Shortened some quotes to make it fit but to let you see what I'm replying to
Do you think the major reason was that both Bush sr. and Clinton were more centrist candidates, both regarding stances and culture, than Bush jr and Obama are...?
First, again, you're comments tell me you're once more gaining your knowledge from generally biased or partisan sources. Bush Sr. could possibly be considered Centrist though it'd be difficult. The second term of Clinton could POSSIBLY be considered Centrist as well, though much of that is attributed to having to compromise with a Republican controlled congress to do anything. However Bill Clinton was solidly left, not "far" left but solidly and unquestionably left leaning, during his first term. He triangulated and moved to the Center only after the Republicans took over Congress.
(Mind you, I'm using left and right references in regards to American politics because that's what we're discussing).
I do think in part one could say that its because Obama and Bush are more ideological, but I'd actually say its because they're PERCIEVED to be more ideological. For example look at Bush objectively. No Child Left Behind was written in part with the biggest Democratic name in the Senate. Passed the medicare reform bill to give more government benefits to people. Push for comprehensive immigration reform that would've included essentially amnesty. The initial bailouts that his party was generally against. I'm not about to call Bush a centrist, but its also hard to call him a strict "Far Right" Conservative either imho. I'm sure someone on the left could try and make a similar argument with regards to Obama. However both are percieved by their side as being "Far [whatever]" and that could account for part of it.
... people who now believe Obama is a Muslim, accuse him of bringing about tyranny, or even suspect him of being the Anti-Christ...
First, I see three seperate things here. Conspiracy Theory (is a muslim), hyperbole (tyranny), and craziness (anti-christ).
I do think you may find a few more birther's if you were able to get an accurate measurement then you would about 9/11. I think a lot of that is based on 9/11 being such a HUGE event that there are some that would normally be prone to believing such conspiracies that were affected so much even THEY couldn't get into it. That said I don't think the numbers are really that far off.
In regards to the Hyperbole, I think its about equal honesty. For all the "socialist" crap you get from Obama you got "Fascist" stuff for Bush. You can look back at most of the Patriot Act things, "torture" which is still a debate thing, etc and find the claims of Bush and his "Fascist" ways.
The last is the crazies and I think crazies are just crazies. I think they're pretty even across the board.
I do think what you generally find different is the way and frequency its reported. I'll speak only of America as its what I have the best knowledge of, but there is an unquestionable left leaning slant to most media. I'm not saying this as an attack, nor stating an overt intentional bias, but simply that the majority of those within media tend to lean anywhere from moderate to significantly left. Due to that its naturally they're going to come at things from a left viewing mindset which will shape what stories are covered, how they're covered, etc. This is natural. For example look at your own post, and you can see how even though not intentional it is inherently coming from a left leaning view point. As such the natural inclination would be to likely be less interested in looking at "nutjob fringer" people like truthers or some of the farthest out in the anti-war movement but far more interested in looking at the "growing extremism" within the right. This is the case in the majority of televised and written news sources.
On the flip side, outside of a few news magazines and papers and Fox News's news hours, there's few really "right leaning" reporting that occurs. However there is a larger representation of right viewed individuals in OPINION type roles such as pundents on TV or radio show hosts. While "media" they're not generally what you'd considered as "media" when thinking of "news".
Because of this you get two very different things. On the left side you have a continual and constant presentation of the world, the news, and what people think from a left leaning view point that is provided in the traditional formats. This makes their influence on individuals that are generally more passive due to a societal belief of trusting news as being news and going with it, but at the same time requires a more professional presentation. On the right side you have much more specific sources of which people generally need to seek out to be able to get, typically meaning they're appealing to a specific demographic rather than needing to appear neutral enough and general enough for passive viewers/readers to latch on. Due to this there is generally a far higher degree of rhetoric that is tossed around to that specific audience.
The different I'm getting at I guess would be explained this way. Left Leaning "Media" is like a major company selling items. They can advertise in a variety of places in a simple benign 30 second or single page way, doing product placement, etc. Relatively passive things that are definitely manipulative but not over the top or in your face because they know by societal nature you're going to see it a lot anyways and it'll become ingrained. Right Leaning "Media" is like QVC (A TV network that is all about selling things). Its more over the top, more in your face, more hyperbolic, more extravagent because they know you're flipping to their station specifically because you're considering buying something so they're going to throw it all at you.
To bring it all back around to what you were talking about then...I don't necessarily think the conspiracies/hyperbole/craziness is MORE now with Obama than Bush. What I think is that they are carried, focused on, and criticized/negatively presented by the larger "left wing media" far more now than before so it becomes the standard thought process of how things really are. But that is only because most of those that are hearing that are people who generally did not honestly and with an open mind pay attention to the "right wing media" during the 8 years of Bush where the other sides stuff was talked about.
That's all true, and maybe I just fail to see the opposite point. But many accusations just seem ridiculous to me, and not based in reality...
Some do to you, yes. In part because you distill them to the most hyperbolic and simplistic level of them. For example you saw my example as "Obama hates America!" Now there are some that may actually say and believe that. For many though I'd figure it'd be more (in that situation) "Obama feels America has taken advantage of its position as a super power and owes a debt to the world for those advantages". This is similar to what people did with Bush. Take your statement of Bush acting like a Bully. That's steeped in hyperbole and is incorrect as well. However I know your intention was more that Bush was relatively rigid and unmoving with regards to foreign policy with a blunt nature with regards to allies that worked with him.
Now I am not saying that the article's opinion is necessarily the right one, but I had the impression that economists in general, even those critical of stimulus, acknowledge that in general, such a policy does work...
First, the problem with "experts" is in many things that are actually debated there tends to be multiple expert opinions and multiple reasons why people think one expert or another isn't right. Second, typically when people suggest that it didn't help its not necessarily saying it had no affect, just that it had no worth while or meaningful affect. If I dump a cup of water in a lake its technically true to say that I had increased the water of the lake. In reality it doesn't mean much though. The other notion, as I said, is that even if it did have a mild affect the amount of debt it caused is actually more damaging then what would've happened if no stimulus was done.
As I understood the article, it didn't compare Obama's reform to a potential other kind of reform, but just the status before the reform to Obama's reform....
Again, this is based on the mistaken notion that ANY change > no change. Lets say you're getting sick, progressively getting worse week by week, with about 26 weeks to live. Its reasonable to suggset that you believe a change needs to happen so you can get better as doing nothing isn't making it any better. On one side you have an option you think has the best chance at helping you get cured, but for whatever reasons you unable to have that option. The other option is one that MIGHT work, but you're extremely far from confident that it will, and if it doesn't work would make it closer to getting worse day by day rather than week by week and will almost assure that you wouldn't be able to do a new cure if ones found.
Do you go along with the second option simply because you decided the status quo needed to change?
This is the situation we're at with the Health Care bill with Obama and why the notion in the article and you're saying is a false one. Yes, it was generally believed by Republicans and Democrats that reform was needed, that doing nothing was not a good option. Where the problem lies is that Republicans felt like what the Democrats wanted to do was actually WORSE than doing nothing, and Democrats felt doing just what Republicans wanted to do wouldn't be enough but would cause a false sense of something being done and thus would be WORSE than doing nothing.
So you had a situation where both sides want something done, but both thinks what the other wants to do is worse than doing nothing, which led to pretty much one side winning.
To answer your question about viable alternatives? Viable as in they could've potentially worked? Absolutely. Viable as in they'd likely to have passed? With a super majority in government on the part of the Democrats, not at all.
In regards to the Economic Crisis, Obama did end up inheriting it. However some believed the ground work was already laid for a recovery and indeed that a recovery was already beginning to occur and it has since reverted or at the best slowed. There comes a time that whether or not you inherited it, what you do about it is going to reflect on you and you're going to get judged on it? Is it unfair? Perhaps, but that's simply how the world works.
It's just childish and silly to call any kind of diplomacy and cooperation "appeasement...
Much like suggesting that because an individual prefers the stick to the carrot when engaging in diplomacy that they "didn't think much of diplomacy" or because they were resolute in their belief of what was best for their countries interest abroad that they're a "Bully", no?
Its again, how one views the situation. You keep saying one sides view isn't always reasonable. One could say the
exact same thing about your view. Someone could point at the failure at keeping NK from getting a nuke through continual "talks", or how now that Iran knows a U.S. sanctioning of a nuclear strike and a backing off from strict sanctions they suddenly are actually close to capable if not actually capable to have a nuclear weapon, as a sign that continually taking the stick off the table and continually lowering ones head in unneeded humility is a problem.
Maybe I talked with the wrong people, though, and this is not what you mean...
You're right, military might is not a solution for all problems. That is a fact. However its also fact that refusing to use military might is not a solution for all problems either. It requires a mix of both, and the issues from both sides is thinking the other side uses too much of one or the other. I've seen no majority of individuals on the right saying "Any country that ever does anything we disagree with should be bombed!" anymore than I see individuals on the left saying "We should completely dismantle our military save for defense ONLY".
Your issue is you feel one side uses the Stick far too much compared to the carrot. That's fine for you to feel that way. Your feeling is no more legitimate than those that feel the opposite.