13 Nov

The Most Divisive President Ever in the History of the U.S. …

                                       

…and the Award goes to…?

I don’t know my history of presidents well enough to know for certain if it is in fact Barack Obama…but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t George W. Bush.


“make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”
-President Obama, earlier this year

I don’t remember President Bush 43 ever demonizing his political opponents in the manner in which President Obama has done time and time again. President Bush behaved as a president for the American people. President Obama behaves as the president for the Democratic Party (No, I’m not making an argument that he is the most radical, left-wing politician we’ve ever had- he’s not; nor that he hasn’t also frustrated his own base). He has never abandoned his political campaign rhetoric and in so many speeches during his first term, he has attacked those on the right of an issue with divisive language and belligerence. Yet President Obama was heralded/ushered in as The One who would unite our country and heal a nation. The post-racial president who would reach across the aisle in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation.

President Obama has been anything BUT bipartisan in his governorship of these United States of America.

President Bush has been much criticized for his “tough guy talk” right after the events of 9/11- “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

But how has President Obama been more polarizing, through fault of his own rather than through the designs and machinations of his political opponents?

Dr. John:

No one has done more in last several decades with his inflammatory community organizer rhetoric to divide this country than Barack Obama.

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama: “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
** Obama: “I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am.”
** Obama: “It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers”
** Obama: “We’re going to punish our enemies
** Obama: “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”

And there’s this:

** “All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

Victor Davis Hanson’s target list of those ridiculed and demonized by the Alinskyite President:

African Americans: “Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’.”

Americans: Are “not a model for the world” and have a “tragic history.” Also, “we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” and, more recently, we have gotten “a little soft” and lost our “competitive edge.”

Bankers: “Fat cats”

Border enforcement: Its overzealous adherents want “alligators and moats” on the border and would arrest children on their way to get ice cream.

The Cambridge, Mass., police: “Acted stupidly” and, like law-enforcement officers in general, racially profile

Corporate-jet owners: “Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?”

Democratic base: Must “shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up . . . if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.”

Doctors: Needlessly chop off the limbs of diabetics and take out tonsils to increase their own profits

Donald Trump: A “carnival barker”

Grandmother: “Typical white person”

Las Vegas: Where you are likely to “blow a bunch of cash when you’re trying to save for college”

Millionaires: They don’t pay their “fair share” and are synonymous with those who have 1,000 times more.

Nancy Reagan: Don’t “get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances.”

Rural Pennsylvanians: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment.”

Sarah Palin: “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

Special Olympics: Comparable to the president’s dismal bowling scores

Super Bowl: Where you go “on the taxpayer’s dime”

Supreme Court: Would “open the floodgates for special interests”

Supreme Court Justice Thomas: “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he, I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”

Tea Party: “The teabag, anti-government people”

How often has President Obama claimed not to be anti-business? Yet continues in speech after speech to express disdain for corporations and insurance companies. He is often demonizing “the rich”, thereby fanning the flames of class warfare while fostering wealth envy and an entitlement mentality amongst “the have nots”.

Gary Shapiro:

“Corporations” and “greed” seem to go together in every Obama address. “Spread the wealth around” and all forms of higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs are part of the president’s reelection platform. I don’t recall a President benefiting from so much American innovative business success (Facebook, Google, Twitter, Groupon and scores more) who is so hostile to the concept of the American Dream.

So is this Administration the most anti-business in recent memory?

Yes. No one else even comes close.

I’m a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.”-Presidential candidate, -George W. Bush

And of course it isn’t just the rhetoric that is anti-business and class-divisive, but also his policies which are anti-business.

Remember his Alinsky-ridicule of the GOP driving the car into the ditch? He beat that dead horse metaphor to death in speech after speech all of last year.

Last Wednesday in a speech at the National Women’s Law Center Annual Awards Dinner, President Obama (mis)characterized Republican opposition to his policies in this manner:

The American people are with me on this –– and Republicans in Congress should be with me, too, because it’s right for the country. Instead, they’re spending time focusing on how to turn back the clock. Instead of figuring out how to put more Americans back to work, they’ve been trying to figure out how to take away preventive care that is covered under the Affordable Care Act. (Applause.) Instead of making life easier for women in this country, they want to let insurance companies go back to charging higher prices just because you’re a woman. Instead of working to boost our economy, they’re out there spending time trying to defund Planned Parenthood and prevent millions of women from getting basic health care that they desperately need –– pap smears and breast exams. (Applause.)

That is not the right direction for this country. These folks know they can’t win on the big issues, so they’re trying to make the fight about social issues that stir up their base. They’re spending their time trying to divide this country against itself rather than coming together to lift up our country.

Peter Feaver wrote a very valuable piece last month- one which should be read by anyone who wishes to influence those with whom you disagree with rather than simply alienate and anger:

The result of this is sometimes to moderate my own views, which is what purists fear. But it’s just as often to sharpen the content while softening the edges. That is, having friends on the opposite sides of issues does not mean I have to change my mind about certain policy convictions. But it does make it harder to demonize them.

That, I believe, is essential for fruitful democratic politics — and that is what’s largely missing today. It’s often said, but it happens to be true: When I talk to long-time Members of Congress, they sometimes wax nostalgic about a time when the Members did not rush back home to raise money in their district but hung around Washington to socialize with their fellow political leaders, including those from across the aisle. There were plenty of partisan fights and deep ideological divides in those days, but they were laid on top of an underlying foundation of personal connections and personal trust that was more substantial than it is today.

Second, a consequence of living in such a bipartisan world is that many (in my case most) policy discussions happen with people who fundamentally disagree with you. If you are going to make any intellectual headway in those discussions, you have to be able to understand their position before you can hope to change their mind. This is what is supposed to be (but rarely is) the hallmark of scholarly persuasion: describing the other side’s position fairly enough that an objective observer cannot detect what your position is. None of us, myself included, live up to that ideal — but it is possible to get a good deal closer to it than what we see today.

For professional politicians, one worthwhile goal may be to describe the policy arguments of your opponents in a manner that they would recognize the arguments as (more or less) their own. This is a rare thing to witness; the best example in the Bush administration can be found in President Bush’s 2001 speech on stem cell research. It is, I would argue, the closest thing we’ve seen in recent times to a model of responsible and civil debate, whatever you think of the merits of his decision.

So I would ask: When was the last time President Obama described the views of his opponents in such a fashion? You’ll be hard pressed to think of a single example. And until he can do this more consistently, his capacity to persuade the undecided, let alone those who disagree with him, will be quite limited. And if he cannot effectively persuade people who aren’t already Obama cheerleaders, it’s hard to see how he can lead effectively.

If President Obama read and actually understood Feaver’s post, he might actually gain some bipartisan traction. President Bush has often been touted by his critics as being “incurious”, yet I’ve never seen any indication that President Obama, in any of his bipartisan meetings with the opposition, was ever actually interested in listening to the other side of an ideological issue.

Would it be a distortion for me or my political allies to claim that President Obama himself has admitted to being “anti-freedom”? Well…we’re all political partisans here who don’t hold high public office. What’s the president’s excuse?

If the President- or any politician for that matter- could refrain from mischaracterizing and demonizing his political opposition, I think he will gain greater credibility and a more receptive ear from those with whom he disagrees. At the end of the day, we may still stand on opposite sides of the fence, but at least there was real listening going on and not just heated rhetoric, filibustering one’s ideological worldview, and dismissive name-calling. When you treat the other side with civility and respect, it makes your views more receptive to being heard by those who disagree with you but who you wish to try and influence. The president’s way of doing things is what political partisans do; and this kind of rhetoric only has appeal to his amen chorus political base. He already has their votes.

I don’t believe President Obama is an evil, Marxist, closet-Muslim Hitler hell-bent on the destruction of the country I love. I believe that he, like many fellow Americans I politically disagree with, aren’t evil- just wrong on the issues. I don’t like that kind of talk amongst my political allies; I understand the need to vent and speak in blunt terms if one is standing in an echo chamber; but if one is seeking to influence more voters- moderates in the mainstream middle, independents, and crossovers- to join one’s cause, I think there’s a smarter way to go about it- especially if one is a politician.

I understand that demonizing the other side is nothing new, but…If one is to win elections, it’s not going to happen by simply firing up the base and the fringies. There simply aren’t enough votes in either political camp for that approach. One has to speak in a way that appeals and influences those who stand in the middle of the aisle and brings over those who sit across from you.

“The people who represent you in Washington have a responsibility to do what’s best for you — not what’s best for their party or what’s going to help them win an election that’s more than a year away.”--PotUS calling the kettles…er…better not go there lest there be charges of making a race comment.

Dave Mustaine sums up the nature of the current PotUS quite well:

When asked about the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street” protests assailing income inequality, joblessness and big banks, Mustaine said, “I think it’s really dreadful what’s happening. The buck stops with the president of the United States. He’s the most powerful person in the world. He’s also the most divisive president we’ve ever had. I’ve never, in my 50 years of being alive, listened to an American president try and turn one class of people against another class of people. I’ve never — never — heard a president say, ‘Go down and join the protesters down at Wall Street,’ knowing that there are Nazis down there, knowing that there are people down there who are trust-fund babies, that are super, super wealthy and they’re going down there and pretending that they really care; they just wanna be part of the ‘movement.’ And the fact that that whole protest that’s going on down there, it’s costing the police $125,000 a day. And they’re not raising any money for that. Who’s paying for that? The taxpayers. What I would like to do is really help these guys get organized, but I don’t think there’s anybody there that you would be able to talk to about getting organized. If anything, if those guys wanna protest, protest on the steps of the White House, not on Wall Street.”

Far from being presidential, far from traveling the road high above political mudslinging, far from actually seeking honest bipartisan cooperation, President Obama has been the most divisive president….ever. And it’s not simply natural political polarity, bipartisan in nature. Much of the division has been unilaterally of the President’s own creation, due to his rhetoric and his policies.

Bipartisanship, where’s it’s existed, has been largely in opposition to President Obama’s policies.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Class Warfare, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, November 13th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
| 1,900 views

28 Responses to The Most Divisive President Ever in the History of the U.S. …

  1. Questionman says: 1

    My God! Where have you been all this time! This is the most grown-up, intelligent, Anti-Obama thing I’ve ever read! Someone who actually hates his policies, someone who actually has a list of what he actually said! Fair and balanced criticisms against this president! Non-bias facts! Without doubt an excellent, well thought argument on Obama’s divisive attitude!

    ReplyReply
  2. Questionman
    hi’ yer , surely the best explanation of the PRESIDENT AGENDA as soon as he was pushed in the power to change AMERICA, by trying to humiliate AMERICA abrod, and appologyse for the most tolerant NATION OF THE WORLD, he pushed on the AMERICANS TO GATHERD IN MASS ON AIRPORT LIKE GATHERING THE SHEEPS, BY TELLING THEM THEY MUST BE SEARCH IN THE DEEPEST PART OF THEIR BODY FOR SECURITY’S SAKE, AND THE TOLERANT AMERICANS GATHERED, IN TRUST FOR THE PRESIDENT
    DEMANDS, THEY WHERE HUMILIATED VERY PROFOUNDLY, BUT THEY BELEIVE IN THE PRESIDENT’
    AND when he came out and told them of hating was okay, they respond by a question,
    MR PRESIDENT ARE YOU A REAL BORN AMERICAN? BOY THAT WAS SO POLITLY ASK,
    and the DEMOCRATS START WITH THEIR MEDIA AFFECTED TO COVER AND ATTACK THOSE POSING THE QUESTIONS TILL THIS DAY, COMPLRTLY CORRUPTING THEIR WORDS TO DIVIDE THE PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE MOST UNAMERICAN BEHAVIOR NEVER ENCOUNTERD IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA,
    and the tolerant AMERICA started to search deeper,as it was getting worse on insults toward anyone resisting,
    and now they know for sure, the real AGENDA TO DESTROY ANY THING CALLED AMERICAN,
    and yet like many other AMERICANS, I can say they don’t have the HATE FOR OBAMA AND HIS PARTY OF DEMOCRATS, AND NOT WORDSMITH FOR SURE
    THE HATE ONLY BELONG TO THE DEMOCRATS, THEY ARE THE ONE WITH THE POWER AND THEY USE IT TO PROMOTE HATE,
    IT ONLY CREATE THE OWL DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS THAT WE ALL WITNESSING NOW

    ReplyReply
  3. Questionman
    hi, yes the most divisived president, the most inciting toward hate against any thing he can think about, the most depressing person to have a job like he was put on to follow the agenda of those who have nurture hate deep in their core, eager to seek revenge for not having been strong enough to rise above the negative forces which where getting too strong too free to show the beast within, and look where it got everybody, so depress, so confuse from the kind of leadership they see ruining AMERICA, with insult for being decent
    and live a life of true AMERICAN BELIEF TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND, THOSE ARE BEING TOLD TO GO TO HELL OR NAMED TERRORIST, BY THE DEMOCRATS ON THE RUNN SO SCARE TO LOOK WHAT IS COMING TO THEM SOON, THEY ARE SO DESPERATE NOW, THEY DON’T RESTRAIN THEIR THOUGHTS ANY MORE, THEY ARE EXPOSED AS THEY REALLY ARE, WEAK SCARED AND DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY.

    ReplyReply
  4. liberalmann says: 4

    Cheney. After all HE was the real President. Bush was his meat puppet. “Non-bias facts?” Questionman? Sorry dude, it’s all silly wingnut conjecture.

    Obama has done more for business and small business than Bush ever dreamed.

    See; http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

    ReplyReply
  5. Pingback: Flopping Aces Deems Obama Pretty Much The Most Divisive President Ever » Pirate's Cove

  6. Aqua says: 5

    @ liberalmann
    That’s right liberalmann, you tell ‘em. As long as you contribute to his campaign, Obama will hook you up. Of course you and your buddies on the left screamed bloody murder when Haliburton got no bid contracts. You seem pretty quiet with your buddy Obama.

    ReplyReply
  7. Wordsmith says: 6

    @Questionman: By Allah! Where have you been all this time?! That was the most grown-up, intelligent, insightful amen chorusing comment I’ve ever read here!!! OMG! A liberal Obama-lover who actually agrees with the content of the post! I’m sooooo thrilled you now recognize your messiah as the anti-Christ and acknowledge him as the most divisive president eveeeer! *High five*

    Please comment again! I love what you write! +1!!!!

    ReplyReply
  8. Marine72 says: 7

    @liberalmann: Liberalmann (AKA: BOHICA):

    Thank you for the confirmation of your delusional attachment to the past. Please, please, please get the Windex and clear your dirty window. If you continue blindly running around, you may inflict grievous bodily injury to yourself (probably no loss) or some hard working producer (taxpayer under siege by the moocher class).

    ReplyReply
  9. Questionman says: 8

    @Wordsmith:

    Wow, you said that with a straight face, as if it is even remotely true, which it is. I can’t think of a more divisive President in my lifetime than Ronald Reagan. He and Bush’s legacy’s are based on the fact they were as divisive as they were. Obama might take the cake!

    ReplyReply
  10. Nan G says: 9

    Now do a ”Most two-faced president ever,” thread.

    Newly released e-mails show: Obama’s DOE urged officers of Solyndra to postpone announcing planned layoffs until after the November 2010 midterm elections!

    In an Oct. 30, 2010, e-mail, advisers to Solyndra’s primary investor, Argonaut Equity, explain that DOE had strongly urged the company to put off the layoff announcement until Nov. 3.
    The midterm elections were held Nov. 2, and led to Republicans taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    “DOE continues to be cooperative and have indicated that they will fund the November draw on our loan (app. $40 million) but have not committed to December yet,” a Solyndra investor adviser wrote Oct. 30. “They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3rd – oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-department-of-energy-pushed-hard-for-company-not-to-announce-layoffs-until-after-2010-mid-term-elections/2011/11/15/gIQA2AriON_print.html

    I thought it was egregious that Obama kept hiring and firing and re-hiring over and over again all those thousands of temporary US Census workers.
    But this is even nastier.

    ReplyReply
  11. Questionman says: 10

    @Nan G:

    Personally I’d give that award to the Clinton Admin!

    ReplyReply
  12. Nan G.
    yes , and that’s what is going on since 2008, but then,
    they had the MAJORITY to do all the under ground decisions away from scrutiny,
    which some are still coming at the surface by the smart researchers like you,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  13. Pingback: Saturday Linkaround | My Blog

  14. Wordsmith says: 12

    Dear Mr. President,

    It is with a great sense of disappointment that I write this. Like many others, I hoped that your election would bring a salutary change of direction to the country, despite what more than a few feared was an overly aggressive social agenda. And I cannot credibly blame you for the economic mess that you inherited, even if the policy response on your watch has been profligate and largely ineffectual. (You did not, after all, invent TARP.) I understand that when surrounded by cries of “the end of the world as we know it is nigh”, even the strongest of minds may have a tendency to shoot first and aim later in a well-intended effort to stave off the predicted apocalypse.

    But what I can justifiably hold you accountable for is your and your minions’ role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate now roiling us that smacks of what so many have characterized as “class warfare”. Whether this reflects your principled belief that the eternal divide between the haves and have-nots is at the root of all the evils that afflict our society or just a cynical, populist appeal to his base by a president struggling in the polls is of little importance. What does matter is that the divisive, polarizing tone of your rhetoric is cleaving a widening gulf, at this point as much visceral as philosophical, between the downtrodden and those best positioned to help them. It is a gulf that is at once counterproductive and freighted with dangerous historical precedents. And it is an approach to governing that owes more to desperate demagoguery than your Administration should feel comfortable with.

    Just to be clear, while I have been richly rewarded by a life of hard work (and a great deal of luck), I was not to-the-manor-born. My father was a plumber who practiced his trade in the South Bronx after he and my mother emigrated from Poland. I was the first member of my family to earn a college degree. I benefited from both a good public education system (P.S. 75, Morris High School and Hunter College, all in the Bronx) and my parents’ constant prodding. When I joined Goldman Sachs following graduation from Columbia University’s business school, I had no money in the bank, a negative net worth, a National Defense Education Act student loan to repay, and a six-month-old child (not to mention his mother, my wife of now 47 years) to support. I had a successful, near-25-year run at Goldman, which I left 20 years ago to start a private investment firm. As a result of my good fortune, I have been able to give away to those less blessed far more than I have spent on myself and my family over a lifetime, and last year I subscribed to Warren Buffet’s Giving Pledge to ensure that my money, properly stewarded, continues to do some good after I’m gone.

    My story is anything but unique. I know many people who are similarly situated, by both humble family history and hard-won accomplishment, whose greatest joy in life is to use their resources to sustain their communities. Some have achieved a level of wealth where philanthropy is no longer a by-product of their work but its primary impetus. This is as it should be. We feel privileged to be in a position to give back, and we do. My parents would have expected nothing less of me.
    I am not, by training or disposition, a policy wonk, polemicist or pamphleteer. I confess admiration for those who, with greater clarity of expression and command of the relevant statistical details, make these same points with more eloquence and authoritativeness than I can hope to muster. For recent examples, I would point you to “Hunting the Rich” (Leaders, The Economist, September 24, 2011), “The Divider vs. the Thinker” (Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2011), “Wall Street Occupiers Misdirect Anger” (Christine Todd Whitman, Bloomberg, October 31, 2011), and “Beyond Occupy” (Bill Keller, The New York Times, October 31, 2011) – all, if you haven’t read them, making estimable work of the subject.

    But as a taxpaying businessman with a weekly payroll to meet and more than a passing familiarity with the ways of both Wall Street and Washington, I do feel justified in asking you: is the tone of the current debate really constructive?

    People of differing political persuasions can (and do) reasonably argue about whether, and how high, tax rates should be hiked for upper-income earners; whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended or permitted to expire, and for whom; whether various deductions and exclusions under the federal tax code that benefit principally the wealthy and multinational corporations should be curtailed or eliminated; whether unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut should be extended; whether the burdens of paying for the nation’s bloated entitlement programs are being fairly spread around, and whether those programs themselves should be reconfigured in light of current and projected budgetary constraints; whether financial institutions deemed “too big to fail” should be serially bailed out or broken up first, like an earlier era’s trusts, because they pose a systemic risk and their size benefits no one but their owners; whether the solution to what ails us as a nation is an amalgam of more regulation, wealth redistribution, and a greater concentration of power in a central government that has proven no more (I’m being charitable here) adept than the private sector in reining in the excesses that brought us to this pass – the list goes on and on, and the dialectic is admirably American. Even though, as a high-income taxpayer, I might be considered one of its targets, I find this reassessment of so many entrenched economic premises healthy and long overdue. Anyone who could survey today’s challenging fiscal landscape, with an un- and underemployment rate of nearly 20 percent and roughly 40 percent of the country on public assistance, and not acknowledge an imperative for change is either heartless, brainless, or running for office on a very parochial agenda. And if I end up paying more taxes as a result, so be it. The alternatives are all worse.

    But what I do find objectionable is the highly politicized idiom in which this debate is being conducted. Now, I am not naive. I understand that in today’s America, this is how the business of governing typically gets done – a situation that, given the gravity of our problems, is as deplorable as it is seemingly ineluctable. But as President first and foremost and leader of your party second, you should endeavor to rise above the partisan fray and raise the level of discourse to one that is both more civil and more conciliatory, that seeks collaboration over confrontation. That is what “leading by example” means to most people.

    Capitalism is not the source of our problems, as an economy or as a society, and capitalists are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be. As a group, we employ many millions of taxpaying people, pay their salaries, provide them with healthcare coverage, start new companies, found new industries, create new products, fill store shelves at Christmas, and keep the wheels of commerce and progress (and indeed of government, by generating the income whose taxation funds it) moving. To frame the debate as one of rich-and-entitled versus poor-and-dispossessed is to both miss the point and further inflame an already incendiary environment. It is also a naked, political pander to some of the basest human emotions – a strategy, as history teaches, that never ends well for anyone but totalitarians and anarchists.

    With due respect, Mr. President, it’s time for you to throttle-down the partisan rhetoric and appeal to people’s better instincts, not their worst. Rather than assume that the wealthy are a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot who must be subjugated by the force of the state, set a tone that encourages people of good will to meet in the middle. When you were a community organizer in Chicago, you learned the art of waging a guerilla campaign against a far superior force. But you’ve graduated from that milieu and now help to set the agenda for that superior force. You might do well at this point to eschew the polarizing vernacular of political militancy and become the transcendent leader you were elected to be. You are likely to be far more effective, and history is likely to treat you far more kindly for it.

    Sincerely,

    Leon G. Cooperman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

    http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/leon-cooperman-sends-open-letter-to-president-obama/

    ReplyReply
  15. Wordsmith says: 13

    Obama is among the most thin-skinned presidents we have had, and we see evidence of it in every possible venue imaginable, from one-on-one interviews to press conferences, from extemporaneous remarks to set speeches.

    The president is constantly complaining about what others are saying about him. He is upset at Fox News, and conservative talk radio, and Republicans, and people carrying unflattering posters of him. He gets upset when his avalanche of faulty facts are challenged, like on health care. He gets upset when he is called on his hypocrisy, on everything from breaking his promise not to hire lobbyists in the White House to broadcasting health care meetings on C-SPAN to not curtailing earmarks to failing in his promises of transparency and bipartisanship.

    In Obama’s eyes, he is always the aggrieved, always the violated, always the victim of some injustice. He is America’s virtuous and valorous hero, a man of unusually pure motives and uncommon wisdom, under assault by the forces of darkness.

    It is all so darn unfair.

    Not surprisingly, Obama’s thin skin leads to self pity. As Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard pointed out, in a fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer, Obama said,

    Let’s face it: this has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930s.

    Really, now? Worse than the period surrounding December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001? Worse than what Gerald Ford faced after the resignation of Richard Nixon and Watergate, which constituted the worse constitutional scandal in our history and tore the country apart? Worse than what Ronald Reagan faced after Jimmy Carter (when interest rates were 22 percent, inflation was more than 13 percent, and Reagan faced something entirely new under the sun, “stagflation”)? Worse than 1968, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated and there was rioting in our streets? Worse than what LBJ faced during Vietnam — a war which eventually claimed more than 58,000 lives? Worse than what John Kennedy faced in the Bay of Pigs and in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we and the Soviet Union edged up to the brink of nuclear war? Worse than what Franklin Roosevelt faced on the eve of the Normandy invasion? Worse than what Bush faced in Iraq in 2006, when that nation was on the edge of civil war, or when the financial system collapsed in the last months of his presidency? Worse than what Truman faced in defeating imperial Japan, in reconstructing post-war Europe, and in responding to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea?

    In his autobiography “Present at the Creation,” Dean Acheson wrote about the immensity of the task the Truman administration faced after war ended in 1945, which “only slowly revealed itself. As it did so, it began to appear as just a bit less formidable than that described in the first chapter of Genesis. That was to create a world out of chaos; ours, to create half a world, a free half, out of the same material without blowing the whole to pieces in the process.”

    For Obama to complain that the problems he faces are so much worse than any other president in the last 80 years is stunningly self-indulgent, to say nothing of ahistorical.

    With Obama there is also the compulsive need to admonish others, to point fingers, to say that the problems he faces are not of his doing. Oh, sure; on occasions there are the grudging concessions, like in Thursday’s press conference devoted to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama says, “In case you’re wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility” to ensure that “everything is done to shut this down.” But those words are always pro forma, done reluctantly and for tactical political reasons, a rhetorical trick that is meant to get him off the hook. As recently as last week, Obama, in the Rose Garden, was implicitly blaming the previous occupant of the White House for the explosion of the offshore rig Deepwater Horizon [Obama remarks linked here].

    The president’s instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.
    What explains all this is hard to know. But it’s clear he has adopted an image of himself as something rare and remarkable, a historic figure of almost super-human abilities. “I am absolutely certain that generations from now,” Obama said during the summer of his presidential run, “we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”
    “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” Obama and his aides said constantly during the campaign.

    Excerpt from Obama, the Thin-Skinned President

    ReplyReply
  16. WORDSMITH
    thank you,
    I’m glad we got the integral message, of MR COOPERMAN,
    I happen to see some of it from FOX NEWS best ANCHORS.
    BUT TO READ THE WHOLE MESSAGE is a pleasure added to it,
    and surely needed in this particular time of having the results of OBAMA inciting along with his MEDIA
    associates AND DEMOCRATS FOLLOWERS, TOO SCARE THEMSELVES TO LIBERATE THEMSELVES FROM THE SAME GROUP OF OPRESSERS WHICH DON’T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY TO COMMUNICATE EXCEPT OF THE THUG TACTICS THEY MASTERED, BEFORE ENTERING THE HIGH LEADERSHIP WHICH THEY WHERE NEVER MADE TO EARN, AND THAT’S WHY THEY ARE SO ANGRY TO HAVE BEEN THE PUBLIC KNOWN FAILURE TILL THIS DAY AND WANT TO TAKE DOWN THE WHOLE NATION WITH THEM,
    AS THEY PREPARE TO FALL MISERABLY IN THE WORSE HISTORY CHAPTER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    ReplyReply
  17. Helene says: 15

    Just an observation about Obama.

    My son and his 20 something friends are extremely disappointed in Obama. My friends with 20 something kids tell me that the kids all regret voting for the big O.

    These 20 something’s are college graduates, working hard in trades. They are bored by the occupiers and the non-workers. They are tired of the drama ofObama.

    I have hope for change in the next election.

    ReplyReply
  18. Helene says: 16

    One last comment. The big O could have stopped all of this. All he needed to was to sit down with his advisors and tell them to stop. By allowing this behavior, he’s sanctioned it. People look up to him and follow his lead. He is the present after all. He does it, the lemmings do it.

    Enough said.

    ReplyReply
  19. GaffaUK says: 17

    Wasn’t Lincoln the most divisive and one of the best US Presidents? Under him – the country was split in half and fought in a bitter civil war. He was the best US President because he won and outlawed slavery. Compared to that Obama cannot be considered more divisive or better.

    ReplyReply
  20. Wordsmith says: 18

    You’re right! Point taken: Lincoln was the most divisive and best of U.S. presidents; Obama the most divisive that will be the worst of U.S. presidents. ;)

    ReplyReply
  21. Pingback: On Obama’s Viciously Divisive, Partisan And Unconstitutional Power Grab In Making Non-Recess ‘Recess’ Appointments « Start Thinking Right

  22. Pingback: Obama, After His 2012 Budget Was Voted Down 97-0 and His 2013 Budget Was Voted Down 414-0 BY EVERY DEMOCRAT, Has Chutzpah To Demonize GOP Budget As ‘Radical’ « Start Thinking Right

  23. Pingback: Obama Camp Says Romney An Animal Abusing, Tax Dodging Criminal Who Kills Women With Cancer While Plotting To Reinstitute Slavery. Media Says Romney To Blame For Negative Campaign « Start Thinking Right

  24. Fay Paxton says: 19

    Paul Ryan: “Obama is the most divisive President in History”
    http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-obama-is-most-divisive.html

    ReplyReply
  25. Fay Paxton
    so, why did you come here for?
    what was your point?

    ReplyReply
  26. Wordsmith
    wow, that is a super answer, I took note of it,
    in case I need it
    thank you

    ReplyReply
  27. Pingback: Michelle Obama’s Speech: Red And Yellow Black And White, All Are Precious In Jesus-Obama’s Sight. Barry Loves All The Tea Partiers Of The World. « Start Thinking Right

  28. Pingback: Obama’s Media Poodle Dogs Blame Romney for Obama’s Failed Foreign Policies » Bill O'Neill - Bucks County's "Voice of Reason" Independent candidate Bucks County PA

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site