Sandy much? You're taking this quite personally.
Granted I should have said "act" instead of "be" to avoid the ad-Hominem frag myself. I deserve it. So much for typing on a phone in a hurry before work.
I wasn't gallantly defending the prez - you missed the point. "Crudely dumb" was aimed not at your or IP's linguistics, but at a potential mentality of lumping things together into coarsely sound-bitable, slogan-worthy snippets that can be pinned onto a person, aka, ad-hominems. Its always been in politics but the 24-hour media cycle exacerbates it, not to mention all the super-PACs (thank you "Citizens United"), industry lobbyists, shock jocks, party factions and anyone else who wants a piece of a non-thinking public struggling to make sense of ANYthing more complex than a football lineup. Put simply, its easier to hate a person than to grant any credit to their position towards understanding and yes, compromise. And which of them gives a shit about compromise when they're getting paid to stir the pot? When we citizens do it, we become a part of the stir.
You guys sound far more intelligent than that, hence my (albeit curt) challenge. When we fail to discern, we become part of the problem by letting others set up false generalizations to carry the day. To me, that's exactly what's happening to Z. It's what makes people to shut down their ears and brains and let others find patterns (real or synthetic) for them, like labeling Z a racist or murderer and turning him into this specter of hate.
Tacitly voicing joy over the theoretical wounding of an official is a little seed of the same.