In his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, President Obama took another stab at summarizing the philosophy of the Republican Party. And this is the best Obama could do: “Their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”
This is a silly and intentionally misleading statement — silly because it’s so transparently false and intentionally misleading because the president surely cannot believe his own rhetoric. The problem for Obama is it’s becoming a pattern. Earlier this year, he charged that Republicans want the elderly, autistic children and children with Down syndrome to “fend for themselves.”
After that, he told us the GOP plan is ”dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.” Given his rhetorical trajectory, Obama will soon be insisting that Republicans favor reinstituting slavery at home and genocide abroad (or perhaps it’s favoring genocide at home and slavery abroad).
These are the kinds of things a politically desperate and intellectually bankrupt politician says. The president must believe he cannot win a debate on philosophy on the merits, so he instead employs the crudest caricatures he can.
The point is that there seems to be no limit, no check, on what Obama will say in order to demonize his opponents — or, to quote Obama’s own words, his “enemies.”
It is Obama who believes he can play by his own rules. For him, truth is increasingly beside the point. Words are merely tools to be employed in what he believes is a Great Cause. In this instance, the Great Cause happens to be his re-election, despite the fact that Obama and his team are having the darndest time articulating what exactly he would do in a second term beyond “finish the job.” (Apparently his demolition project can’t be completed in one term; it will require two.)
The shame is that there is a genuinely interesting and important debate of ideas to be had over the size, reach, and role of the federal government in our lives. Honorable people have very different views on this matter; some, like Obama, are drawn to a European-like model of social democracy, one that wants to centralize more and more power with the federal government as a means to eliminate income inequality and ensure greater fairness. Others believe the federal government has dramatically exceeded its constitutional authority, that it is leading us down a path to fiscal ruin, and in the process it is undermining civic character.
The great divide between conservatives and liberals today is over equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Those are serious intellectual differences to discuss, but Obama apparently wants no part of it. He would rather turn his opponents into brutish, cartoon characters.
What makes all of this even more farcical is that Obama conceives of himself as a genuine intellectual, the leader of a national seminar. During his run for the presidency, Obama created an image of himself as a man thirsting for an honest, high-minded debate. He promised to “turn the page” on the old brand of politics, promised us “hope and change,” and declared, ”If you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”
It was Obama who said, ”We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism [...] That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ’not this time .’” It was Obama who in an interview declared, ”I want us to rediscover our bonds to each other and to get out of this constant petty bickering thats come to characterize our politics.” And it was Obama who said on the night of his election, on a stage in Grant Park, ”I will listen to you, especially when we disagree [...] Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for too long.”
But it turns out this was a mirage. The fact that Obama’s presidency has been a failure and that he is so manifestly inept in his current role has turned him into a fairly unprincipled (and remarkably uncreative) political hack. He has succumbed to his uglier impulses. He wouldn’t be the first president to do so. The same thing happened to Richard Nixon and to Jimmy Carter, who started out as a decent man and ended up as a petty one.
The whole thing is a shame. To watch a presidency fall apart can be a poignant thing; and to watch a president dishonor himself in the process can be a sad one.
This man is the most unpresidential President the United States has had in my lifetime. He has such contempt for this country that he takes the highest office in the land and debases it through his mean-spirited rhetoric and inflammatory political machinations. He embarasses this country with his overblown self-regard. He is not fit to hold the office.
You must have a very short lifetime.
And he'll plan to steal this next election, turning it into an Occupy White House bowel movement.
You do realize the Occupy movement despises President Obama, right?
Peter has hit the nail on the head. Obama, desperate to win, is invoking the entire litany of Leftist cliche with the hopes of restoring the anger and hatred that got him elected. And, while these misleading and trite slogans might energize the Leftists, the moderates are probably not going to buy in. However, this is how he plans to cobble together enough votes: Tell the Jews he's the best friend of Israel, tell the Lefists that the Republicans will destroy the planet and enslave all peoples, I suppose for the moderates he's going to have to claim economic success. n nThis shouldn't be a problem, he has no problem lying about everything else, yet this will be his hardest sell … expect all his media lapdogs to be on board.
The President spent more than half of this term vainly trying to engage the Republicans in a rational debate of ideas. In return for these efforts he received increasingly cynical political gamesmanship from the right and the disdain of his advocates for being weak. Now he is merely saying what many people believe, namely that many in Washington are interested only in maintaining the perquisites of their office in a never-ending cycle of corporate and political gift-giving. A characterization to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. You are correct, equality of opportunity is the key, and it has not existed in this country for a long time. And it is receding further into the distance each day.
Trying to engage the Republicans ? I remember him telling the Republicans that "I won" when the Republicans presented ideas on health care. His stimulus was rammed thru with only Democratic support. I remember him insulting Paul Ryan's medicare proposal (a rational idea) without any discussion or alternative. He even insulted the supreme court in front of them and the whole country. No, he has not sought to engage, only insult and demigod.
He DID win!
Bull . . . he did no such thing . . . this is what angers me about him so much. I voted for the man because he promised to change politics . . . but he just made it worse. He could have easily made the congressional dems work on more balanced legislation but he believed his own hype and overreached. Hence the 2010 elections . . . and it doesn't appear he got the message.
Why hasn't Obama called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the carpet for holding up the Budget? A thousand days without a Congressional Budget because of Democrat stonewalling. The House sends over a budget and Reid throws it in the trash. Then Reid offers another porkfat-loaded Continuing Resolution and blames the Republicans for holding up the Budget. Question: In the budget debacle, is Obama going along with Reid or is Reid going along with Obama? Who is the real boss of the Obama administration? My money is on Richard Trumka.
n nThe president spent two years dictating to the republicans not negotiating. It was my way or the highway. n n
Hard to do anything with the "party of No." Didn't OConnell say that their no. 1 goal was to make Obama a one-term president. Well, they have tried.
Not exactly. n nObama spent the first two years of his term trying to find Republicans who would be willing to vote for his liberal policies as long as he could throw them a few bones as a sop. n nAs a conservative, I wasn't interested in tweaking Obama's bailout of General Motors. I didn't want that bailout AT ALL. n nObama could have had GOP cooperation, if he had jettisoned his left-wing viewpoint and governed as a centrist.
Well, Obama was right in the "bailout" of General Motors. He saved GM, he saved jobs.
President spent more than half his term playing golf, voting present, telling people that they had to eat their peas, and went around trying to divide the nation.
now now reasonable view, you left out the third plank: racism. n nas you know, people who say they don't approve of Obama's job performance REALLY mean "we don't like black people," as Janeane Garofalo pointed out. the race card is going to be heavily used, and we ought to be ready for it.
Does anyone think it could be racial that 90% of black people approve of Obama. Really 90% of blacks approve of the job he is doing.
You're dead on !
And what percent of whites?
Obama is a leftist flacker who has on purpose tried to transform our capitalist system by pitting Americans against Americans. This KS. speech certainly proved that. And in Vanity, today,Todd P. says, Obama is unbeatable. Yikes. Well, if Pubs will just stop shooting their wounded, unite with TEAS, Indies, Reagan Dems and Libertarians, they will crush many leftist Dems all up and down the state tickets.
Wrong! He is not stupid. Stupid people don't graduate from Harvard and serve as Editor of the Harvard Law Review. And America NEEDS health care (not a profit center for insurance companies.)
You have actual proof that he graduated?
He is also the guy who told us that Obama care would (a) not increase the deficit by one cent (b) reduce the deficit (c) entitle 40 million additional people to health care (d) not increase the cost of health care by one cent and (e) not degrade the standard of health care we now have. n nHe is a psychopathic liar and a stupid one at that
Add moral bankruptcy to the equation as well. Obama the Good always was a mirage, as his fellow Chicago backroom hacks can tell you. The tragedy is that so many Americans were led astray by his song. Now we face what looks to be the most divisive, dirty attempt to cling to power that the nation has ever seen, led by the man quite probably the least qualified of all presidents to hold the office.
I think there are too many trolls on this board.
Rev Wright told the country in 2008 that Obama was and would say anything to get elected. Clearly after Obama sat in his church for 20 years he knew him best!!! The nation didn’t listen! Folks we are responsible for the terrible state of our nation and the terrible damage Obama has done. We were warned! Even Hillary warned us! We didn’t listen! We are being punished for our stupidity, let’s please not repeat it! “Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice SHAME ON US”!!!
Obama was always dishonorable. He got the nominations to the state senate and the US senate the Chicago way. The Obama campaign of 2008 was nothing but a massive con job. n nHe has never changed since his Occidental days. He was a radical marxist then as he is today. Everything else is part of the con. He actually believes the things he says about Republicans. He's a true believer. n nI'm a skeptic about his so-called superior intelligence. He actually can speak quite well off his teleprompter. The problem is he never says anything except for cliches and talking points. He has no sense of humor and is not a particularly quick thinker. I've watched most of his videos for years.
Please explain "the Chicago way" in which Obama became a state of Illinois Senator.
Some people act suprised that Pres Obama does not fight fairly. The Republicans fight fairly and lose. Why should Obama imitate their game plan? If he pulls off his great charade he will unalterably alter the government of this country so that it may never bounce back and he may never leave office. It can happen here.
Do the Republicans "fight fairly?"
The worst thing about all of this is that half of America will still believe what this man has to say. He is helping to divide this wonderful country like no other president ever has. n nObama needs to NOT be elected again. Please, save America, vote him out!
That's exactly why he knows he can get away with it. He could declare up to be down and red to be blue and many people would just go along with it. Obama is a product of the Big Lie (Democrats help people, Republicans hurt them) … at no point could telling the truth help him. As for the transparency issue, I saw through that one right away (heh) … you always want your enemies and underlings to be transparent.
Who would you vote for in the current field? I currently see a serial flip flopper and a former speaker who has a shadier past than most california gubernatorial candidates. In addition to pizza magnates and C- students at Texas A&M of course. n nAlso, at least the way the debt ceiling debate was framed, it appeared that Obama was willing to restructure Medicare and even Social Security, two institutions that have been considered untouchable by Democrats in the past in exchange for tax increases on a small minority of Americans. Whether you agree with the taxes or not, that 'give and take' is what defines compromise and "engagement" of the political opposition. n nWhether left leaning or right, I think that our political system, while still fundamentally sound, has failed the American people for the past 3 years. n nI would welcome any comments, especially regarding the first two paragraphs!
I believe him; I am a senior citizen who has an earned Ph.D. Why should I believe the Republicans?
Gee, a PHD? A senior citizen? Age and education have nothing to do with wisdom.
"Honorable people have very different views on this matter; some, like Obama, are drawn to a European-like model of social democracy, one that wants to centralize more and more power with the federal government as a means to eliminate income inequality and ensure greater fairness." n nObama should not have been used as an example in this particular statement, because he has no honor.
I guess Republicans have no responsibility here? n n
I think the author only got one thing right: "…there is a genuinely interesting and important debate of ideas to be had…" The really sad thing about this situation is the labeling of "right" and "left" which usually reveals a belligerent and immature attitude toward such "debate." When the Republican leader said, "Our objective is to make Obama a one term president…" he sealed the deal: politicians are simply incapable of serious debates. Debate for them means "what can I get people to believe about me in a sound bite."
I think the author only got one thing right: "…there is a genuinely interesting and important debate of ideas to be had…" The really sad thing about this situation is the labeling of "right" and "left" which usually reveals a belligerent and immature attitude toward such "debate." When the Republican leader said something along the lines of making Obama a one term president, he obviously was pointing out the desperate situation that ruling elites are feeling at this point.
B. Obama had the opportunity to be one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever known. It wasn’t within reach, it was in his hand. But he clamped his mind tight and strangled that chance to death. What a pity, and the greater pity is that he’ll probably never understand it.
"Given his rhetorical trajectory, Obama will soon be insisting that Republicans favor reinstituting slavery at home and genocide abroad (or perhaps it’s favoring genocide at home and slavery abroad)." __You're right! Take a look at the Red and Blue states and then superimpose the Confederate and Union states and you've pretty much got a match.
I’m not sure Obama is merely a social democrat. I think he might be further left than that, and in his next term will start making changes, so far as possible, by decree rather than by working through Congress.
By reading the left-wing blogs like Daily KOS and Paul Krugman, you discover that Obama's base of supporters never expected or even wanted him to "thirst for an honest, high-minded debate." They have openly said that they assumed all that stuff about "post-partisanship" and "getting out of partisan bickering" was just rhetoric thrown in to get Independent votes. And that once Obama got into office, he would be the Pelosi-like rabid partisan that they truly wanted. n nIOW, in 2008 they deliberately fooled the American public, with the help of a compliant news media that didn't bother to check how what left-wingers were saying amongst themselves about an Obama administration, contrasted with Obama's high-sounding statements to the electorate. n
No, Mr. Wehner, the President got it right when he talked about the Republicans. If he had correctly called them ‘Republic-NOs’ or ‘G-NO-P,’ he would have veered into caricature. For the ‘block-anything-this-President-suggests’ party has not finished losing the last Presidential election. They have stated repeatedly that their agenda centers on UN-doing what the people voted Mr. Obama to do. r nIf you’re looking for a political hack, please keep your eyes on your current Republican hopefuls. And please be prepared to have an honest debate on foreign policy with our President.
Pres Obama’s speech is a reflection of himself – a community organizer, agitator who became president and is still an organizer/agitator partisan. Perhaps D’souza (The roots of Obama’s rage) is correct – he is an anti-colonialist and America is his target.
Umm let's get one thing straight – Obama never started out as a decent man
Obama is employing (they only employing he has created) Alinsky's tactics in "Rules for Radicals". n nHis peevish, petulant attitude shows just how desperate and immature he is. n n
I wouldn't say the President is trying to summarize Republican values. I think he understands conservative and Republican values very well. This wasn't an attempt to summarize those values. This was an example of hyperbole that we often see when a politician is in campaign mode. When a candidate is running for office or running to keep the office they currently hold, they will say practically anything to make the opposition look bad. This is true of candidates of both parties. I have yet to see one that isn't immune. n nThe reason for that is that this is a political strategy that works. If telling the truth scored you political points, politicians would do it much more often. When it comes down to it, the people that are part of the political system are never as corrupt as the system itself, because the system is rigged for corruption. It doesn't matter how nice a person you are, you either play by the rules and succeed through lying and manipulation, or you don't get re-elected and go back home. n nI'm not a member of either side of the partisan political spectrum, but I don't get why we're singling out the current President here. Every President I can think of, at least in the past century, has done the exact same thing the current President is being criticized for doing. It is interesting to see the same group of people that applauded the current President's predecessor doing this as "great campaigning", yet they ascribe to Obama characteristics such as evil, corrupt, immature. Such criticism lacks validity, considering the source. I pay attention to independent criticisms of politicians, but not partisan criticisms. Partisan criticisms will always have ulterior motives behind them.
I know the media blamed Bush for this, but I was paying attention and saw no effort on Bushs part to make a link. If anything the position was "We have a serious problem with Iraq as well." That 50% of the population weren't interested in the distinction is not Bush's fault.
to 911, so is Obama successfully n nAh another BDS sufferer. Bush never said this it is all propaganda from the Marxists that make weak minds like yours believe it.