August 02, 2014
Stop Hatin' All the Time, Mr. President
“If [Republicans] bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
... just last week, on David Letterman’s show, that Obama said, “One thing I’ve never tried to do and I think none of us can do in public office is suggest that because someone doesn’t agree with me that they’re victims or they’re unpatriotic.”
In fact, in 2008, Obama said, “Number 43 added four trillion dollars [to the national debt] by his lonesome…that’s irresponsible, that’s unpatriotic.” Obama, of course, has been adding to the debt at double the rate of his predecessor.
Now he’s running an ad saying his platform is a “new economic patriotism,” tacitly inviting viewers to think of opposing views as unpatriotic.
President Barack Obama attacked companies that use cross-border mergers to escape U.S. taxes, accusing them of being “corporate deserters who renounce their citizenship to shield profits.”
In remarks at a technical college in Los Angeles today, the president called for a new “economic patriotism” from companies. He also decried those that use corporate inversions to benefit economically by being in the U.S. while adding to the tax burden of middle-income families.
“You shouldn’t get to call yourself an American company only when you want a handout from American taxpayers,” he told an audience gathered between palm trees on the campus green.
And while you're at it you might explain how, if corporations aren't people, they can "renounce their citizenship"? If corporations aren't people, why does the President refer to them with personal pronouns?
"They are fired up. They are mobilized. They see an opportunity to take back the House, maybe take back the Senate," he said. "If they're successful in doing that, they've already said they're going to go back to the same policies that were in place during the Bush administration. That means that we are going to have just hand-to-hand combat up here on Capitol Hill."
Obama: I use ‘calm’ rhetoric, unlike ‘hostage takers’
And don't allow your spokespeople to do so:
In recent weeks, however, Obama and his aides and Democratic allies have accused the Republican legislators of being anarchists, suicide-bombers, hostage-takers, arsonists, political terrorists, fanatics, blackmailers, and ideological crusaders.
“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest,” Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s top media adviser, said in a CNN interview this week.
Republicans “have shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans,” Obama told reporters Tuesday.
The crisis will end “when Republicans realize they don’t get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands,” Obama told the reporters gathered in the White House’s briefing room.
Stop misusing the power of the presidency to persecute and intimidate Republican business owners:
Four individuals were listed under the heading Donors who benefit from betting against America while four were categorized as special interest donors. After each name, the campaign listed deeds that they find “less-than-reputable” or reflective of being “on the wrong side of the law” or making “profits at the expense of so many Americans.”
Each name was then tweeted out by the @TruthTeam2012 twitter handle with similar charges, and the list was also disseminated by email to a grassroots network of Truth Team volunteers – calling on their vast grassroots network of volunteers to spread the word and vilify the eight individuals.
Among those targeted was Melaleuca CEO Frank VanderSloot – a Romney donor who has contributed $1 million to the Romney campaign – who was smeared as being a “litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”
VanderSloot has since been subjected to what Kimberly Strassel refers to as “slimy trolling into a citizen’s private life.”
Don't tell Americans who don't agree with your policies to shut up and sit in the back of the bus. The irony is particularly rich for a President who keeps harping on wrongs committed against blacks during the Jim Crow era. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that Republicans should be treated as second-class citizens:
Stop referring to legitimately elected Republicans as "unprincipled absolutists", because you're implying that the voters who elected them can safely be ignored:
Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism - “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.
Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.
This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat - whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.
Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?
When a public servant displays such stunning contempt for the people he was elected to serve, he is literally inviting reciprocal contempt. Americans who disagreed with progressive policies long before Barack Obama was elected are not racists simply because they refuse to surrender their long held beliefs, shut up, and meekly sit at the back of the bus. That's no message for someone who claims to want to end racial and political divisions.
But perhaps most importantly, it represents a betrayal of everything you claimed to believe back in 2008. You're supposed to be a leader. If you want people to follow you or work with you, try setting an example worthy of the office you hold.
Posted by Cassandra at August 2, 2014 09:58 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Also, "unprincipled absolutists" is a contradiction in terms. Absolutism is a principle. Specifically, it's Barack Obama's principle. You know, governing "by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats."
Posted by: Grim at August 2, 2014 01:50 PM
I am beginning to think that Obama was one of those hanger-ons of a schoolyard bully; while someone may have stood up to the bully, they didn't stand up to him personally, he always walked away.
Posted by: htom at August 2, 2014 04:09 PM
Yeah, but besides that, what's he doing wrong?
Posted by: Texan99 at August 2, 2014 04:21 PM
I still haven't gotten over the shock of hearing that speech. It was the most monumentally petty and unpresidential thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.
Stunned. Just stunned.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 3, 2014 12:23 PM
"I still haven't gotten over the shock of hearing that speech"
Yeah, me too, but you noticed that the crowd ate it up? What's that say about certain segments of our electorate?
Posted by: CAPT Mongo at August 5, 2014 09:16 AM
That there is an increasingly non-trivial chance that at some point we may have to live through the horror of shooting each other just to be left alone in our Otherness.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 5, 2014 09:29 AM