"If you think Obama is an extremist, . . ."
Then, you've taken leave of consensus reality, and words cease to have accepted meanings, and everything you say is likely to seem crazy.
This last is the most troubling thing -- not that people disagree, but that they adopt conventional modes of expression that make it almost impossible to even discuss those disagreements.
You don't have to agree with or support Obama's agenda, but if you refuse to characterize that agenda in terms of common reference and meaning, than the discourse breaks down. Your concerns cannot be heard or respected, in the democratic process.
That's the essence of the Party of No: the insistence on a separate reality, a separate dictionary, and a bizarro-world narrative.
Bizarro-world narrative analysis might be good stagecraft at times, but it completely obstructs democratic dialogue, and erodes the power to reason together or to respect disagreement.