Obama Most Polarizing President Ever

[kalm]

BS...he's no more rigidly ideological than Reagen, you just don't agree with the ideology...it's ok...we all do this, but let's not make broad generalizations that can't be substantiated beyond your own personal feeling...

Obama is much more rigidly ideological in practice than was Reagan, who worked well on a practical level with both Tip O' Neil and Mikhail Gorbachev, achieving practical results and sometimes even consensus.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to reach across the aisle or achieve consensus.

It's a two way street.

[Appaholic]

BS...he's no more rigidly ideological than Reagen, you just don't agree with the ideology...it's ok...we all do this, but let's not make broad generalizations that can't be substantiated beyond your own personal feeling...

Obama is much more rigidly ideological in practice than was Reagan, who worked well on a practical level with both Tip O' Neil and Mikhail Gorbachev, achieving practical results and sometimes even consensus.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to reach across the aisle or achieve consensus.

You're giving Reagan too much credit....he had to reach across the aisle as O'Niell was the Majority Leader & O'Niell being willing to listen didn't hurt either. Let's see how Reagan would have done with someone like a democratic DeLay or if he'd had a Republican majority on Congress...

[native]

...See FDR's attacks on the economic royalists that caused the great depression.

Though you probably made that statement in sarcasm, it is at least partially true. Several economists have suggested that the Great Depression was at least prolonged by FDR's policies.

[native]

Obama is much more rigidly ideological in practice than was Reagan, who worked well on a practical level with both Tip O' Neil and Mikhail Gorbachev, achieving practical results and sometimes even consensus.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to reach across the aisle or achieve consensus.

You're giving Reagan too much credit....he had to reach across the aisle as O'Niell was the Majority Leader & O'Niell being willing to listen didn't hurt either. Let's see how Reagan would have done with someone like a democratic DeLay or if he'd had a Republican majority on Congress...

Bush did not have to reach across the aisle for the first part of his Presidency, but he did it anyway.

Your point about Reagan is well taken. Bill Clinton also had to reach across the aisle after 1994. I am not saying that Reagan was not ideological, but Reagan's governance was mostly from the center and built largely on consensus.

In Obama's case, abdicating party goals and policies unity to Congressional Democrats does not count as "building consensus" or "reaching across the aisle."

[native]

Obama is much more rigidly ideological in practice than was Reagan, who worked well on a practical level with both Tip O' Neil and Mikhail Gorbachev, achieving practical results and sometimes even consensus.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to reach across the aisle or achieve consensus.

It's a two way street.

When the Campaigner-in-Chief makes hyper-partisan class warfare speeches and denigrates those who disagree with him continuously throughout his Presidency - as he did this weekend in Ohio - it is not a two-way street.

[BlueHen86]

And you're saying he was not polarizing? Hey, I don't think Bush was nearly as bad of a President as some people make him out to be, on the contrary, I think history will view him pretty much average. However, if you really think we didn't see a polarizing of America over the past decade then I have to wonder if you were paying attention.

No, I did not say that Bush was not polarizing! I said that:

1. Bush reached across the aisle, and

2. Bush was not AS polarizing as Obama.

These facts are undeniable.

Come now, GF, you don't usually twist others' words like that! Of course I see a polarizng over the past decade, but in comparing Bush and Obama, Obama's leadership has thus far proven more polarizing and less bi-partisan.

I'm not so sure about that.

It could be because hard core Democrats are more likely to give a Republican credit than the other way around.
Also, in spite of the supposed "Liberal Media bias", there is no Democrat version of Rush Limbaugh to rally the troops against the other party. I know that there are Dems who try, but the Republicans are better at it.

[kalm]

...See FDR's attacks on the economic royalists that caused the great depression.

Though you probably made that statement in sarcasm, it is at least partially true. Several economists have suggested that the Great Depression was at least prolonged by FDR's policies.

No sarcasm at all. The roaring 20's were an era of massive tax cuts for the rich and deregulation followed by a bubble, followed by a crash. Sound familiar?

FDR came into office as a balanced budget guy but quickly recognized the need to stimulate the economy through jobs and the government as the employer and lender of last resort. The monied interests at the time challenged his policies and he told them he welcomed their hatred. Growing up rich, he was truly a trader to his own class.

In 1936, while the Republican deficit hawks were pushing for balancing the budget, Roosevelt decided to try it and we quickly went backwards into the mini depression of 1937.

It's certainly a matter of debate whether FDR's policies helped or hurt the recovery, but everyone agrees that we were coming out of the Depression when WWII hit. The Republicans like to attribute the war and not FDR for leading us to economic stability again, but remember, the war was basically another form of massive government spending.

[native]

Obama "building consensus?" Are you cr@zy? Since when is trying to jam legislation down everyone's throat in closed session (i.e. no C-SPAN) with unrealistic deadlines "building consensus?"

This is perhaps one of the most ridiculous political comments I've ever seen in here.

Obama's a hypocrite who learned the back-door meetings skill from Cheney.

Of all his sins and failures, I am not sure I would classify Obama as a hypocrite. Rather, I think he is a true believer who made a host of promises he could not keep - some of the promises may have been cynical lies, but some were naive, idealistic and sincere.

His domestic policies cannot possibly achieve the ends he espouses, but unlike Clinton he is sticking to his guns. That's the sign of an ideological zealot.

[kalm]

It's a two way street.

When the Campaigner-in-Chief makes hyper-partisan class warfare speeches and denigrates those who disagree with him continuously throughout his Presidency - as he did this weekend in Ohio - it is not a two-way street.

Class warfare is what's needed. He needs to go Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt on their ass and move toward populism and policies that halt the redistribution of wealth upwards.

[Appaholic]

Obama's a hypocrite who learned the back-door meetings skill from Cheney.

Of all his sins and failures, I am not sure I would classify Obama as a hypocrite. Rather, I think he is a true believer who made a host of promises he could not keep - some of the promises may have been cynical lies, but some were naive, idealistic and sincere.
His domestic policies cannot possibly achieve the ends he espouses, but unlike Clinton he is sticking to his guns. That's the sign of an ideological zealot.

That's a fair assessment.

[Appaholic]

You're giving Reagan too much credit....he had to reach across the aisle as O'Niell was the Majority Leader & O'Niell being willing to listen didn't hurt either. Let's see how Reagan would have done with someone like a democratic DeLay or if he'd had a Republican majority on Congress...

Bush did not have to reach across the aisle for the first part of his Presidency, but he did it anyway.

Your point about Reagan is well taken. Bill Clinton also had to reach across the aisle after 1994. I am not saying that Reagan' was not ideological, but Reagan's governance was mostly from the center and built largely on consensus.

In Obama's case, abdicating party goals and policies unity to Congressional Democrats does not count as "building consensus" or "reaching across the aisle."

Agree. I think we are pretty much onthe same page. However, whereas you think Obama is the most polarizing president ever, I place the blame for the current polarization on Congress.....which Obama has turned over domestic policy-making to (as designed by the framers of our constitution while the Executive branch was to run inteference for foreign policy goals) much to the chagrin of most citizens.

[native]

No, I did not say that Bush was not polarizing! I said that:

1. Bush reached across the aisle, and

2. Bush was not AS polarizing as Obama.

These facts are undeniable.

Come now, GF, you don't usually twist others' words like that! Of course I see a polarizng over the past decade, but in comparing Bush and Obama, Obama's leadership has thus far proven more polarizing and less bi-partisan.

I'm not so sure about that.

It could be because hard core Democrats are more likely to give a Republican credit than the other way around.

Also, in spite of the supposed "Liberal Media bias", there is no Democrat version of Rush Limbaugh to rally the troops against the other party. I know that there are Dems who try, but the Republicans are better at it.

Well said! Although I disagree, yours is a plausible explanation, BlueHen.

Allow me to offer a slightly different explanation: I disagree that Democrats, especially "hard-core Democrats," are more likely give a Republican credit. Obama had sky-high approval ratings at the beginning of his Presidency due in part to Republican good will and support. Bush never had hard core Dem support.

But there aren't enough Republicans to tilt the ratings one way or the other by themselves. For that matter there aren't enough Republicans to keep Limbaugh's ratings sky high, either. It is the independents that make the difference.

[native]

Bush did not have to reach across the aisle for the first part of his Presidency, but he did it anyway.

Your point about Reagan is well taken. Bill Clinton also had to reach across the aisle after 1994. I am not saying that Reagan' was not ideological, but Reagan's governance was mostly from the center and built largely on consensus.

In Obama's case, abdicating party goals and policies unity to Congressional Democrats does not count as "building consensus" or "reaching across the aisle."

Agree. I think we are pretty much onthe same page. However, whereas you think Obama is the most polarizing president ever, I place the blame for the current polarization on Congress.....which Obama has turned over domestic policy-making to (as designed by the framers of our constitution while the Executive branch was to run inteference for foreign policy goals) much to the chagrin of most citizens.

Geeez, Appy, sometimes I can't tell if you want to make love with me or rape me.

[Appaholic]

Agree. I think we are pretty much onthe same page. However, whereas you think Obama is the most polarizing president ever, I place the blame for the current polarization on Congress.....which Obama has turned over domestic policy-making to (as designed by the framers of our constitution while the Executive branch was to run inteference for foreign policy goals) much to the chagrin of most citizens.

Geeez, Appy, sometimes I can't tell if you want to make love with me or rape me.

Aren't they the same?

[native]

When the Campaigner-in-Chief makes hyper-partisan class warfare speeches and denigrates those who disagree with him continuously throughout his Presidency - as he did this weekend in Ohio - it is not a two-way street.

Class warfare is what's needed. He needs to go Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt on their ass and move toward populism and policies that halt the redistribution of wealth upwards.

I think there are more difference between the Roosevelt cousins than you might be willing to acknowledge, kalm.

And like Obama, your preferred means will not achieve your desired ends.

[kalm]

Class warfare is what's needed. He needs to go Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt on their ass and move toward populism and policies that halt the redistribution of wealth upwards.

I think there are more difference between the Roosevelt cousins than you might be willing to acknowledge, kalm.

And like Obama, your preferred means will not achieve your desired ends.

Of course there are differences, but they were both progressive, and both recognized that consolidated wealth in the hands of a few is not healthy for the country.

What do you think my preferred means are?

[native]

Though you probably made that statement in sarcasm, it is at least partially true. Several economists have suggested that the Great Depression was at least prolonged by FDR's policies.

No sarcasm at all. The roaring 20's were an era of massive tax cuts for the rich and deregulation followed by a bubble, followed by a crash. Sound familiar?

FDR came into office as a balanced budget guy but quickly recognized the need to stimulate the economy through jobs and the government as the employer and lender of last resort. The monied interests at the time challenged his policies and he told them he welcomed their hatred. Growing up rich, he was truly a trader to his own class.

In 1936, while the Republican deficit hawks were pushing for balancing the budget, Roosevelt decided to try it and we quickly went backwards into the mini depression of 1937.

It's certainly a matter of debate whether FDR's policies helped or hurt the recovery, but everyone agrees that we were coming out of the Depression when WWII hit. The Republicans like to attribute the war and not FDR for leading us to economic stability again, but remember, the war was basically another form of massive government spending.

Class warfare kills the goose that lays the golden egg by rewarding sloth and punishing productivity. In the short term it appears to benefit the middle class by giving out patronage "candy," but in the long term it increases the disparity between the haves and the have-nots and decreases liberty and the opportunity for individuals to create their own destinies.

[BlueHen86]

I'm not so sure about that.

It could be because hard core Democrats are more likely to give a Republican credit than the other way around.

Also, in spite of the supposed "Liberal Media bias", there is no Democrat version of Rush Limbaugh to rally the troops against the other party. I know that there are Dems who try, but the Republicans are better at it.

Well said! Although I disagree, yours is a plausible explanation, BlueHen.

Allow me to offer a slightly different explanation: I disagree that Democrats, especially "hard-core Democrats," are more likely give a Republican credit. Obama had sky-high approval ratings at the beginning of his Presidency due in part to Republican good will and support. Bush never had hard core Dem support.

But there aren't enough Republicans to tilt the ratings one way or the other by themselves. For that matter there aren't enough Republicans to keep Limbaugh's ratings sky high, either. It is the independents that make the difference.

And I don't know that I'm right either. I was just throwing it out there for thought and discussion.

[mainejeff]

Never has a network like Fox News wielded so much power over public opinion.

[Ivytalk]

Never has a network like Fox News wielded so much power over public opinion.

How did you leap to that conclusion? It was a Gallup poll that prompted this thread.

[kalm]

No sarcasm at all. The roaring 20's were an era of massive tax cuts for the rich and deregulation followed by a bubble, followed by a crash. Sound familiar?

FDR came into office as a balanced budget guy but quickly recognized the need to stimulate the economy through jobs and the government as the employer and lender of last resort. The monied interests at the time challenged his policies and he told them he welcomed their hatred. Growing up rich, he was truly a trader to his own class.

In 1936, while the Republican deficit hawks were pushing for balancing the budget, Roosevelt decided to try it and we quickly went backwards into the mini depression of 1937.

It's certainly a matter of debate whether FDR's policies helped or hurt the recovery, but everyone agrees that we were coming out of the Depression when WWII hit. The Republicans like to attribute the war and not FDR for leading us to economic stability again, but remember, the war was basically another form of massive government spending.

Class warfare kills the goose that lays the golden egg by rewarding sloth and punishing productivity. In the short term it appears to benefit the middle class by giving out patronage "candy," but in the long term it increases the disparity between the haves and the have-nots and decreases liberty and the opportunity for individuals to create their own destinies.

Yeah, like in Sweden, we all know how much disparity exist there.

Your statement if fairly elitst. Or are you merely a foot solidier/peasant in the war?

[Baldy]

I don't give a rat's ass about Obama's skin color, but he is undeniably the most rigidly ideological and partisan president of our lifetimes.

Wow, are you reaching. Except healthcare, virtually nothing of importance that Obama has done varies from the Bush policies. And healthcare ended up a big corporatist piece of crap full of consensus building giveaways to blue dog Democrats (aka moderate conservatives) that ultimately would benefit big Pharma and for-profit insurance companies. Are the Republicans no longer the party of big business or are they now the party of contrarianism?

The Republican Party has never been the party of big business. Big business is like the shifting sands. They align themselves with whichever party is in power at the time. Just like the Democrat Party is the party of labor unions, The Republican Party is and always has been the party of small business and entrepreneurs.

[BDKJMU]

No sarcasm at all. The roaring 20's were an era of massive tax cuts for the rich and deregulation followed by a bubble, followed by a crash. Sound familiar?

FDR came into office as a balanced budget guy but quickly recognized the need to stimulate the economy through jobs and the government as the employer and lender of last resort. The monied interests at the time challenged his policies and he told them he welcomed their hatred. Growing up rich, he was truly a trader to his own class.

In 1936, while the Republican deficit hawks were pushing for balancing the budget, Roosevelt decided to try it and we quickly went backwards into the mini depression of 1937.

It's certainly a matter of debate whether FDR's policies helped or hurt the recovery, but everyone agrees that we were coming out of the Depression when WWII hit. The Republicans like to attribute the war and not FDR for leading us to economic stability again, but remember, the war was basically another form of massive government spending.

Yeah, and in 1929 the top income tax rate was still higher than it had been for all but 12 years (1917-1928) of the previous 250+ year history of the United States.

[houndawg]

He'd better hope that the independents agree with the dems (the results in MA last week indicate otherwise) or he's gonna' have big problems come November...

Yeah, but it was only two thirds of the independents in the bluest state in the country.

If the Republicans aren't careful they'll wind up having to clean up their own mess, for a change.

[GannonFan]

Yeah, but it was only two thirds of the independents in the bluest state in the country.

If the Republicans aren't careful they'll wind up having to clean up their own mess, for a change.

And if that does indeed come to pass, hopefully Democrats this time will do more than sit on the sidelines and let the majority party do whatever they want to. The lack of any significant contribution from the opposition party during the worst of the Bush years is just as responsible for the mess we're in now. A majority that gets no pushback at all from the opposition is a recipe for what happened.