Obama lovers vs. the tea-party crew

NY Post ^ | January 14, 2010 | Michael Barone

[Scanian]

When you look back over the surges of enthusiasm in the politics of the last two years, you see something like this: The Obama enthusiasts who dominated so much of the 2008 campaign cycle were motivated by style. The tea-party protesters who dominated so much of 2009 were motivated by substance.

Remember those rapturous crowds that swooned at Barack Obama's rhetoric. "We are the change we are seeking," he proclaimed. "We will be able to look back and tell our children" that "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

A lot of style there, but not very much substance. A Brookings Institution scholar who produced nothing more than that would soon be looking for a new job.

In retrospect, the Obama enthusiasts seem to have been motivated by a yearning for a rapturous, nuanced leader. Send that terrible tyrant with his tortured sentences and moral certitude back to Texas and install The One in the White House, and all would be well.

[RightOnline]

Nice piece; I like his emphasis on “style vs. substance”.

[RU88]

Common sense vs. Nonsense

[Matchett-PI]

"Nice piece; I like his emphasis on “style vs. substance”."

Rush has always pointed out the difference between the shallow, superficial touchy-feely liberal mentalities, and people who engage in substantive 'thinking'. This cartoon depicts the difference perfectly:

"Barack says nothing better than anybody in a long time. He's just messianic. He's saying nothing, but people are in tears listening to it. He could say anything. It really doesn't matter." ~ Rush Limbaugh 02/11/2008

<>

Leftist Faith, Ecstatic Moral Inversion, and the Substance of Nothing

"...As Camus once said, no one became a communist from reading Marx. Rather, first they had an emotional, psuedo-spiritual conversion, then they read the unholy scriptures in order to deepen their faith. And as Tom Sowell writes ..." [snip]

[driftless2]

When people like David Brooks mention the “educated class”, they mean east-coast liberals. I have very little respect for what east-coast libs think. As Barone pointed out, they’re usually wrong on everything.

[Rafterman]