MY TWO CENTS ON WHETHER YOU CAN SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT WHILE NOT SUPPORTING HIS POLICIES

Roman Around ^ | 26 January 2009 | Andrew Roman

[andrew roman]

Let's pretend.

If the murderous bloodshed of September 11, 2001 had taken place while Barack Obama were President of the United States, and his reaction and subsequent retaliation had followed precisely the path that George W. Bush had taken, undoubtedly he would not only have been branded the greatest wartime commander in the history of all humankind by the mainstream media, but he would have garnered my support without a scintilla of equivocation.

If, however, under the same scenario, with the rubble in lower Manhattan still smoldering, President Obama would have called for an immediate summit of Muslim leaders (and a task force or two to boot) to figure out not only why such a "tragedy" occurred, but exactly what the United States would need to change in its foreign policy to keep the peace, I would have said – adamantly and ferociously – that I did not support the President.

Using this example, to claim support for the President without supporting his policies is exactly the same as saying that one supports the troops without supporting the war. It is a nonsensical statement. It is not possible.

It is very common, for instance, to hear someone say they support the war effort in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Although that is not my position, one is certainly entitled to feel that way. If that is, indeed, the case, then it is intellectually dishonest to say that someone who takes that position supports the troops in Iraq.

They don't.

(More on that in a moment).

[Doogle]

Your not a regular listener are you

[andrew roman]

Not a regular listener? I’m sorry?

Andrew Roman
Brooklyn, NY

[Logic n' Reason]

I always have (including my time in the military under such notable CoCs as johnson, nixon, ford, carter, and clintoon) and always will, fully and completely support the Office of the President of the United States.

I will never support obammer either as a person or as the current holder of that office - at least anymore than I supported clintoon!

[Doogle]

Do you listen to Rush on a regular amount of time, there are plenty of people who feel the same way as Rush has said repeatedly on his show. He supports the President as his President and wants him to succeed in ways not detrimental to the US. Obama and the MSM want to make this into either you support him and what a lot of people see as socialism, or you want him to fail. There is of difference from what was said about supporting the military while not supporting the war, when you tell the military “this war is lost” “victory is unattainable” call them “killers in the middle of the night” that's hardly “support”

[Hatteras]

He means, not a regular Rush listener. It appears as though you took Rush’s words at face value.

[andrew roman]

I have heard several talk-show hosts - those that I admire - say that that they DO support the President while opposing “some” of his policies.

I found that quite odd, to say the least.

My point - and one held by people like Rush Limbaugh - is that you cannot support the President of the United States, other than in the rudementary ways I enumerated in the piece, if you don’t support his policies.

To say you do is similar - in my opinion - to saying you support the troops but do not support the war.

That position makes no sense to me.

Andrew Roman
Brooklyn, NY

[andrew roman]

I am not, in the least, opposing Rush Limbaugh. In fact, my piece fully supports his position on the subject.

That is precisely the point of the piece.

Andrew Roman
Brooklyn, NY

[sarasota]

No can do. I cannot support a rookie Community Organizer in Chief.

[stuartcr]

It’s not hard to support troops and not the war. One supports the troops in all their activities, because they are there to take orders. One does not have to support the orders that are given to those troops.

This position makes complete sense to me.

[Hatteras]

"To say you do is similar - in my opinion - to saying you support the troops but do not support the war."

Rush has always "used absurdity to show absurdity". His statement was poking fun at the ridiculous liberal mantra of "supporting the troops but not supporting the war."

Yes, I think you, Rush and I agree that it is an absurd notion that you could do one without doing the other.

[Toespi]

Hmmmm. It is still a two-party system in this country, no matter what Obama and the rest of his liberal political hacks want us to believe. It may come as a surprise to some, but there are still conservative voters in this country who believe in conservative values and conservative leaders, and Obama certainly does not meet that criteria. I will support BHO, the same way my President George Bush was supported.