After a ritual denunciation of the PUMAs, BooMan goes on, sanely, to ask the right question:
How can we possibly believe that Evan Thomas is an objective reporter when he is comparing the president to God?
I know! We can't. And the incoherence?
Here's how BooMan characterizes the PUMAs (leaving out the who-supported-who a year ago thing):
... who have not embraced our new president....
and further down:
... would have had a hard time fully embracing...
What can "embracing" a President possibly mean in operational terms? Can somebody explain to me how BooMan's "embrace" isn't simply a milder version of Evan Thomas's over-the-top worshipfulness?
All politicians, including Presidents, and including our current President, exist to serve our values and interests. When they don't, we can and should hold them accountable and oppose them. That's how an informed citizenry operates in a functioning democracy.
"Embrace" a President? That's not the attitude of a citizen. It's the attitude of a fan.
NOTE Assuming we're not talking, say, Bush and Angela Merkel.
UPDATE 1 And am I right that BooMan claims that Obama won the popular vote based on numbers that leave MI out? If so, way to bind up the nation's wounds, there, guy!
* * *
UPDATE 2 Let me thank BooMan for this truly remarkable image. It's gold:
[By embrace] 'I did not mean 'grab [Obama's] ass and shove your tongue down his throat.'
I meant, and wrote, nothing so vulgar. "Embrace," in English, has a very mildly erotic connotation that sometimes shades over into "worshipfulness" -- which is the attitude that's at issue here. Compare 1 Kings 9:9 or 2 Chronicles 22:
People will answer, 'Because they have forsaken the LORD their God, who brought their fathers out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why the LORD brought all this disaster on them.' "
Or indeed the allegorical Song of Solomon 2:6:
His [that is, the Church's] left arm is under my head, / and his right arm embraces me.
So, obviously, the post had nothing to do with giving Obama some tongue; that odd picture comes entirely from BooMan's vivid imagination. Rather, I asked a question:
What can "embracing" a President possibly mean in operational terms?
Operationally, what could the PUMAs do to prove they had whatever set of attitudes toward the President that BooMan deems acceptable? I'd guess there's nothing they could do, but it would be up to BooMan to explain that. Oddly, or not, he has no answer. Other than an incoherent splutter of rage.
Next, to reiterate, here's the key point in my original post, above:
All politicians, including Presidents, and including our current President, exist to serve our values and interests.
If a President serves my values and interests, I support them; if they don't, I might not. My point is and was that, measured against that baseline, BooMan's odd standard of "embracing" Obama, no matter how defined, is incoherent; the attitude of a fan, not an informed citizen.
Finally, even BooMan's insults are incoherent. He writes:
The Stoopid should not attempt to reason.
But surely -- and I mean no personal application here -- it is the stupid who should most attempt to reason?* After all, how will they learn to think for themselves if they never try?
I guess I must have hit a nerve...
NOTE * Unless, that is, BooMan would prefer them to become authoritarian followers?
NOTE Let me address BooMan's original post, where he confesses a "degree of sympathy for the PUMA's because I could imagine (a little bit) how they feel." Because I accepted that BooMan wrote those words in good faith, I let them pass. However, I've expressed my views on the feelings trope elsewhere, and so need not repeat them here.