I was cruising sites with a bit of a liberal bias and reading their political thoughts, as I tend to find it rather informative to see what the other side sees as the major issues of the day. I don't usually bother with the more partisan and explicitly political sites, as, sadly, some of them have a rather heavy handed censoring of the content, so I don't know how honest the content is. So, rather than read what made it by the censors at DailyKos, I tend to read political thought at non-political sites, such as Mr. Cranky.

All of which is a long way to go to get around to a post I found particularly amusing:

Expect more from your president. Didn't he say during his campaign that if he was messing up he wanted to hear about it? He was handed a turd sandwich and it'll be a miracle if he pulls this off.Bush has left the bar so low anyone would look better. I don't think Obama has a hidden agenda like Bush. But he took this shitty job because he wanted to serve his country. I can't see any other motive. Would you want his job? Well, he's the man now dog and his feet are to the fire as it should be. I wish there were more serious debate coming through from the other side. Instead he's called every name in the book and is accused of all sorts of crazy s[**]t. Yeah, many were saying the same things about Bush but the kicker was some of that was true.

Now, the whole debate was informative, as the token conservative actually argued FOR universal health care, while many of the left-leaning posters took Obama to task for not fulfilling his promises. But this post caught my eye as, with a few changes it could have come from someone on the Angry Right as well.

Change "Bush" to "Clinton" and "Obama" to "Bush" and this could have been something I heard in conversation in July 2000. Even more so, the part about "accusing of some crazy s**t", but "some of it was true" sounds like the some on the right talking about Obama.

And that is why I wanted to post this, to once again call for those on the right who have adopted the practices of the "Angry Left"("The Angry Right and Conservatives", "Rethinking My Earlier Position") to let it go. Please, calm down ("Calm Down a Little"). Yes, Obama's beliefs are in opposition to most conservatives. And, yes, I do think he will do some serious economic damage in the four years he has("The Inflation Engine", "Sotomayor and Empathy", "Trashing the Economy"). But can we stop the conspiracy theories and the brutal name calling?("Mumia, the DaVinci Code, Full Body Scans, and Loose Change - How Conspiracy Theories Arise", "Conspiracy Theories")

Back in 2000 we thought it outrageous when the left called Bush "Hitler", brought up supposed drug abuse, Skull and Bones nonsense, Bohemian Grove conspiracy theories, and then later when Truthers accused him of staging 9/11 ("False Flag Theories and 9/11"), or blowing the levees in New Orleans. While they claimed the right was "nuts" for saying Clinton killed Vince Foster, they were nowhere near as perceptive when it came to their own insane theories. (Cheney was in the pay of Haliburton, "Blood for Oil" and so on.)

And now the right is doing the same, or some are. They are claiming Obama is not a US citizen, he is a covert Muslim, he plans to completely destroy representative government and so on. They say it was insane to accuse Bush of being behind 9/11, but not think Obama is some sort of Islamic Manchurian candidate.

The truth is, every candidate is "destructive" to those who do not share his views. But another truth is that neither Obama nor Bush is as extreme as the critics portray. Obama is left of Clinton, I will grant, more of a Carter clone ("Yet More Flashbacks","Not a Flashback Yet","A Great Article", ""), but that is still a far cry from FDR or even Wilson, with their grand restructuring of the government. Obama may be using the state to expand economic control ("Extra-Legal Control"), but if he were truly as radical as some claim he would not be doing it subtly through TARP, he would be passing sweeping changes to the law.

In the same way, Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was much left of what the Democrats imagined him to be ("Clinton and Bush Killed the Center""), Obama is right of where many conservatives think he is. That is not to say he won't do harm, moderates tend to be destructive simply through the damaging "compromise" bills they pass (""More Signs of Inflation?"). Both Bush and Clinton continued the destructive inflation which brought us here ("Place Blame Fairly, Regardless of Party"), and Obama will as well. And that will likely do more harm than any explicit law Obama could pass.

No, I am not asking for pure civility, or for a more gentle politics. I am in favor of Republicans strenuously opposing every objectionable law Obama tries to pass. All I ask is that we stop appearing as crazed and embittered as the angry left by pushing these crazy theories, and instead fight on the merits. The independents may not be immediately swayed, but I am certain appearing as crazy as the Angry Left will do more harm than good, and will certainly do nothing to restore the Republican party in the eyes of the independents we need to sway.

POSTSCRIPT

I know many have made much of the Obama birth certificate controversy. I am still convinced there is no issue there, as I covered extensively ("A Brief Follow Up","Not A Smoking Gun"). However, there is one issue which we could address without sounding insane, and one which could be settled before a possible Obama reelection (if one comes). The few cases that made it to court have brought to light one problem, it is required that a president be a natural born citizen, but there is no agreement on to whom he must prove it. So, before the next election, we could usefully argue for a statute requiring the president, before assuming office, needs to provide documents proving his status to the chief justice or some similar official. Or, to avoid accusations of partisanship, to the entire supreme court. It would not sound as insane, as we could couch it in terms of being enacted to prevent this sort of controversy from arising again. And, as it would not apply until 2012, it would not be seen as aimed at Obama specifically. It would be a useful reform, would prevent a future incident of the kind which arose in this election, and yet would not make us seem as if were endorsing conspiracy theories. I know it would not remove Obama from office as some wish, but if our goal is to fix problems rather than score political points, that should not dissuade us.