Unbelieveable Double-Standard

For the past year or so, my wife and I have had trouble discussing the domestic political scene.  If you have followed my recent posts, you know that I have felt betrayed and disappointed by the policies of our current President.  I felt that the President never really elaborated his multiple year war plans for Afghanistan.  I felt betrayed when the public option was not even presented in Congress and I was horrified when the President capitulated in the fight to end the tax cuts for the richest Americans. 

Along the way, I have noticed a very strange phenomenon in which many of the President's female suporters remain loyal despite the failed promises and disappointments.  I have watched over the year as progressive pundits have fallen off the wagon. Keith Obermann, who helped establish any free clinics around the country, bailed on the President during the healthcare debate.  Ed Schultz expressed his disappointment with the President with his lack of support for the labor movement.  The other progressive talk show hosts all bailed on the President in December with the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.  However, there was still Randi Rhodes, normally as tough a "lefty" as they come defending the President's right to compromise.

Another female friend who fought long and hard against the war in Viet Nam stated during a discussion of the Afghan war that she thought that the war was "going as expected" which means that she was totally accepting on faith the President's evaluation of the progress in this war.  My wife, a die hard supporter of the President, stated publically in June 2010 that she would lose faith in the President if the "tax cuts for the wealthy" were extended.  We all know that the President had secret meetings with the other party while excluding his own party members to hammer these tax cut extensions.   Now instead of being angry, my wife talks about progress in bi-partisanship.  I know that if I had failed to deliver on my promises and if I had clandestine meetings with another party, I would be out the door in a second.  Why is the President given this blind allegiance?

Finally, another longtime female friend of left persuasion sent me this email in response to a recent blog,"  I guess I'm just not into beating on Obama, who I agree seems to be abandoning his liberal roots in a disconcerting way. However, it must be tough at the top, and he's obviously feeling the heat of compromise. The @#$@$% 2010 elections obviously didn't help. I just don't have the heart to get angry at him. I have to believe in someone!"   Honestly, the President could receive oral sex from a 21 year old intern and he would be defended with, "you have to understand the pressures of the job and the need for a release."

I know that this is not a statistically sound study, but my gut instincts tell me there is something to my observations.  That said, I will now announce the President is a shoo-in for 2012.  He has half the Democratic Party in the palm of his hand, add some minorities and top if off with  those centrists that he has bending over backwards to accommodate and you have a winning formula for 2012.