A Shrink Asks: What's Wrong with Obama?

[Ringo84]

What difference does it make when the stupid partisian hackery disguised as psychological diagnosis started?

I don't see that it does. I just think that it should stop.

It's an idiotic partisian hack job no matter who is doing it to who.

Then why are you trying to defend this "partisan hack job" because of something Grizzly supposedly did several years ago?
Ringo

 

[chaz345]

Then you did not hear the debates, because if you did you would have noticed how poorly Bush spoke. If you did not see any problem with the way he spoke then we need not take this conversation any further.

So you do think there was something to it when people were making armchair diagnoses of his mental state.

So why is that valid but it's not with Obama, especially since he's nearly as verbally clumsy when he's speaking without a prepared speech?

 

[chaz345]

Then why are you trying to defend this "partisan hack job" because of something Grizzly supposedly did several years ago?
Ringo

I'm not. How can you have missed the two or three times in this thread I've specifically said it's wrong no matter who does it? That you say I'm defending it, even with two or three explicit "It's wrong no matter who does it" statements from me, says to me that you are making some pretty large assumptions.

And it's not about something Grizz did several years ago, it's about something he said in THIS thread.

He said this sort of thing(hack job questioning Obama's mental state) is why he can't consider the GOP. All I did was ask him how he can consider another group(the Dems) who do the exact same thing.

 

[Ringo84]

I only say that you've defended this "partisan hackery" because you've seemingly used the "but they do it too" defense to justify concerns about Obama.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that it's partisan hackery.
Ringo

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Mostly I like the way that the very people who enjoy throwing out random nonsense "for the sake of discussion" simply because it has conclusions they like are the very same people who get really really up in arms when their counterparts on the other side do the very same thing.

 

[chaz345]

I only say that you've defended this "partisan hackery" because you've seemingly used the "but they do it too" defense to justify concerns about Obama.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that it's partisan hackery.
Ringo

How can it seem that I was using the "but they did it too" defense when I said, "it's wrong no matter who does it"?

Like I said I was simply asking Grizz why actions that disqualify one group from his consideration don't disqualify another group who engages in the same actions.

 

[MattLangley]

This is ridiculous lol... Obama acts like a very normal person. McCain and Bush both had more behavioral oddities than Obama does and WE ALL have them.

 

[Grizzly]

I don't see that it does. I just think that it should stop.



Then why are you trying to defend this "partisan hack job" because of something Grizzly supposedly did several years ago?
Ringo

Grizzly didn't do anything (other than forget that the far left also questioned Bush's sanity - but I didn't endorse that). Grizzly also doesn't remember any posters here questioning Bush's sanity. But apparently Grizzly's memory has shown to be less than 100% reliable.

 

[revanneosl]

Also Grizz has started speaking of himself in the 3rd person.

Sometimes I worry about Grizz

 

[Grizzly]

Also Grizz has started speaking of himself in the 3rd person.

Sometimes I worry about Grizz

Grizz needs people to worry about him. Thanks

 

[tulc]

Also Grizz has started speaking of himself in the 3rd person.

Sometimes I worry about Grizz

He just needs to put parenthesis around them, then it's cool,
tulc(has found that to be true)

 

[chaz345]

Grizzly didn't do anything (other than forget that the far left also questioned Bush's sanity - but I didn't endorse that). Grizzly also doesn't remember any posters here questioning Bush's sanity. But apparently Grizzly's memory has shown to be less than 100% reliable.

Ok but the question remains, if things like the OP of this thread cause you to not consider the GOP then how can you consider the Dems when they do the same thing?

Unless you are suggesting that in the case of Bush it was fringe lefties doing it but in this case it's a more mainstream element of the right that's doing it.

 

[Grizzly]

Ok but the question remains, if things like the OP of this thread cause you to not consider the GOP then how can you consider the Dems when they do the same thing?

Unless you are suggesting that in the case of Bush it was fringe lefties doing it but in this case it's a more mainstream element of the right that's doing it.

To be honest, I was using this as a small example of a larger symptom. In my opinion, I see all kinds of crazy things being discussed by more mainstream elements on the right. I see people on Fox News Channel give credence to ideas that Obama is a muslim. Obama follows a radical brand of Christianity (how one can be both a muslim and a radical christian is still a mystery). Obama's administration is leading our country toward nazism. Obama is a Kenyan. Etc...

As Kathleen Parker wrote, it's like the oogedy boogedy wing of the GOP have taken over the party.

 

[kiwimac]

Any Psychiatrist who would attempt to diagnose a person without actually meeting them is a quack!

 

[chaz345]

To be honest, I was using this as a small example of a larger symptom. In my opinion, I see all kinds of crazy things being discussed by more mainstream elements on the right. I see people on Fox News Channel give credence to ideas that Obama is a muslim. Obama follows a radical brand of Christianity (how one can be both a muslim and a radical christian is still a mystery). Obama's administration is leading our country toward nazism. Obama is a Kenyan. Etc...

As Kathleen Parker wrote, it's like the oogedy boogedy wing of the GOP have taken over the party.

Ok fair enough, I think I understand a little better. My response would be that what you see is not really unique to the right though. We usually see parts of the party that's out of power doing very similar. And of course it's going to seem worse and more mainstream when it's being done by the side that one generally disagrees with.

When Bush was in office the topics of the whacky accusations were different but it's hard to say that they were comming from a less mainstream part of the party. Today's birthers have their rough counterparts in those who think that Bush ( or his administration) planned or intentionally allowed 9/11. That's the extreme fringe.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ok fair enough, I think I understand a little better. My response would be that what you see is not really unique to the right though. We usually see parts of the party that's out of power doing very similar. And of course it's going to seem worse and more mainstream when it's being done by the side that one generally disagrees with.

When Bush was in office the topics of the whacky accusations were different but it's hard to say that they were comming from a less mainstream part of the party. Today's birthers have their rough counterparts in those who think that Bush ( or his administration) planned or intentionally allowed 9/11. That's the extreme fringe.

True, the extreme loons of both parties tend to come up with stupid ideas -- that's the nature of extreme loons. But what's different here is that it's not just the "extreme loons" of the Republican party spouting this nonsense, it's the kind of people respectable enough to broadcast their lunacy on the mainstream media -- oddly enough, the same media which was often describes as a "tool of the leftist elite" whenever it reported anything negative about a Republican.

And while back in the old days, when a "Dubya is an idiot" post got a few chuckles from the board's liberal members, it seems that now, any claim against Obama, no matter how outlandish, is treated as gospel but enough members of the forum to merit some concern about the general mental welfare.

I mean, really -- Obama is a narcissisitic Muslim Kenyan Marxist Usurping Thuggish mind-controlling Antichrist -- we get it.

You could probably add the words "from Neptune" into that and at least some of our Right-leaning friends wouldn't blink twice before adding it to their chant.

 

[chaz345]

True, the extreme loons of both parties tend to come up with stupid ideas -- that's the nature of extreme loons. But what's different here is that it's not just the "extreme loons" of the Republican party spouting this nonsense, it's the kind of people respectable enough to broadcast their lunacy on the mainstream media -- oddly enough, the same media which was often describes as a "tool of the leftist elite" whenever it reported anything negative about a Republican.

And while back in the old days, when a "Dubya is an idiot" post got a few chuckles from the board's liberal members, it seems that now, any claim against Obama, no matter how outlandish, is treated as gospel but enough members of the forum to merit some concern about the general mental welfare.

I mean, really -- Obama is a narcissisitic Muslim Kenyan Marxist Usurping Thuggish mind-controlling Antichrist -- we get it.

You could probably add the words "from Neptune" into that and at least some of our Right-leaning friends wouldn't blink twice before adding it to their chant.

It's not as different as you want to believe. Was Dan Rather an extreme loon? Were the editorial writers for almost every major paper in the country extreme loons?

Like I said, it's going to look like it's a bigger, more mainstream portion of the group one disagrees with but in reality neither side is significantly worse than the other when it comes to this garbage. The party that's out of power tends to engage in it more is the only difference.

 

[craigerNY]

It's not as different as you want to believe. Was Dan Rather an extreme loon? Were the editorial writers for almost every major paper in the country extreme loons?

Like I said, it's going to look like it's a bigger, more mainstream portion of the group one disagrees with but in reality neither side is significantly worse than the other when it comes to this garbage. The party that's out of power tends to engage in it more is the only difference.

This is pretty much it right here. Our perception tends to be wieighted heaviest toward what ever is freshest in our minds. Look what happens when one disaterous or even hugely positive event happens right near an election.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Any Psychiatrist who would attempt to diagnose a person without actually meeting them is a quack!

True. Although I presume 'Robin the psychotherapist' would, in her defence, say that she was not attempting a diagnosis, but more-or-less formulating an 'educated guess'. In other words, she's speculating. It doesn't take a psychotherapist to speculate on a person's mental status. Which is precisely why her article shouldn't be taken seriously. It's not a diagnosis, it's not even the beginning of a clinical evaluation, it's pure speculation. And we can speculate endlessly and still get no-where (like Robin's hit-piece). We can even speculate (oh sorry, I meant make an 'educated guess') on Robin's own mental status.

 

[DaisyDay]

There wasn't much of it going on in general during the first couple of years of Bush's term. But what difference does that make?

The difference is that the attacks on Obama started before his inauguration, before there was anything to be riled up about. There seems to be an organized attempt to undermine his presidency from the get-go. That did not happen with Bush, despite his surprising belligerence towards the Democrats.

As for what was going on in 2005, I saw plenty of issues based criticism on the points you mention. But what does that have to do with anything. I also saw plenty of exactly the same thing as what is in the OP of this thread.

Ok, I understand why you separate the two forms of attack. I guess my point was (yes, I have difficulty concentrating) that the trivial attacks against Bush didn't become relentless until after there were serious issues to criticize.

Let me ask you this. You obviously feel that the "criticism" of Obama in the OP of this thread, questioning his mental health is simply baseless partisian hackery. I'd actually agree with you. But by bringing up the things that Bush was somewhat validly criticized for, it almost seems as if you are saying that the same types of partsian hackery questioning Bush's mental health have some validity. Am I completely misunderstanding?

I don't think you are completely misunderstanding.

I read the first two articles you listed. The first link to NewsBusters was actually hackery on NewsBusters' part - it was they who used the term "mentally ill". Sharon Begley proposed in her article, The Truths We Want to Deny, that Bush was in denial about the winnability of the war in Iraq and we, as a country, were in denial about that. She was so gentle and sympathetic toward Bush, it didn't read as hackery to me.

The second one, a book review, is entitled "Bush is Mentally Ill" - no pretense of questioning the premise there. The problem for me - and I'm pretty sure my own low opinion of Bush has biased me - is that the two writers, the author and the reviewer, make pretty compelling arguments, compelling enough for me to go, "Hmmm", but not enough for me to be convinced that Bush is or was mentally ill. So, on one hand, the article seems to be well researched and well argued, but on the other, the conclusion is overblown ~~~ I think it doesn't qualify as hackery because it is too well done, but it does qualify for hatchetry, political propaganda.

I didn't read the third one because 1) I wasn't convinced on the basis of the first one that you had read them yourself, beyond the titles, 2) I found myself agreeing with many of their points, 3) ultimately, I agree with your point, that Bush was also bogusly analyzed and 4) it was funny to me when Bush was the subject, so it is probably funny to you guys when Obama is.

I hadn't known Bush had a dead sister.

Sorry to take so long to reply, but I thought your post deserved a serious answer and answering seriously takes time for me.