Salient.

A while back HERE I wondered why the Right was so OUTRAGED!!! by Obama's leftist, bordering-on-the-insane liberal agenda of shredding everything Bush had done before him that, of course, doesn't actually exist on planet Earth:

He's not closing Gitmo. He's still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can take your guns to church in some states, and I'm "guessing" he'll lose the "battle" against the Bush tax cuts. He let "Obamacare" be whittled down to "water in hospitals can't have visible rust."  Bailoutgate and TARP were started by Bush, so he didn't actually invent spending. He still won't let fags openly serve in the military and hell, he even kept a Clinton out of the White House.

Someone needs to explain to me why Republicans hate him so much.

And today Sully HERE lists the same things plus even more reasons discrediting the absurd notion that Obama has treated his time in the White House like some drunken liberal frat party of leftist Marxism:

I think the notion that this administration is ideological is bizarre. Did it nationalize the banks when it could have? Nope. Did it withdraw troops immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan? Nope. It followed Bush's timetable on Iraq and has massively - and foolishly - doubled down on counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. Did it prosecute the war criminals of the last administration? Nope; it has covered for them. Has it raised taxes on anyone? Nope. It merely wants the already-sunsetted Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire on schedule. Did it provide a Krugman-style stimulus? Ask Krugman. Is Obama a peacenik? I suppose we have forgotten that he used the Nobel ceremony to defend Reinhold Niebuhr, has retained extraordinary rendition, and ramped up the troop-levels in Afghanistan to far beyond anything Bush ever contemplated. Has the president publicly backed marriage equality or pot-decriminalization? Au contraire. Has he even risked an iota of political capital to end the ban on gays in the military? No.

But that's just nuts, right?