The Most Divisive Partisan Presidency Since Nixon

[JoeTrumps]

from another great article(is there another kind?) from C. Krauthammer.

Talking about Obama's State of the Union address:

Rational discourse and respect for one’s opponents? This is a man who campaigned up and down the country throughout 2011 and 2012 saying that he cares about posterity, Republicans only about power.

The man who accused opponents of his Iran treaty of “making common cause” with Iranians “chanting death to America.”

The man who, after Paul Ryan proposed a courageous, controversial entitlement reform, gave a presidential address — with Ryan, invited by the White House, seated in the first row — calling his ideas un-American.

There is wisdom to the 22nd Amendment. After two terms, presidents are spent. Nothing shows it like a State of the Union valedictory repeating the hollow promises of the yesteryear candidate — as if the intervening presidency had never occurred.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7c4924-baf9-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

his point is clear: Obama should be the last one to talk about being rational and dealing fairly with the other party when he spent SEVEN YEARS doing the exact opposite. did he think we wouldn't notice?!

 

[JoeTrumps]

uh-oh. put this in the wrong forum. I hope they don't hit me with more demerits for this. can't afford any more or I have to go stand in the hall.

 

[ocean515]

from another great article(is there another kind?) from C. Krauthammer.

Talking about Obama's State of the Union address:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7c4924-baf9-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

his point is clear: Obama should be the last one to talk about being rational and dealing fairly with the other party when he spent SEVEN YEARS doing the exact opposite. did he think we wouldn't notice?!

CK is great, as was his closing paragraph from your link, which sums up President Obamas tenure perfectly.

"There is wisdom to the 22nd Amendment. After two terms, presidents are spent. Nothing shows it like a State of the Union valedictory repeating the hollow promises of the yesteryear candidate — as if the intervening presidency had never occurred."​

 

[Erod]

What Nixon did was minor compared to Hillary.

He was run out of office by the media. She's being ignored and protected.

Obama has had free PR service from the media for eight years.

 

[joG]

from another great article(is there another kind?) from C. Krauthammer.

Talking about Obama's State of the Union address:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7c4924-baf9-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

his point is clear: Obama should be the last one to talk about being rational and dealing fairly with the other party when he spent SEVEN YEARS doing the exact opposite. did he think we wouldn't notice?!

I think I have to agree with the article. But that was what was the danger of electing a man without experience and only populist visions as a plan.

What is so horrible is that we are on the verge of doing it again.

 

[shrubnose]

This isn't breaking news it's an opinion piece.

 

[KLATTU]

I'll defend Obama on this one. He hasn't helped, but the GOP hasn't either .
And there are so many hyperpartisan media outlets now, that only fans flames.
Back in the day, the media was almost all liberal but they at least pretended they weren't.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Yeah because Republicans have been the absolute angels of political discourse in the last 8 years :roll:

 

[imyoda]

uh-oh. put this in the wrong forum. I hope they don't hit me with more demerits for this. can't afford any more or I have to go stand in the hall.

Don't hold your breath.................if someone who thinks otherwise is sure to report you..............It is easier to silence yall than attempting a cogent argument

 

[Absentglare]

The most divisive political party in American history: republicans under President Obama's two terms.

 

[soot]

The most divisive ...

Blah...blah...blah.

This thread isn't about political PARTIES.

It's a about divisive PRESIDENCIES.

Leave it to a partisan hack to jump in to a discussion just to spew irrelevant partisan nonsense.

 

[imyoda]

Yeah because Republicans have been the absolute angels of political discourse in the last 8 years :roll:

IMHO

If it was not for the carping of Faux Noise and the other nay-sayers of the RW media..............and we had that old time opposition journalism which was based upon facts and informed folks rather than telling them what to think............Folks would say "President Obama" and politics would end at the shoreline of the oceans...............and the President's approval rating would be in the mid-50's............

Just goes to prove the power of advertising.......or should I say propaganda ?


JUST WONDERING..........

Is it possible that one man could not do one good thing and be guilty of being the source of all the problems, screw-ups, and crimes in the world for the past 7 years seem rather.............shall I say suspect?


Even George Bush could NOT be charged so...........

 

[imyoda]

Blah...blah...blah.

This thread isn't about political PARTIES.

It's a about divisive PRESIDENCIES.

Leave it to a partisan hack to jump in to a discussion just to spew irrelevant partisan nonsense.

...and just how might you characterize your post?:lamo:lamo

 

[tres borrachos]

from another great article(is there another kind?) from C. Krauthammer.

Talking about Obama's State of the Union address:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7c4924-baf9-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

his point is clear: Obama should be the last one to talk about being rational and dealing fairly with the other party when he spent SEVEN YEARS doing the exact opposite. did he think we wouldn't notice?!

Krauthammer as always is completely spot on. I love to read him.

Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office,” Obama boasted. Surveys, mind you. As if superpower influence is a Miss Universe contest.

I'm not sure why this surprised him. Obama's Presidency was won based on this "rock star" image a lot of people foolishly got caught up in. Obama's been more interested in his popularity than in actually doing something. The man's narcissism is positively epic.

 

[Chomsky]

from another great article(is there another kind?) from C. Krauthammer.

Talking about Obama's State of the Union address:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7c4924-baf9-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

his point is clear: Obama should be the last one to talk about being rational and dealing fairly with the other party when he spent SEVEN YEARS doing the exact opposite. did he think we wouldn't notice?!

I respect and often enjoy CK, but often don't agree with him.

This is (somewhat) one of those times.

The GOP saying "The President doesn't work with us", is essentially the pot calling the kettle black.

There's plenty of blame on both sides.

But here's where I have give some credence to CK: As the chief executive, there is some additional onus on the President to figure-out a way to move the country forward. So IMO, it's by office, not by individuals, that some criticism can be leveled at the President.

Still - it does take two to tango!

 

[soot]

...and just how might you characterize your post?:lamo:lamo

Your comment really doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

[imyoda]

Your comment really doesn't even begin to make sense.

Thank you for your most interesting sharing

 

[JoeTrumps]

I respect and often enjoy CK, but often don't agree with him.

This is (somewhat) one of those times.

The GOP saying "The President doesn't work with us", is essentially the pot calling the kettle black.

There's plenty of blame on both sides.

But here's where I have give some credence to CK: As the chief executive, there is some additional onus on the President to figure-out a way to move the country forward. So IMO, it's by office, not by individuals, that some criticism can be leveled at the President.

Still - it does take two to tango!

with most of the dancing going to Obama.

his first few months in office.....

Obama: $800 billion stimulus(which did nothing,as we can ALL admit, to help the economy)
GOP: don't do it
Obama: go screw yourselves--------BILL PASSES

a month later.........

Obama: Healthcare Bill. Hey republicans, come give me your ideas.
GOP: Here ya go.
Obama: I shall ignore your ideas, NOW go screw yourselves------BILL PASSES

How do you think the Democrats would react if a REPUBLICAN president made moves like that THE SECOND HE TOOK OFFICE!!!!!

Your picture of how this all went down, HOW THE WELL WAS POISONED AND BY WHOM, is totally inaccurate. it's plain to see

 

[Risky Thicket]

Krauthammer as always is completely spot on. I love to read him.

I have never disagreed with you more. Krauthammer is the reason the term "partisan hack" was coined. He is and forever will be bitter and spiteful.

 

[poweRob]

yeah because republicans have been the absolute angels of political discourse in the last 8 years :roll:

YOU LIE!


Like that?

 

[Thrilla]

YOU LIE!


Like that?

the thread is about Presidents being divisive....in fact, it says so in the title.

the one thing about the SOTU address that bugged me was surely his hypocrisy on issues such as insulting other people.
he really has no standing to castigate others for what he has continually done for 7 years.

it's like a leftist whining about someone stealing their stuff... it carries no weight because of the shear hypocrisy.

 

[Absentglare]

Blah...blah...blah.

This thread isn't about political PARTIES.

It's a about divisive PRESIDENCIES.

Leave it to a partisan hack to jump in to a discussion just to spew irrelevant partisan nonsense.

You're right, it's about the erroneous perception that President Obama is the divisive one, which i debunked for you by showing that his approval rating was 14% among republicans when he entered office.

 

[Chomsky]

with most of the dancing going to Obama.

his first few months in office.....

Obama: $800 billion stimulus(which did nothing,as we can ALL admit, to help the economy)
GOP: don't do it
Obama: go screw yourselves--------BILL PASSES

a month later.........

Obama: Healthcare Bill. Hey republicans, come give me your ideas.
GOP: Here ya go.
Obama: I shall ignore your ideas, NOW go screw yourselves------BILL PASSES

How do you think the Democrats would react if a REPUBLICAN president made moves like that THE SECOND HE TOOK OFFICE!!!!!

Your picture of how this all went down, HOW THE WELL WAS POISONED AND BY WHOM, is totally inaccurate. it's plain to see

A few months?

That's not the history I remember.

The ACA was passed well over a year after Obama took office, with absolutely "NO" cooperation from the GOP, though they had plenty of time to do it.

And that was exactly the point I was making: They did nothing of substance, but obstruction!

Now as to the stimulus, I didn't follow that as closely as healthcare, except to know it went through, but your characterization of it as "did nothing to help" again is inaccurate. We led the world out of the worst recession since the great depression, and still are the strongest economy in the world.

I'm at a loss to understand your theories.

 

[poweRob]

the thread is about Presidents being divisive....in fact, it says so in the title.

the one thing about the SOTU address that bugged me was surely his hypocrisy on issues such as insulting other people.
he really has no standing to castigate others for what he has continually done for 7 years.

it's like a leftist whining about someone stealing their stuff... it carries no weight because of the shear hypocrisy.

They were saying he was so divisive right from the start. He takes the oath of office, the GOP throws an immediate temper-tantrum and then blames their tantrum on Obama and calls HIM divisive for it. Right out of the gates they decided to be the divisive ones... then project it.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” The excerpt includes a special bonus nugget of Mitt Romney dissing the Tea Party.

But as we say in the sales world: There’s more! I’m going to be blogging some of the news and larger themes from the book here at TIME.com, and I’ll kick it off with more scenes from the early days of the Republican strategy of No. Read on to hear what Joe Biden’s sources in the Senate GOP were telling him, some candid pillow talk between a Republican staffer and an Obama aide, and a top Republican admitting his party didn’t want to “play.” I’ll start with a scene I consider a turning point in the Obama era, when the new President went to the Hill to extend his hand and the GOP spurned it.

On Jan. 27, 2009, House Republican leader John Boehner opened his weekly conference meeting with an announcement: Obama would make his first visit to the Capitol around noon, to meet exclusively with Republicans about his economic-recovery plan. “We’re looking forward to the President’s visit,” Boehner said.

The niceties ended there, as Boehner turned to the $815 billion stimulus bill that House Democrats had just unveiled. Boehner complained that it would spend too much, too late, on too many Democratic goodies. He urged his members to trash it on cable, on YouTube, on the House floor: “It’s another run-of-the-mill, undisciplined, cumbersome, wasteful Washington spending bill … I hope everyone here will join me in voting no!”​

 

[Thrilla]

You're right, it's about the erroneous perception that President Obama is the divisive one, which i debunked for you by showing that his approval rating was 14% among republicans when he entered office.

nobody has said he's the only divisive one....the argument is that his is the most divisive partisan presidency since Nixon.( I'm not really sure about that, and there's really no metric to use as proof or it's veracity, or to debunk it.)

as Republicans , over the last 7 years, haven't held the Presidency, they are rather irreverent to the argument.