http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell_(philosophy)#Stand_Alone_Complex

The left wing of the political class and the mainstream media (which are one and the same frequently) spent eight years demonizing Republicans and conservatives in general and George W. Bush specifically. It’s a common aspect of humans that what is said in deadly earnest directly is doubted but what is said repeatedly casually that lends itself to the lesser tastes of them will be gospel.

Saturation negativity towards Bush painted him to be no less than a secular antichrist. This automatically in the human mind so given to binary thinking would imply an opposite. Their mistake was so totally personalizing the hatred that they made it Bush versus Not Bush.

Republican, Bush. Democrat, Not Bush. Bush, Obama. Obama the man was never approved of, wanted, vetted, affirmed, or otherwise known and desired. What was voted in was an implied archetype.

Obama cannot live up to an ideal invented in the subconscious to give balance to an opposite extremity. Now that Bush is gone from the scene, Obama is left at the helm and it is now Obama the man versus Obama the Not Bush. The reality versus the fantasy.

This is going to be truly painful in the end for the left, but they deserve it. Arrogant presumptive ignorant manipulation of the public psyche without regard to the mass social phenomena that can result is not a way to run the USA or any other nation.

Did Hatred for Bush Create Love for Obama?

No, but they were both created by the same thing: a deep-seated need to believe in an all powerful daddy government that can fix anything, weak minds and marketing.

The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

Wait! We can imprison those captured on the battlefield without charges until the end of combat just like the Genva Convention says? Whodathunk????

Oh, dear. Funny how things look different when your the one behind the desk.

I agree with Leah in #1. Our mistake is to deify the president (or any politician). We place far too much power in the hands of government which guarantees that someone will be bitterly disappointed. I don’t think the founders intended for the citizenry to place so much power in the hands of the president. If they did, we’d have a king.

Liberals seem to recognize that if the leader of your political faction is doing something you don’t like, you don’t shower your leader with praise and hypocritically incorporate that something into your political platform.

We aren’t you. We’re better!

I’ll be damned if I can find any evidence of that. Surely the MSM would be critical. Instead, what you get on the news is dictation from the WH. You have to go to news sites from the UK or Europe to find any real criticism of Il Douche.

Answer me this: When Impeachment was going through Congress, Goldwater and other GOP leaders said there was no GOP support for Nixon. A fortnight later, he resigned.

Has any Democrat ever stood up to a president of their own party? In 1998, they had their chance to rid themselves of a perjurer and save a troublesome 2008 Primary, instead, they always stood behind the perjurer because THEY HATE REPUBLICANS MORE!

(Yes, I shouted, I hate Hate Speech)

Come on, “better” liberal. After all, you would hold Obama to the same set of principles you did Bush, right? Or are you just not capable of doing that?

Sure you have, Levi. You demanded that Bush be impeached for these things, and yet you’re supporting and endorsing Obama for doing them.

If you had principles, you would be demanding Obama’s impeachment. But you don’t. Instead you whine and cry that Obama should be supported and that what he’s doing is OK.

So if you’re better, demonstrate it. Call for Obama’s impeachment, the same as you did for Bush.

Didn’t do a single thing right…. I’d stand by that. This country just spent eight years stagnating and reverting, dragging down the rest of the world with us. Even if there is a silver lining somewhere, it’s so meaningless as to be insignificant compared to Bush’s disasters.

Levi, for example, screams about Bush’s so-called “torture policies”, “extraordinary rendition, and claiming “state secrets” as a basis for dismissing cases, but babbles about how it’s OK when Obama keeps the same policies, does the same thing, and makes the same arguments.

Oooooh… I babbled about it being OK for Obama to do the same things Bush did? On this website? Was this a conversation I had with you?

Sorry pal, it never happened. On balance, Obama’s been a pretty big disappointment, and that is truest on the issues of torture and secrecy. What’s more, I don’t see any liberals endorsing Obama’s total reversal on these issues, even Olbermann’s been dedicating segments to criticizing him for it. Remember, we aren’t you. Liberals seem to recognize that if the leader of your political faction is doing something you don’t like, you don’t shower your leader with praise and hypocritically incorporate that something into your political platform.

We aren’t you. We’re better!

Actually, that demonstrates the point. According to people like Levi, Bush never did anything right at any point in time during his entire term in office — which demonstrates exactly how irrational their hatred of Bush is.

Levi, for example, screams about Bush’s so-called “torture policies”, “extraordinary rendition, and claiming “state secrets” as a basis for dismissing cases, but babbles about how it’s OK when Obama keeps the same policies, does the same thing, and makes the same arguments.

Then again it could be the mortgage meltdown? Is growing the size of government a catastrophe?(department of homeland security). Is reducing our civil liberties a catastrophe? (wiretapping, “freedom zones” patriot act?)

To be clear, I do not consider the mortgage meltdown totally Bush’s fault. He doesn’t know any better, he’s a free market capitalist. Even Alan Greenspan is mystified that the free market wouldn’t self regulate. Who’d a thunk?

Levi, what are you talking about? Just because you refuse to acknowledge conservatives criticizing W for excessive spending, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The fact that conservatives weren’t organizing protests across the nation might have had a little something to do with the fact that W’s excessive spending now looks thrifty compared to the coming avalanche of spending proposed (and passed) by The One. And it was conservatives who defeated the proposed domestic catastrophe of shamnesty. By “international catastrophe” I assume, of course, that you are referring to the Iraq War? Do you even know what “catastrophe” means?

How are we acting in a weak manner?

Hmmmm…. I think it might have had to do with him pinching out one domestic or international catastrophe after another. I know you’re a slave to your party and everything, but are you really going to pretend like you can’t see why someone would not like George Bush?

[Um, Levi, do you read my posts? Do you even read the title? It's not about disliking W, it's about hating him with a venom which seems to surpass the normal emotion one feels for the president and that hatred then seeming to morph into its opposite for his successor. By calling me a slave to my party, you show that you don't read my posts. I've criticized my party and W on this blog, even devoting a category to "Why W Went Wrong." --Dan]

Those of us on the right who felt that Bush was a good man, decent president yet made some serious mistakes are reviled for being dupes and fools.

We never expect one man to be perfect, of course we have learned long ago that perfect is the enemy of the good. I’ll take good any day. Meanwhile, the Obamessiah is reveling in his glory while leading our country to disaster.

A liberal friend today expressed distress at the handling of pirate situation. She can’t believe America would behave in such a weak manor towards PIRATES. So there is some sanity out there, if it is enough to save us or not, I don’t know.