Obama causes divisiveness

[Count Chocula]

That and the racist, bigoted ass hats that run and populate the Republican Party can't stand the fact that a "non-white" was elected to the Presidency.

Umm, try again. Here's a picture of the current CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE:



ZOMG he's black! Try a little fact checking next time, douche, a hard lesson I learned early on this board. I'm really getting tired of the "Republicans=Racist" broad brush that's being used here whenever a topic critical of Obama or Democrats pops up.

[Patrick Degan]

Ah yes, Mr. Token. Yep, that really proves the non-racist character of today's modern GOP. Try again.

[Themightytom]

Ah yes, Mr. Token. Yep, that really proves the non-racist character of today's modern GOP. Try again.

I think the issue goes a little deeper than racism specifically, because what the Republican does not do well is embrace diversity. It doesn't matter if you have a few token representatives if you categorically ignore the most prevalent issues faced by minorities...ie: healthcare.

By that logic, anyone who ever says anything good about himself is divisive. When I say that Bush was divisive, it's because he did not just say good things about himself: he actually advocated treating any kind of dissent as a form of treason. And that attitude trickled down through his entire administration, not to mention being popular with his supporters.

Fair enough, and any politician has to say nice thins about himself in one way or another. Obama actually seemed comparatively humble to me during the elections. If anything he brags about his kids, which I would HOPE he would do.

Social change always does happen; that is an historical fact. No one is able to maintain social stasis for long, particularly in the modern era. I don't see how that makes Obama divisive, except against people who can't deal with reality.

Right but that is the constiuency that considers him divisive. he doesn't coddle their values.

That's a strange definition of "divisive" that you're using. I would say that the perjorative "divisive" suggests that he deliberately does or says things intended to split the population. Bush did this. Obama has done nothing of the sort. The fact that some pre-existing divisions are heightened by his mere existence does not make him divisive.

Its the interpretation I glean from the common accusation, that Obama is DELIBERATELY trying to sabotage American values, rewrite the constitution, destabilize our way of life to further his own socialist agenda and run our country into bankruptcy.

The immediate argument when I reply that No Sane president Would Ever Do it, is typically "Well you were accusing Bush of doing that two years ago."

They are right, I was. And he Was. So i can't really argue that it is impossible to have a complete dumbass for a president because well...



Honestly I'm satisfied with your interpretation of divisiveness and my purpose in my original post has likewise been satisfied. I think I can effectively make the argument that Obama isn't deliberately divisive, but rather effecitvely pursues the ideological agenda for which teh majority of the country elected him. People who truly see Obama as inherently divisive are simply projecting their own disenfranchisement.

[Yona]

That and the racist, bigoted ass hats that run and populate the Republican Party can't stand the fact that a "non-white" was elected to the Presidency.

Umm, try again. Here's a picture of the current CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE:



ZOMG he's black! Try a little fact checking next time, douche, a hard lesson I learned early on this board. I'm really getting tired of the "Republicans=Racist" broad brush that's being used here whenever a topic critical of Obama or Democrats pops up.

NO SHIT,...... Really. Would you care to research how much of a percentage the GOP has in people of color compared to the Democrats?

Delegates to the 2008 Republican convention: 93% white, 1.5% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 32% women.

Delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention: 65% white, 23% African-American, 11% Hispanic, 50.1% women.

He's a token, the one they put in AFTER Obama was elected. Tell me you are not buying into the idea that putting Steele in charge when they have no power (sure he is ) proves they are not bigoted ass hats.

Take Steele’s election as an example. An African-American wins the chairmanship, but only after serious consideration is given to another candidate, Chip Saltsman, who distributed a racist song, Barack the Magic Negro. A song originally aired by the dominant leader of the conservative movement, Rush Limbaugh. A consummate "ass hat" if there ever was one.

They were at least smart enough to figure electing Saltsman was not going to win them any converts.

The people who run the GOP these days believe in only one thing. If you are not a white, pro-life, RW Christian, you have no value in their eyes, and they most certainly do not want you "in charge". That is the perception.

Are there "Republicans" that are NOT that way ? Yes, I'm sure there are, but they are in the minority within the party,.... and they are NOT in charge or setting policy.

If you are tired of Republicans being viewed as racist, perhaps you should try changing the type of people the party is recruiting, and the direction the party is going.

Getting rid of the "Old Guard" would be a great first step.

[Count Chocula]

Take Steele’s election as an example. An African-American wins the chairmanship, but only after serious consideration is given to another candidate, Chip Saltsman, who distributed a racist song, Barack the Magic Negro. A song originally aired by the dominant leader of the conservative movement, Rush Limbaugh. A consummate "ass hat" if there ever was one.

That song was a parody song written and performed by Al Shanklin, a longtime provider of satire songs to Rush. After listening to it I think it was in poor taste, but it didn't spring fully-formed from Limbaugh's brow because he's racist. The inspiration for the song was provided by this editorial by LA Times contributor David Ehrenstein, who's black himself. If you read the article, you'll see that black man Ehrenstein is, in other words, calling black man Barack Obama an Uncle Tom. He further asserts, using movies as examples, that Obama's popularity among whites stems from a need to "assuage 'white guilt.'" In other words, Ehrenstein's thesis and references are ridiculous, and Shanklin/Limbaugh mocked him with a song. Kinda like Weird Al Yankovic mocked Coolio with "Amish Paradise," but political. They chose Al Sharpton's voice for the parody, most likely, because in 2007 Al Sharpton wasn't backing Obama for President.

As for Steele, he was the Republican Lieutenant Governor of (largely Democratic) Maryland from 2003-2007, and has been active in Republican politics since 1993, so he's hardly a flash in the pan or an unknown quantity to the RNC. Token black my ass. His opponnent was stupid enough to distribute an easily misinterpreted parody song, so Steele won. That's called politics. Lest you think the Democrats are oh-so-superior, note that they, too, have had exactly ONE black head of the DNC: Ron Brown. And I won't even go into the Democrat party's racist past, since that topic's worthy of its own thread.

Back on topic, Obama's divisive because he's a Democrat which prompts a Republican response, and vice versa when the parties play musical chairs with political office, and because the actions and proposals of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress don't sit well with a lot of the electorate. There's a lot more going on than health care legislation.

[Themightytom]

Back on topic, Obama's divisive because he's a Democrat which prompts a Republican response, and vice versa when the parties play musical chairs with political office, and because the actions and proposals of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress don't sit well with a lot of the electorate. There's a lot more going on than health care legislation.

Do you consider "A lot" of the electorate to be a majority and do you feel this population crosses party lines?

[Count Chocula]

^ Honestly, I don't know. Any evidence I could provide would be that of my family and coworkers and wouldn't qualify as anything approaching an authoritative statement. Taking a look at the 2008 election results, "a lot" could mean the 45.7% who voted for McCain.

[Themightytom]

^ Honestly, I don't know. Any evidence I could provide would be that of my family and coworkers and wouldn't qualify as anything approaching an authoritative statement.

It really wouldn't. Based on your preferred associations and shared social context that results it can "Seem" like "everyone" hates Obama when that is only a matter of perspective. thats why facts are important to consider. My parents for example were ABSOLUTELY positive based on their social interactions that mcCain was going to smoke obama in the elections. had they based this assumption on facts rather than personal experience they would have been better prepared for the results of the elections. i can talk politics at work and get all nods of understanding but when I go back home and visit the old church group I am suddenly a baby killing heathen. I was looking for a logical underpinning to the argument that Obama is divisive and there really isn't one. Its all subjective perception based on a projected assumption. You demonstrated this when you expressed the sentiment that "A lot" of the electorate felt a certain way, without ahving a pre-existing conception of what "A lot" actually meant.

If the "lot" was in fact a majority that crosses party lines, than Obama has successfully united America in opposition against himself and is in fact a unifier per the Kanye West school of thought. if he simply alienates Republicans, by virtue of being a Democrat, well Mike has already pointed out that someone can't be inherently divisive and unless Obama is deliberately F'ing around with the american people he's not really being divisve.

The phenomona is the result of either manipulation by people who ARE being divisive, or it is inherent projection by people who just don't like Obama. in the second case the people themselves are bing divisive rather than being open minded and accepting the electoral process we have in place.

[Patrick Degan]

Take Steele’s election as an example. An African-American wins the chairmanship, but only after serious consideration is given to another candidate, Chip Saltsman, who distributed a racist song, Barack the Magic Negro. A song originally aired by the dominant leader of the conservative movement, Rush Limbaugh. A consummate "ass hat" if there ever was one.

That song was a parody song written and performed by Al Shanklin, a longtime provider of satire songs to Rush. After listening to it I think it was in poor taste, but it didn't spring fully-formed from Limbaugh's brow because he's racist. The inspiration for the song was provided by this editorial by LA Times contributor David Ehrenstein, who's black himself. If you read the article, you'll see that black man Ehrenstein is, in other words, calling black man Barack Obama an Uncle Tom. He further asserts, using movies as examples, that Obama's popularity among whites stems from a need to "assuage 'white guilt.'" In other words, Ehrenstein's thesis and references are ridiculous, and Shanklin/Limbaugh mocked him with a song. Kinda like Weird Al Yankovic mocked Coolio with "Amish Paradise," but political. They chose Al Sharpton's voice for the parody, most likely, because in 2007 Al Sharpton wasn't backing Obama for President.

As for Steele, he was the Republican Lieutenant Governor of (largely Democratic) Maryland from 2003-2007, and has been active in Republican politics since 1993, so he's hardly a flash in the pan or an unknown quantity to the RNC. Token black my ass. His opponnent was stupid enough to distribute an easily misinterpreted parody song, so Steele won. That's called politics. Lest you think the Democrats are oh-so-superior, note that they, too, have had exactly ONE black head of the DNC: Ron Brown. And I won't even go into the Democrat party's racist past, since that topic's worthy of its own thread.

Who cares? Steele has had exactly ZERO influence on the GOP's essential ideological direction, which includes pandering to every racist element in this nation's body-politic. The one and only time he ever dared to criticise the Right's most vitriolic spokescreature, Rush Limbaugh —a man infamous for his racist remarks about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb (one of the reasons he will never be joining the NFL owners club, BTW)— it took just about 24 hours for Steele to be reminded who's bitch he really is and to issue a public retraction. Steele is nothing more than window-dressing.

And as for your Ron Brown "example", that's laughable considering that the Democratic Party has also fielded the first black woman to actually run for the presidency (Shirley Chisolm, 1972), has fielded more blacks in actual leadership positions within the party and in Democratic administrations, and of course has now fielded the first black president.

As for the Democratic Party's racist past, that is a non-argument: the Democratic Party has proven by both word and deed to have shed that legacy years ago while the GOP have increasingly embraced the Dixiecrat ideology and wink approvingly at neo-Confederate sympathisers.

Back on topic, Obama's divisive because he's a Democrat which prompts a Republican response, and vice versa when the parties play musical chairs with political office, and because the actions and proposals of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress don't sit well with a lot of the electorate. There's a lot more going on than health care legislation.

Bullshit. This has already been exploded once in this thread: Obama does not actively seek to set Americans against one another the way Georgie the Stupider and the rest of his maladministration deliberately attempted for eight years. Blaming Obama for the large GOP asshole contingent who bray TEH EEEVULZ SOCIALIZMZ at every opportunity is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

[Simon_Jester]

Patrick has a point. Obama cannot fairly be called divisive simply for "breathing while Democratic," or for trying to carry out campaign promises that received wide support during the election. For that matter, he's being a hell of a lot more moderate than many of his own supporters expected him to be during the campaign, to the point where he risks crippling his own policy plans in an attempt to reach across the aisle. It's difficult to see how he could have done less to antagonize the far right without betraying his own core support base... which, logically, would be just as bad from the standpoint of 'divisiveness.'

If Obama is divisive, then everything is divisive, in which case the word "divisive" is meaningless. A word that can mean anything means nothing.

[Yona]

The bottom line, when all is said and done, is that this is the Republican party AND all the nut balls that hate Obama are using ANY means possible to stall, object, and subvert ANY effort at reform in ANY arena. It is to the point that they believe ANY means is acceptable to obtain, or perhaps I should say retain, their goals. It seems that if it works, whether it is a lie, unethical , or even outright slander, they are willing to use it.

The reasons for this are what are really diverse.

Some of it is pure racism hatred,... some of it is Politics,... some of it is Money and Power.

The average voter in this country is, unfortunately, willing to believe the nonsense being put forth by these morons. Things like "Death Panels", etc. It seems some are just too lazy to think it through.

I don't think anyone is saying the Democrats and others are pure and saintly,...... but this type of behavior HAS been a REPUBLICAN trademark for decades now. Their willingness to use these tactics, their absolute refusal to actually work with the opposition for the good of the country and the active recruitment of those that believe this way are what is really divisive.

And no matter what,.... assholes like Rush, Beck, and others like them, are in it for the money. It's that simple. And Steele will always be a token, and a puppet !

[JBG]

Patrick has a point. Obama cannot fairly be called divisive simply for "breathing while Democratic," or for trying to carry out campaign promises that received wide support during the election. For that matter, he's being a hell of a lot more moderate than many of his own supporters expected him to be during the campaign, to the point where he risks crippling his own policy plans in an attempt to reach across the aisle. It's difficult to see how he could have done less to antagonize the far right without betraying his own core support base... which, logically, would be just as bad from the standpoint of 'divisiveness.'

If Obama is divisive, then everything is divisive, in which case the word "divisive" is meaningless. A word that can mean anything means nothing.

I agree entirely Simon. I could not have put it better.