Michael Gerson - Barack Obama, the Polarizing President - washingtonpost.com
Who has been the most polarizing new president of recent times? Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush?
No, that honor belongs to Barack Obama.
I wonder why?
Obama to GOP: ‘I Won’ - Washington Wire - WSJ
The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, challenged Obama’s tax plan as “welfare.”
With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 .
The leftists and other Obamaniacs would have you believe that the only problem is that those damned Republicans just won’t shut up and swallow whatever Obama dishes out. If they’d just do that, why, there wouldn’t be any partisan divide at all.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
That’s always been the modus operandi of the left.
“Shut up”, he explained.
If they were anything other than the Stupid Party, the response to Obama’s “I won” would (and should) have been: “I won, too.” They would have taken out full page ads in newspapers to argue the point. They’re not sitting in their seats to oppose Obama’s policy suggestions because they received a birthday party invitation. They’re there because they WON an election… with a constituency to serve that is passionately opposed to the Democrats/Obama’s socialist ideas.
Bipartisanship is just another way of saying abandonment of principle. I am very glad bipartisanship is ‘out’ and I want it to stay out. I’m sick of my guys abandoning their principles to get along with the left. What are principles for, if you drop them at the first sign of conflict?
I bid you, stand, men of the west. Stand for what you believe, and devil take those who talk to you like the snake on Jungle Book “trust in me, and just in me”.. :-)
As I was driving into work this morning, the thought struck me that, like so much else of Pres. Opromptr’s notions, “post-partisanship” is really a re-tread of an idea from the 1930s. Only back then, before the world gave us Axelrod, Emanuel, et al., they had a different name for it: They called it “Gleichschaltung”. We already have the Hitler Youth Act of 2009 headed for the president’s desk; I understand there is now a bill in the Senate that would give the president the unilateral authority to declare a “cybersecurity emergency” and shut down whole chunks of the Internet, and would further give the Sec’y of Commerce the authority, notwithstanding any other law, statute, or regulation relating to privacy, to access the data in any part of the net or its constituent components. That would be the same Sec’y of Commerce that is going to have the census stripped from his supervision so that it can be run from Rahm Emanuel’s desk. Anyone want to bet how much independence that secretary will be allowed in *not* accessing data of the administration’s opponents? It took Germany twelve years to get from 1921 to the Enabling Act (the actual name of which was the “Law for the Relief of the Emergency of the People and Reich”; apparently Rahm Emanuel’s idea of never wasting a good crisis is itself a re-tread . . . how’s that for irony?). What’s our trajectory looking like? Anyone want to bet on the over-under?
Standard. The progressive view has always been that they are simply right and should be agreed with. All discussions of partisan, bipartisan, obstructionist, gridlock, etc flow from that idea.
Connie, a wonderful point. Why oh why did you and Kim stop blogging just when we need that kind of insight?
Dave you mistake principles for preferences. A principle is something you will fight to the death for while a preference can be cast aside at the first hint of opposition. It seems are side (leaders) has lots of preferences but very few principles
Because, after seven years of blogging, we got sick of pointing out the obvious every day, then watching as the voters and politicians did the opposite.
If I may paraphrase some guy: Let America sink.
Yeah, that’s how strongly I feel.
And, as a libertarian, (although Kim doesn’t have much use for us) let me point out that simply because you need Kim and Connie is not, unless they wish it to be, a good reason for them to blog.
Phil-Z, when the du Toits were blogging, did you send them some money from time to time? I don’t believe they were doing it for the money, but if you and a couple thousand of your friends had each sent $5 per month I’ll bet the seemingly endless repetition of the message would have seemed a lot less thankless.
Phil, let me ask you one:
Quite aside from the fact that Mrs. du Toit made the point concisely and eloquently (and you did, ma’m, thank you very much), why, oh why do you continue to require her (or anyone else) to deliver such insight to you?
The statement by He Who Currently Occupies The Oval Office was, of course, simple-minded arrogance - easily recognizable by anyone capable of giving it some thought. Only the equally simple-minded (Lookin’ at you, Repudlicans…) could fail to recognize the arrogance and to formulate (and deliver) the appropriate response. So…how come you require anyone else point this out to you?
Or don’t you (like quite a few folks, I think) vote in any election except (maybe) the Presidential ones?
Ol’ Ben Franklin famously stated that “(You have) a Republic - if you can keep it…” Responsible, intelligent, independent-minded voting - at all levels - is the only way to keep any part of it, though…and it’s fading fast. We allegedly live in a Constitutionally-driven, democratically- based republic - but there’s hardly anything “republican” remaining about it. The simple reason why: Too many people - especially too many of those who actually vote - actually believe that:
1) Gubmint (especially Big Gubmint) knows best.
2) That’s ’cause elected officials are smarter/quicker/better than us ordinary people.
3) The higher the elected office, the smarter/quicker/better they are.
4) Therefore, rightfully, Gubmint should and must tell us what to do (and, ultimately, what to think), not the other way around.
5) Finally, as long as we keep voting based on all of the above, our lives will be simpler, better and more rewarding, as Gubmint (especially Big Gubmint) will supply us with everything we need (and want), including what to think about it all.
Net result: Too many voting based upon a fantasy world; one in which Gubmint - and elected officials, from the top down - are the fount from which all things (including proper thoughts) flow - and not enough reality-based voting at all levels.
Other net result: The Gubmint owns you - instead of the other way around - and perpetuates the fantasy that that is what’s in everyone’s “best interests.”
Want to reverse all that? Start thinking - and voting - in your own real best interests, and start thinking - and voting - in terms of how Gubmint should have less power over your life.
Oh, and stop depending quite so heavily on other folks’ insights, regardless of their clarity and cogency (Thanks again, Connie) - think these things through for yourself as much as you can.
BTW: dave -
Where Gubmint is concerned (at any level), I always regard “bipartisanship” as meaning “We’re gonna log-roll an’ pork-barrel the Hell outta this thing!” In practical terms, bipartisanship (where Congress is concerned, for sure) is a bug, not a feature. Generally, I find that political “gridlock” is (at least) not necessarily an obstruction to getting really useful things done (somewhere/anywhere it’s actually needed) and can be quite useful. Rampant “bipartisanship,” on the other hand, is expensive and can be quite dangerous, especially when it comes to actually accomplishing something useful…
Don’t be so hard on Phil, please. He was being very sweet.
Yes’m - not really trying to be too hard on Phil; just want him to do a bit more of his own thinking, and maybe depend less on other folks’ having to do some of it for him.
Being sweet is nice, and better than the alternative - but, in the end, “nice” won’t get our collective butts out of the mess we’re sliding rapidly into.
Connie, thanks. And Thanks!
I think I now see why you quit…..
J. S. Bridges and Kim
I was lamenting the passing of a great light, realizing full well that it’s not coming back. I make no demands, and my apologies if they were interpreted as such.
Phil-Z
bi-PART-i-san
When, under a political condition of polarized opinions, either the winning side compromises or the losing side capitulates.
Lots of people begged, even demanded, that the du Toits not quit. I wasn’t one of them. I just wished them well in whatever they chose to do next. I’ve been laboring in the same fields - with the same results - as long, maybe longer than they have. I know why they quit. I think about doing the same thing quite often myself.
Twenty years ago I was a big govt socialist. People like Kim and Connie have persuaded me away from that view, to where I now consider myself, in the big scheme of politics, to be on their side. Not nearly so far on their side as they might like, but I’m open to persuasion. And that’s what I thought Kim and Connie were all about, I thought that was the point of their blogging. I still don’t buy most of what Kim believes, but there’s no denying that he is “on the side of the angels”. I read his blog for the fun stuff, the stories of his travels with Connie, and family, his stories about his days in a band, and for the writing, oh that writing! Compared to the insipid crap everywhere else on the web, it’s just a gem in the dust. It kept me coming back even when I disagreed, and sometimes he’s change my mind, just a little.
I hope I wasn’t the only one, I pray for our society and the future that I wasn’t the only one. And he quit! One of the best voices of persuasion on the web, one who had to be drawing more people to the side of the angles, ever so slowly, but surely …! And he quit!
Maybe it’s a case of not knowing what you have till it’s gone, but Connies not so common sense remark just shines in the dark, and it reminds me of what was lost, and who knows how many souls stay on the wrong side because of that?
Look, I don’t have you gift. I just really admire it.
Yep. They’re good people, fine bloggers, and great persuaders.
I miss them deeply, and I’m grateful they not only read my blog, but also comment here on occasion.
There’s a fair amount we disagree on - Kim thinks trees and libertarians make a great match in certain circumstances - but that doesn’t mean I admire him or Connie any the less.
All I know is that whenever I had a question, or needed some help, he never let me down. And while we might disagree here or there, if the hammer comes down, we’ll both be on the same side of the barricade, and neither of us will be empty-handed when we are.
Wait, but BisQuick himself has come out of the closet as a flaming lefty.
One simply has to read his flame-out here to see this.
He exhibits all the following lefty traits :
1) Poor Math
2) Inability to answer direct questions
3) Avoidance of inconvenient facts
4) The tendency to call anyone who wins an argument with him a racist
5) Use of profanity with no provocation.
Let the people decide whether BisQuick has made a compelling case that Hispanics can become GOP voters.
BisQuick has been assimiliated by the Left, much like Picard was assimilated by the Borg. Sad to see him go.
Dear dumb fuck: You linked to your own post.
“Dear dumb fuck: You linked to your own post. ”
Yes, because it defeats your argument.
But, here is the full thread. Let the people decide if you are still a logical American, or a flaming lefty. The origin of the dispute is whether Hispanics can ever become a GOP voting block. I say no. Bill Quick says yes.
Bill Quick responded with the following lefty actions :
1) Poor Math skills, below even 4th grade levels
2) Inability to answer direct questions
3) Avoidance of inconvenient facts, even when posed 3 or more times to him
4) The tendency to call anyone who wins an argument with him a racist
5) Use of profanity with no provocation.
6) Erecting the flimsiest of strawmen in an argument, rather than address points on their merit.
Let the readers decide.
Bill, I tire of this Toad(s), who exhibits all the traits of an animated turd passing through the bowels of a cockroach. It is simply an ignorant, gestating parcel of effluvium who, when presented to it’s betters, grins the grin of the idiot love child of Margaret Sanger and Bull Connor, before letting go with a moist fart, which comprises the sum total of it’s intellectual capacity.
86 the racist motherfucker, already.
“86 the racist motherfucker, already. ”
Exactly where is the racism?
You are probably Bill Quick under another name.
I can assure you that I’m not. If I were, your head would be spinning on the ground. I, unlike Bill, have a tendency to be somewhat merciful in my derision of fools such as yourself.
I really don’t think that your behavior on this blog merits an answer other than this; I know it when I see it.
Well that is even worse, then. You can’t go a single sentence without a fecal metaphor, and hurl the ‘racism’ term the way lefties do when they lose an argument - yet fail to drag me down to your level of sordid profanity.
Again, let the people decide who has put forth better points. It seems you don’t think Bill’s arguments could win in the court of public opinion.
Now, why might that be?
“I really don’t think that your behavior on this blog merits an answer other than this; I know it when I see it. ”
Is that so? Be specific, using actual quotes of mine (no strawmen).
But, Mr. Toad, let me make this small, yet important, point.
You waltz in here and start fling shit around like a retarded monkey, and then you have the unmitigated gall to act wounded when we call you down on it.
This is Bill’s house. You are a guest here, albeit an unwelcome one. You really should behave like something other than a lightweight at a fraternity kegger, who thinks it’s really cool to whip his diminutive penis out in the middle of Sweet Home Alabama as a prelude to puking in the fireplace.
You, Mr. Toad, are, frankly, outclassed here at DP. You stick out like trailer trash at a debutante ball, and no matter how hard you try, you’re just not going to fit in.
You’re the little creep who got kicked around in school, and no one really had any sympathy for you except your ancient, mothball reeking home room teacher, and even she couldn’t be bothered to give you a second glance after a few episodes of practiced stupidity on your part.
Toads -
(not that Bill needs any assistance, but I like throwing down on silly-assed cucarachas…)
“The readers” have decided, already:
1) Your math skills/comprehension are apparently inferior to the average severely-retarded bonobo, let alone the average single-brain-celled humanoid (which is what you appear to be).
2) Your “argumentation” skills, especially your inability to phrase pertinent questions, direct or otherwise, are similarly lacking.
3) Repeatedly “posing” alleged “inconvenient facts” which are neither detectibly factual nor cogent (let alone inconvenient) does nothing to enhance said “argumentation.”
4) The only thing you have “won” hereabouts is the clearly deserved appellation of racist - your attitude reeks of it, and your statements cannot possibly be interpreted in any other way (where they can, in fact, be intelligibly interpreted at all).
5) Such logically-flawed and thoroughly-racist commentary as yours is, in itself, more than sufficient provocation for profanity; i.e., when you show yourself so clearly to be a dumb-fuck, you should reasonably expect to be called a dumb-fuck (and/or worse).
6) The only strawman-creation presence recently hereabouts is yours; your “points” have, as stated, no merit and so they warrant no addressing.
7) Finally, your attempt to name Bill Quick as a “flaming lefty” is risible in the extreme, falling into the same gulf of illogic and abysmal ignorance as the rest of your screeds hereabouts.
Perhaps one of your keepers will come now and take you back to the ward. Try not to drool too heavily on the keyboard while you wait…
And who are you again to be making demands of me?
You really don’t get it, do you?
“And who are you again to be making demands of me?”
You made a baseless accusation, it is your job to support it with evidence.
Oh, I get it. You have zero skills of rational thought.
So, provide examples with actual quotes I have written (without crying to your colleagues to assist you). Or shut up.
JS Bridges,
You don’t seem to be able to address the actual points.
No wonder it takes 10 people on this blog to put out one paragraph a day.
Furthermore, I don’t see any of the audience agreeing with the original premise that Hispanics will become a GOP voting block in a generation.
That is the original claim from BisQuick. You have done nothing to support it.
So what we have here is at least 6 of the writers of this site hurling childish insults, while zero of them can actually make basic, civilized arguments.
They can’t get any of the audience to side with them.
Their only defense mechanism is name-calling.
Again, let the people decide (it seems like they already have, and not in DailyPundit’s favor).
Chief Mojo :
The number of points make by you to support the claim that Hispanics will become a GOP voting block : Zero
The number of sentence of yours that have anything more than a fecal metaphor of a bogus racism slur : Zero
Care to behave like a civilized adult and mend your ways?
Toads (what an apt name - I wonder who taught it to the little slime-wort?) -
You are even thicker-skulled and emptier-minded than more former assessment place you -
There is no “audience” hereabouts that is “deciding” in your direction - only the fading echoes of your own tiny, single, non-reasoning sentient cell bopping around in the bony interior of your cranial cavity…
There is no detectible intelligible meaning to any of your laughable “argumentation”; thus, nothing you’ve driveled hereabouts deserves any sort of argumentation, civilized or otherwise…
As to “zero skills of rational thought” - that’s obviously your default mode…
Enjoy your delusions of adequacy - in addition, F.O.A.D.
Toady, you’re on the wrong thread for Hispanic voting. This one is for Obama being a divider.
And why would we want a new GOP voting block? They’d just end up voting for more RINO’s .
Oh, dear. Mr. Toad is starting to stamp his little feets. Next thing you know, he’s gonna threaten to hold his breath.
“Toady, you’re on the wrong thread for Hispanic voting. This one is for Obama being a divider.
And why would we want a new GOP voting block? ”
I would rather just stay on the Hispanic thread.
But crybabies like Chef Mojo who have zero IQ and zero ability to make a rational argument, in the absense of juveline behavior, dragged me here.
Those interested in the Hispanic voting block issue should only comment on that thread, I agree.
Now, the RINO vs. conservative issue is another layer. Hispanics, conversely could be useful in formenting a leftist vs. socially conservative Democrat civil war.
One last comment, then on to something at least nominally constructive…
Toadshit -
Nobody “dragged” you here - you slimed in here, totally uninvited and clearly unwanted, to deposit what you seem to regard as argumentative bons mot. Your total “deposit” here, on this thread and one other, however, barely amounts, in sum, to a single ineffectual fart.
As regards your self-alleged ability to “…actually make basic, civilized arguments.” - it exists, as you have repeatedly revealed hereabouts, only in the echoing otherwise-empty recess that actual, intelligent humanoids often refer to as “the brain,” but which in your case can only be referred to as “the no-brain.”
For now: Buh - bye…
If you ever manage to work your way up from slime to slime-mold (a highly unlikely event), come back by, so we can once again point at your attempts at “commentary” (or whatever it is you were struggling towards) and snigger at your utter ineptitude…
Did I mention F.O.A.D.?
Dang! Does this mean the Toad is banned? It was fun while it lasted.