Meanwhile, most of Mr. Obama’s policies were described as socialist, while no Republican policies were labeled Fascist, or anything equally as radical.

Go figure?

Not even close. Your wishful thinking is getting in the way of your intellectual grasp of current events, and recent history not to mention human psychology and social dynamics.

You didn’t quite prove your point with the long-winded, theroetical lecture, but I would like to know what drugs you’re taking. Your cryptic ramblings remind me of a Nastradamus documentary.

I guess I’ll play along, but unfortuately I don’t have time to address all of your ramblings. One of your main points is that Obama’s popularity is due to unpopularity of Bush. That’s a valid statement up to a point, however it doesn’t explain why there is such a high expectation of Obama. If it were completly true, then Obama could have done nothing and still be popular simply because he wasn’t Bush. In reality, if Obama hadn’t done anything the last 100 days, then he would have been blasted by now as a lier and hypocrite. In other words, the Bush factor did give him a temporary boost, but what is keeping him afloat is the fact that he is keeping good to most of his ambitious campaign promises.

In terms of archetypes vs reality, it happens to all presidents in different ways. In the case of Bush, many of the Religious Right saw him practically as the right-hand man of God. He was supposed to have been the unofficial leader of the 700 club after Pat Robertson stepped down. But the reality was that Bush’s actions were way off the mark of being God-like.

the republican base walked away for the radical in the party and that cost them both houses and put The One in power. For all the losses, im happy the people I hang with have character enough to walk away from people with no principles.

Even if that were true, and it is not, what does that have to do with anything discussed here?

McCain had a large percentage of voters. Are you saying your party is about 4% of the voting public?

Why is it that positive news of Obama is considered liberal??? Could it be that the public actually has a favorable view of him, and the news media is simply following the story? Even the conservative FOX news says that he has high approval ratings!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517802,00.html

Why, you wonder, is it a bigger story than the last president’s first 100 days? For starters, the expectation of Obama is phenomenal as he is attacking several inherited crisis, and not only that he seems to be living up to the hype. Compare that to Bush in his first 100 days, whose expectation bar was so low that we were happy when he didn’t trip over his own words.

There are so many studies indicating this exact same result that they’re almost not even worth acknowledging any more.

bull crap. we need to keep point this out. in fact, we need to do it more.

“Hannitized” – Meanwhile, most of Mr. Obama’s policies were described as socialist…

The “liberal” way: rail against the truth.

chris:

For starters, the expectation of Obama is phenomenal as he is attacking several inherited crisis, and not only that he seems to be living up to the hype.

Not even close. Your wishful thinking is getting in the way of your intellectual grasp of current events, and recent history not to mention human psychology and social dynamics.

The “expectation of Obama” is what can be considered a second-order standalone complex.

In a first-order standalone complex, one or more events presented to the public capture the public’s imagination or weigh on their subconscious in such a way as to cause certain like minded enough individuals to attempt to follow or copycat a nonexistent original inferred by those events or ideas presented, or even specifically mentioned.

In a second-order standalone complex, the mechanism devolves to inference made from the first-order. In this case, we spent EIGHT YEARS with near saturation media coverage of Bush in a way that was radically at odds with reality. Instead of Bush as he actually was, they presented the news with positioning, slanting, and basically told the public what to think about him.

They turned George Bush the man and president into George Bush the social concept. The social concept of him they presented was nearly that of the Christian anti-christ. He was presented as larger than life in everything he did and all of it was negative. He was presented as the supreme bungler, the master liar, the ultimate puppet of Cheney, the lord of the Sith of presidents, the least competent president ever, and all that. Whenever the MSM did not infer it, they turned to the usual left-wing adversaries to give them tv and newsprint time to say it directly.

On top of this they filled the blogosphere (and how I hate that name) with their mass movement. They attempted to foment social insurrection and in testament to the public’s understanding that their natures and desires are closer to conservatism than socialism, resisted such that it failed to become an overt phenomenon and became a subversive one instead.

The left’s attempt at crafted populist revolt instead led to the formation of the first-order complex by creating the image of Bush that never was. However, as humans go, they tend towards dualistic thinking and the more extreme an archetype becomes the more an opposite implied archetype becomes certain.

Messiah, not messiah, Christ, anti-christ, Bush, Not Bush.

Until Bush was not up for re-election acting on the impulse to follow the standalone complex was resisted because it was not academic. Voting him out at the second election had to be balanced against those he was running against and the public was only four years into it so their resistance was high.

Bush being reelected freed the standalone complex. Bush was no longer available so whoever was going to win was going to be Not Bush. Humans as I said think in binary terms and they are associative. Bush -> Republican. Not Bush -> Democrat.

A secondary first-order standalone complex happened among the Democrats with Obama who was the unknown quantity and Hillary who was the known one. There’s Hillary and Not Hillary. Obama was carefully presented as being on every side of every issue, thus giving no fixed points to rankle and annoy the Democrat primary voters. Hillary had an existing history. She was not easily faked. Obama was whatever people wanted to believe he was since they knew nothing else.