnoxious self evidently just so affirmations to his most worthy of worship Chosen One, Pinker was it?

  • SIV||

    Search Sullum's posts on Obama and marijuana. I think the first is late 2007-Jan 2008. Read the comments too.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    In 2008, if I recall correctly, Willie Nelson endorsed Dennis Kucinich for President. This year, Willie Nelson's Tea Pot Party endorses Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, for President:

    http://teapotparty.org/endorsement.html

    BO didn't make the cut with the nation's "joint chief," either time.

  • ||

    Could someone please shoot the ampersand-eating squirrels? Or poison them? Pretty please?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    HR, Hall Oates, country Western, the Fast the Furious

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Are ampersands the mark of the Antichrist or something?

  • &&&||

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    show off

  • ||

    I would love to show this article to my lefty friends but, umm, could you maybe run spell check over it?

    "or Mitt Romney's woud be"


    Also, talking point 4(or 1... drugs! Dammit, drugs!) should be made bold as the others are.

    Otherwise spot on though this choir knows these hymns by heart.

    Thank you,
    The Editor

  • Ed||

    thanks

  • Killazontherun||

    You know what was better when Postrel ran the joint? A mesquite turkey sub at Quizno's.

  • The Hammer||

    Those do seem to have declined in quality. Gillespie's fault?

  • Killazontherun||

    Nah, I think they managed to hold on until the Reign of Welch.

  • The Hammer||

    It always comes back to Welch...

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Thanks, I needed a drink.

    ... Hobbit

  • AlgerHiss||

    Good God, that hat that this cocky little pussy wears in these photos is so laughable: What a silly poof of nothingness.

    Jesus, you people that vote for this trash are worse than he is.

  • T o n y||

    Which supporters are you quoting?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Team Blue's, which are just as fucked in the head as Team Red's.

  • T o n y||

    Which specifically? Because it looks suspiciously like the opinions were just pulled from the author's ass.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.20.12 @ 5:17PM|#
    "Which specifically? Because it looks suspiciously like the opinions were just pulled from the author's ass."

    Right, shithead. No one credits him with being worse on starting wars than Bush, right?
    You agree he's at least as much a war-monger?
    Further, you agree he's as bad on the WODs, right?

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    5) Obama advocates writing single page articles when they only have a single page worth of content, instead of artificially promoting them to "slide-show" click-thru boosters.

  • Mongo||

    6)Obama doesn't golf and plays hoops instead!

  • T o n y||

    Obama's been no pacifist but he's been perhaps the most effective foreign-policy president since WWII. The neocons will come with Romney and he's been quite clear on that. Those would be the ones who thought Iraq would be a video game but who delivered one of the most horrific quagmires in US history. On this point there is a real, vital difference. And it's the only comparison that matters, incidentally. Asking what would Gary Johnson do is as useful as comparing the president to a utopian ideal of a president. Gary Johnson in the oval office would have to make imperfect decisions about an imperfect world too, but he'll never be there so he's free to say whatever he wants. By any imaginable measure Obama's foreign policy has been less destructive than Bush's. Not perfect with no dead civilians, but less destructive yes.

    Immigration reform failed to pass Congress, so it would seem there wasn't a filibuster-proof majority support for it, wouldn't it? Until now the only acceptable opinion in public discourse seemed to be "kick out more and build a higher fence than the other guy." As with most things, the political mote in Obama's eye is your focus over the xenophobic, obstructionist log in Republicans'.

    Political capital is real, as you acknowledge, and thus there just hasn't been enough to spend on the drug war or gay rights, though he's gone further on the latter than I ever thought he would.

  • Aresen||

    Speaking of "horrific quagmires", how about the escalating Drone Wars in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc?

    And how about that "I have the right to kill Americans without a trial."?

  • ||

    Stop confusing the lad. There are no HotAir posts he can cut ampersand paste to answer you.

  • T o n y||

    My only claim was that he was better than Bush. Granted, a lobotomized chimp in a room full of buttons would have been better than Bush.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Shhhh, Bush is a demi-god here.

    Clinton was a virtual libertarian compared to the Big Gov Bushpigs but 2001-09 don't count anymore.

  • fish||

    You need to change your handle and come out for a little air. Sarah won't hold it against you.

  • Jordan||

    "Shhhh, Bush is a demi-god here."

    You really are that fucking stupid, aren't you?

  • juris imprudent||

    What do you expect from something covered with second-rate politician shit?

  • fish||

    Man you can't even stay consistent over a post and two rebuttals.

    My only claim was that he was better than Bush

    Is somehow the same as stating:

    Obama's been no pacifist but he's been perhaps the most effective foreign-policy president since WWII.

    I'm embarrassed for you.

  • T o n y||

    Better than Bush in terms of carnage, effective in terms of efficiency in accomplishing goals. The stickiest problems like Afghanistan are the ones Bush created.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.20.12 @ 7:09PM|#
    "Better than Bush in terms of carnage, effective in terms of efficiency in accomplishing goals."

    Lies, shithead.

  • ||

    Wasn't Afghanistan the "good war"? The one we needed to send more troops to? And did?

  • T o n y||

    Not to me.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.20.12 @ 5:45PM|#
    "My only claim was that he was better than Bush"

    Lie, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.20.12 @ 5:45PM|#
    "My only claim was that he was better than Bush."

    Check that: Two lies.
    1) No, shithead, that's never been your 'only claim'.
    2) He's worse.

  • Pro Libertate||

    U.S. foreign policy and our international reputation is worse than ever. We have a totally inept SoS coupled with a totally inept president, aligned nicely with an insanely inept vice president.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You're an idiot.

    Obama didn't lie us into a war.
    Signed missile treaty with Russia.
    pulled out of the Iraq disaster
    helped NATO take out thugs in Libya
    scaled back Middle Eastern footprint

    Another who was BrainDead 2001-09.

  • Aresen||

    "Obama didn't lie us into a war."

    Funny that you mention Libya only 3 lines below.

    "scaled back Middle Eastern footprint"

    In which Internet Fantasy World? cf: Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Egypt, escalating Drone Wars.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Look, I would have applauded Bush/Cheney for killing Saddam like Obama did Qaddaffi.

    But NO! Bush had to go Nation Build with 4500 dead US soldiers and $1 trillion we didn't have.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|6.20.12 @ 6:42PM|#
    "But NO! Bush had to go Nation Build with 4500 dead US soldiers and $1 trillion we didn't have."

    What a detestable piece of shit you are.

  • ||

    You realize, of course, that the Status of Forces agreement that set out the timeline for combat troop withdrawal from Iraq was signed in 2008 by George W. Bush, right? Credit to Obama for not reversing course, I guess, but Obama did not "pull out of the Iraq disaster". Nor has he scaled back our mid east footprint. In fact, we still have thousands of soldiers in Iraq as "advisers" and "security" for the state department, and we've actually escalated in Afghanistan (that's the Good War, remember?).

    Another one who was BrainDead 2009-2012

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Why would he have to lie to get us into a war when he can just ignore Congress altogether and start wars unilaterally?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Or, how did so many brilliant Democrats get taken in by the dumbest person to ever walk the planet? Of course, they were calling for Saddam's head during the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, but not to deflect attention from Clinton's lie under oath, no siree.

  • wareagle||

    though he's gone further on the latter than I ever thought he would.

    no, he didn't go anywhere. He evolved, to his vernacular. The day after NC had a referendum on the issue.

    Tony,
    it is called pandering and even you in the Obama dogwashing brigade should be able to recognize it. Gay marriage is no more or less legal today than before Obie I spoketh.

  • T o n y||

    And he has no more power to make it legal than he did then.

    I never expected him to announce support for equal marriage rights before the election. Maybe my expectations are too low. But yours are only high disingenuously.

  • wareagle||

    whatever. Nice job missing the point - he took his majestic stand after the vote. Since then, black support for Obie in NC has curiously dropped.

    And if genuinely believed in equal marriage, which he does not and never has, saying so before the election is what leaders do. It's only a principle if sticking to it can cost you something. Captain Safe chose to, again, lead from behind.

  • T o n y||

    You just said it cost him political support... So was it not brave to announce it before November? Or is whatever makes Obama look bad the truth in your eyes?

    NC was a foregone conclusion. Maybe not a brave leader, but a smart politician doesn't let himself get tarnished by foregone conclusions.

  • R C Dean||

    You just said it cost him political support... So was it not brave to announce it before November?

    Well, it was costing him serious fundraising cash now, so I would say . . . no.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.20.12 @ 6:03PM|#
    ..."a smart politician doesn't let himself get tarnished by foregone conclusions."

    IOWs, he's as sleazy as the local ward-healer.

  • Killazontherun||

    He endorsed gay marriage in his run for the Illinois senate, and then he back away from that in the statewide beyond the gay friendly district he represented race, and now he is endorsing a state's rights version denying 14th amendment protection. What Obama really believes in is if he applies spit to his index finger he can point it up and figure from there what he needs to say.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Yes, instead of getting 98% of the black vote he will only get 97.5%. There is nothing he could do to truly lose the black vote. They might bitch and moan, but when it comes time to vote, identity politics will win out.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    the most effective foreign-policy president since WWII

    That MAY be the stupidest fucking thing you've ever posted. And that's saying something.

    Congratulations...

    *applauds*

  • T o n y||

    I try to be accused of that every day.

  • fish||

    And succeed almost every day.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.20.12 @ 5:50PM|#
    "I try to be accused of that every day."

    You get accused of it most every time you post shithead. And it's true most often. Lowering the bar is your greatest skill.

  • The Hammer||

    He hasn't gone any further on gay rights than the polls have told him to.

  • T o n y||

    While the other side is somewhere near the turn of the last century on the subject. What's your point? That he's a politician?

  • The Hammer||

    That it didn't cost him any political capital.

  • T o n y||

    So win-win?

  • The Hammer||

    Considering he's pushed the drug war, drone strikes, executive privilege and the war on terror further than his predecessor ever did: Cynical political ploy to bring useful idiots back into the fold. Win-win for him, yes. For the country as a whole? Probably not.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.20.12 @ 7:05PM|#
    "So win-win?"

    For shitheads minus the least hint of ethics, yes.
    I'm sure you're pleased.

  • T o n y||

    What does deliberately taking more political risk than necessary have to do with ethics?

  • R C Dean||

    Obama's been no pacifist but he's been perhaps the most effective foreign-policy president since WWII.

    The lulz. They never quit.

  • juris imprudent||

    It would be funny if he was just a figment of our collective imagination - but nearly half the people in this country really are that fucking stupid.

  • ||

    HALF?????

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.20.12 @ 5:16PM|#
    "Obama's been no pacifist but he's been perhaps the most effective foreign-policy president since WWII."

    Ha, ha, shithead.

  • Nooge.||

    Obama's been no pacifist but he's been perhaps the most effective foreign-policy president since WWII.

    Are you fucking high? Protip: don't be so obvious when you troll.

    If you were serious, and not just a troll, I'd point out all the murderdroning and such, which is sure to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan. You know, if you were serious.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    7) Did not send drone after Choney

  • Libertarian||

    Sometimes I think, "Wouldn't it be great if these points were made every day on the front pages of our newspapers?" Then I think, "it would make as much difference as when Christians were told that the universe does not revolve around the earth."

  • ||

    Because a lot of people in 2012 reject heliocentricity? Damn you're clever.

  • CE||

    You know who else ran on one platform and implemented another after he was elected?

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Every president since Grover?

  • Peter L||

    The point is not that he ran on one platform and implemented another, the point is that he did not have a platform to begin with. He just had a blank space he was standing on, and said "imagine all your hopes and dreams in this space!" So all his supporters thought they were voting for the perfect candidate, and many of them still project their own agenda onto Obama, even if he does nothing to earn that support.

  • Brett L||

    Any word on whether Obama supports unicorn powered green energy, or is this a myth also?

  • Sevo||

    Well, he supports it. Problem is, the concept is the myth.
    Supporting myths gets shithead, shriek and the Derider all hot!

  • ant1sthenes||

    He has instead sold himself, a glamorous icon onto whom supporters project their hopes and dreams and, in many cases, their own identities.”

    "When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies."

  • The Derider||

    On every single one of these issues he's better than Mitt Romney, and you provide no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

    Mitt romney wants to increase military spending more than Obama.

    Mitt Romney wants to deport more immigrants than Obama.

    Mitt Romney does not support Gay marriage, even in principle, which Obama does.

    Mitt Romney doesn't believe in medical marijuana, even in principle. He promises more enforcement.

  • Sevo||

    OK, the Derider checks in with the daily load of bullshit:

    The Derider|6.20.12 @ 7:47PM|#
    "On every single one of these issues he's better than Mitt Romney, and you provide no evidence whatsoever to the contrary."
    Hmm, seems we have a start with a strawman. Did the article make any such claim?

    "Mitt romney wants to increase military spending more than Obama."
    Who can tell? Obama seems to have a real problem proposing a budget.

    "Mitt Romney wants to deport more immigrants than Obama."
    If you believe Obama's latest pandering (and I'm sure *YOU* do), that might be true. Depends on how many of the 'favored group' didn't get a parking ticket.

    "Mitt Romney does not support Gay marriage, even in principle, which Obama does."
    Yep, Obama claims good intentions. Obama's actions, however, are another matter.

    "Mitt Romney doesn't believe in medical marijuana, even in principle. He promises more enforcement."
    Please tell us how Obama (regardless of the worthless crap that falls out of his mouth) 'supports" MMJ.

    So we have a strawman, followed by a bunch of propaganda. Actual results?
    Ha, ha.
    You're posting at your pay-scale, dipshit.

  • Peter L||

    "On every single one of these issues he's better than Mitt Romney, and you provide no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
    Mitt romney wants to increase military spending more than Obama.
    Mitt Romney wants to deport more immigrants than Obama.
    Mitt Romney does not support Gay marriage, even in principle, which Obama does.
    Mitt Romney doesn't believe in medical marijuana, even in principle. He promises more enforcement."

    You named four issues on which Obama and Romney do not differ significantly. Clearly, if those things are important to you, you should be supporting Gary Johnson, who holds a vastly superior position on all these issues.

    Why do Liberals cling to the statists who ignore them, rather than joining the Libertarians and working together to improve these issues?

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    My libertarian dream: Obama is re-elected and the Republicans gain super-majorities in both houses and impeach, convict, and imprison him.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Entertaining, but not likely. The Republicans, even at this late date, have a serious fire-in-the-belly deficiency.

    As long as we are dreaming, why not go further; Jug-ears gets re-elected, the business-as-usual Republicans lose seats, and an impeachment movement is started by populist Democrats who are sick to the teeth of the State-before-all side of their party.

    I mean, as long as we're dreaming.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Entertaining, but not likely. The Republicans, even at this late date, have a serious fire-in-the-belly deficiency.

    As long as we are dreaming, why not go further; Jug-ears gets re-elected, the business-as-usual Republicans lose seats, and an impeachment movement is started by populist Democrats who are sick to the teeth of the State-before-all side of their party.

    I mean, as long as we're dreaming.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The Republicans would never do it. First of all, as C.S.P. Schofield points out, they don't have the stones. I don't remember who said this but it's true: "Republicans' favorite exercise is running for the hills".

    Second of all they wouldn't do it even if they had the guts to do it. That sort of thing might be catching...they like things the way they are, all posturing with no real action.

  • ||

    Barack Obama’s foreign policy is not as destructive as George W. Bush's was (or Mitt Romney's would be).

    Bush entered us into the $3T Iraq War vs. Obama's surge in Afghanistan uber drone warrior. Would give the slight nod to Obama.

    We can speculate until the cows come home on Romney's foreign policy - his opposition to New Start, stated desire to increase defence spending having Bolton as an 'advisor' all give me no confidence that his foreign policy will "not be as destructive" as BHO's.

  • Sevo||

    "Bush entered us into the $3T Iraq War"

    And Obama kept it up.

  • ||

    Sevo - starting the war was the more destructive act.

    What is your belief re: Bush vs. Obama vs. Romney on who earns the 'most destructive' label?

  • Sevo||

    tarylcabot|6.20.12 @ 9:37PM|#
    "Sevo - starting the war was the more destructive act."
    Not sure I follow that logic. Starting it required approval of a pretty strong majority, including the dems who later claimed to oppose it. Like Obama.
    Continuing it was pretty much, well, what are you gonna do?
    Why is one more 'destructive' than the other?

    "What is your belief re: Bush vs. Obama"
    Tough call. Of course Obama ran as 'antiwar', so while the costs are open to debate, the hypocrisy isn't. Obama wins that running away.

    "vs. Romney on who earns the 'most destructive' label?"
    Romney hasn't yet had a chance to waste money and lives, so any comment would be pure speculation.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and to avoid any misunderstanding, I don't like Romney one bit.

  • ||

    The logic is straight forward - without Bush getting us into the war, there would be nothing to continue. In addition, the large majority of US deaths in Iraq and dollars wasted there were under Bush (not to mention Abu Ghraib). An honest argument can be made that Obama's foreign policy is less destructive than Bush's.

    My larger issue with this (4 page) posting is its premise "some supporters" is a very low bar (n=5?). Have not seen any polls supporting the argument that a plurality of Barack supporters hold the beliefs above - the article's links to (click on "extension") an article that starts with the quote “Why are liberals so desperately unhappy with the Obama presidency?”, which undercuts the implication of the article.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    OK, hold it. Bush did not 'get us into the war'. Obama did not get us intio the war. Clinton did not get us into the war. The war has been being waged against the West for at LEAST 20 years, and arguably longer. Bush was merely the first President to go to Congress and get authorization for military operations extended enough to have a serious effect. Whether that effect was good or bad remains to be determined; I imagine historians will be squabbling about it longer than I will be alive.

  • Brandon Magoon||

    Why is this article broke down into 4 pages?

  • Sevo||

    Not sure, but the ad rates may have to do with the number of clicks on each page.
    If so, it pays to stretch an article to as many pages as the readers are willing to click on.
    And (are you listening, reason.com?) there is a limit.

  • Robert||

    His supporters have to praise him to the sky because they're afraid if they don't and he doesn't get re-elected, for the next century or two it'll be, they gave a nigger a chance once but he was awful, let's not trust them with anything.

  • joy||

    a charismatic president can stir people to follow him, a glamorous one faces difficulty every time the spell is broken. Nevertheless, as we approach the 2012 election, some of Barack Obama's supporters continue to attribute political positions to him that he just doesn’t hold. http://www.zonnebrilinnl.com/z.....-3_12.html Here are four.

  • ||

    matic president can stir people to http://www.ceinturesfr.com/cei.....-c-17.html follow him, a glamorous one faces difficulty every time the spell is broken. Nevertheless, as we approach the 2012 election, some of Barack

  • ||

    Where's the naked babes, dammit?

    OK, then:

    8) He has done nothing to improve the quality of forum spammers.

  • jason||

    But the bad thing for the obama is that all these facts are true at some points now its interesting to watch what he will do now.

  • Peter L||

    Last night Steven Colbert had Olivia Wilde on his show. She is a liberal, and campaigned for Obama last election. Colbert asked her to name three things she is disappointed in Obama, she mentioned: Guantanamo bay, drone strikes in Pakistan, and federal drug policy.

    After she said those, I turned to my wife and said those are three issues which Romney would be no different than Obama, but Gary Johnson would be different from both of them. Throw in immigration reform, and you have a good list of reasons why Liberals should be voting Libertarian this November.

  • triclops||

    Frustrating, isn't it? GJ doesn't hate the rich (excepting, of course, greenwash barons, hollywood rich, and Apple, for some reason) enough to get over that hump.

  • triclops||

    wow, that comment was unclear.

    for libs to like GJ, he has to hate the rich, but libs have the above noted exceptions.

  • granite state destroyer||

    Ha, you fell in Tony's trap. The reality is that NO US President has been effective in foreign policy since 1945. We've either had pure imperial overstretch (Ike, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 12), or imperial overstretch combined with pandering (Carter, Obama). Ok, Nixon was pretty good in a cynical way. Truman was probably the most decent. But Obama's not really any shittier than the rest of them.

  • HumanistJohn420||

    Obama is a sham. I admit I fell for it the first time around and voted for this asshole but not again. Vote Rocky Anderson 2012!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement