Well Fox will give any right-wing nutjob with a very angry, uniformed opinion a platform from which to shout it. The only concievable, terrible argument I could see catching fire is another terrorist attack being blamed on Obama's very slightly different stance on some Middle East policy. Towards the end, when they had nothing good to say about him, the right-wing's talking point was "atleast Bush kept us safe." I saw Hannity spin the whole affront to civil rights/patriot act BS as "I'm happy he took some rights away to keep me safe." I saw O'Reilly excuse the whole second term as "Well I have my problems with the first term, but atleast he kept us safe."
Personally, I feel that having civil liberties means you can expect a terrorist attack now and again. Its a having your cake and eating it too not happenening kind of deal. And I say that's fine, I'd willingly lay down my false sense of security for real, tangible civil liberties. But dammit, if there's another serious attack, expect the whole conservative machine to drive that point home again and again and again and again. You can toss up economic, environmental, monetary, energy, and any other type of policy to be a more or less even split when its all said and done. But the kind of fear-mongering and terrorist/media induced ferver that would result could send this guy completely out of office.
And I also feel that like it or not, we've made a commitment to current policies and a regime change in four years, and the resulting re-back-tracking in policy leaves billions, if not trillions of dollars wasted, not to mention years of wasted time, and we're kind of in an all-in do-or-die moment here.
...what was the original topic again?