Wshington Post: Obama The Most Polarizing President Ever...

[Stephanie]

Our Congress never used to be like this

Back when Ron Reagan was fighting Tip O'Neil, they used to be able to find a middle ground. Publicly, they fought like cats and dogs....privately, they compromised

It was the emergence of Newt Gingrich in the 90s that changed politics forever. Newt prought with him a new breed of politician, one who thought ideology was everything and compromise was for pussies.

With Clinton, they just kept him tied up with one investigation after another. When all else failed, they impeached him. With Obama, they realized they paid too big a price with impeachment. Their tactics changed to obstruction and noncooperation. Compromise was now an admission of failure. It was better to do nothing than to do something that someone else might get credit for.

Obama and John Kerry saying Bush was "Terrorising Iraqi woman and children in the middle of the night"
"Bush Lied...People Died!"
Every week was a new accusation. They won the 06' and 08' elections on critcizing Bush, and Obama hasn't stopped doing it yet.

When did Obama or Kerry ever say that?

You know you don't have a quote. Why don't you demonstrate to everyone how you use context

my gawd, you must of slept all through the Bush administration...

 

[niteowl]

Maybe an example would help -

When Obamacare was being discussed (mostly by Democrats, and behind closed doors), Republicans had their own ideas about health care reform. One of the items they fought for, was the right of insurance companies to sell policies outside the borders of their home state. One key factor in high health insurance premiums, is lack of competition; this is not the fault of the individual companies, it is state law. The states dictate to insurance companies, what procedures their policies must cover. Whether it's hair plugs, or botox injections, those extraneous coverages add greatly to a policy's price. Since companies can only sell within their own states, however, they have no fear of competition; their competitors would have to provide identical coverages, thus ensuring the prices charged for their products would remain roughly equal.

The simple act of allowing companies to sell across state lines would change all that. Now, insurance companies would be forced to become competitive; and that would mean, they would suddenly have some leverage in dealing with their state insurance commission. A sample exchange between "Blue Cross of State X" and the insurance commissioner/governor of State X might go something like: "Look, State Y is killing us in their policy pricing. We've got better claims processing, but they've got fewer mandated coverages. If we don't get some relief, we'll have to close our doors. That means that 7,000 citizens of State X will be out of work. Now, we realize this is an election year..." And just like that, states would begin competing with each other to lower premiums. That's a free market solution. The companies that can offer a quality product, at the lowest cost, will thrive. Inefficient companies will close their doors. The consumer is the winner in the end.

So, what happened? Well, the Democrats offered a "compromise" - they offered to add a provision to Obamacare that would enable companies to sell across state lines - but, only after 2014, when Obamacare had been fully implemented. You might ask, "What's the problem with that?" The problem with that, is that once Obamacare is implemented, the federal government will determine coverages for all states. In other words, there would be no difference between State X and State Y, or between any other states - and hence, again you have a situation where you have no competition, and no incentive to lower costs. I mean, it's transparent what they're attempting to do; they want to offer the illusion of a compromise, without actually offering anything at all. That's how Democrats roll, when they have the upper hand.

Why would they even make such an outrageous, and transparently partisan offer, and dare to call it a "compromise"? If I were a cynic, I might suggest it's because they believe their base is so appalling stupid, that they'll take to the internet, and start claiming that the problems with health care are all the Republicans fault, for refusing to compromise.

But, we're too clever for them, right?

 

[MarcATL]

Wow, this coming from a long-established Liberal Media Outlet like the Washington Post is very surprising and damning.


President Obama ran — and won — in 2008 on the idea of uniting the country. But, each of his first three years in office have marked historic highs in political polarization, with Democrats largely approving of him and Republicans deeply disapproving.

For 2011, Obama’s third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing in Gallup tracking polls, as compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That’s a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president’s third year in office — ever. (The previous high was George W. Bush in 2007, when he had a 59 percent difference in job approval ratings.)

In 2010, the partisan gap between how Obama was viewed by Democrats versus Republicans stood at 68 percent; in 2009, it was 65 percent. Both were the highest marks ever for a president’s second and first years in office, respectively.

What do those numbers tell us? Put simply: that the country is hardening along more and more strict partisan lines.

While it’s easy to look at the numbers cited above and conclude that Obama has failed at his mission of bringing the country together, a deeper dig into the numbers in the Gallup poll suggests that the idea of erasing the partisan gap is simply impossible, as political polarization is rising rapidly.

Out of the ten most partisan years in terms of presidential job approval in Gallup data, seven — yes, seven — have come since 2004. Bush had a run between 2004 and 2007 in which the partisan disparity of his job approval was at 70 points or higher.

Read More:
Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever. - The Washington Post

And Bush was the most polorizing before that, and Clinton before him.

And if, IF the American Peopl give the Repugs a chance at the Office ever again, that person will then become the most poloraizing President ever.

You are totally irrelevant dude...I truly misjudged you.

You coulda been a contenda.

 

[theliq]

He ain't the sole cause, but he is a big reason for it. I think he's been playing politics from day one rather than properly governing.

The atmosphere makes it impossible to Govern. The Republicans in the House are their way or the highway, that's impossible to work with.

I think you'll find it was because of Obama's attitude to the GOP that they became 'dug in' on their stance.

How the fuck can anyone defend that man's attitude towards those who disagree with him? He referred to them (me) as 'the enemy'.

He has offended every one of our allies, particularly Britain and Israel. Those countries - particularly Britain - have stood by this country every damned time we've asked. And Obama treats them like crap.

The man does not know how to govern. He was elected President of the United States - ALL of it, not just the parts that follow their Messiah.

Highly Emotive and Uneducated and Ignorant Post.tl

 

[The Gadfly]

Wow, this coming from a long-established Liberal Media Outlet like the Washington Post is very surprising and damning.


President Obama ran — and won — in 2008 on the idea of uniting the country. But, each of his first three years in office have marked historic highs in political polarization, with Democrats largely approving of him and Republicans deeply disapproving.

For 2011, Obama’s third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing in Gallup tracking polls, as compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That’s a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president’s third year in office — ever. (The previous high was George W. Bush in 2007, when he had a 59 percent difference in job approval ratings.)

In 2010, the partisan gap between how Obama was viewed by Democrats versus Republicans stood at 68 percent; in 2009, it was 65 percent. Both were the highest marks ever for a president’s second and first years in office, respectively.

What do those numbers tell us? Put simply: that the country is hardening along more and more strict partisan lines.

While it’s easy to look at the numbers cited above and conclude that Obama has failed at his mission of bringing the country together, a deeper dig into the numbers in the Gallup poll suggests that the idea of erasing the partisan gap is simply impossible, as political polarization is rising rapidly.

Out of the ten most partisan years in terms of presidential job approval in Gallup data, seven — yes, seven — have come since 2004. Bush had a run between 2004 and 2007 in which the partisan disparity of his job approval was at 70 points or higher.

Read More:
Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever. - The Washington Post

And Bush was the most polorizing before that, and Clinton before him.

And if, IF the American Peopl give the Repugs a chance at the Office ever again, that person will then become the most poloraizing President ever.

You are totally irrelevant dude...I truly misjudged you.

You coulda been a contenda.

Marc,
Probably correct, unfortunately. As I said earlier, the nation itself is increasingly polarized; the politics of it is only a symptom, not the root cause. Not that I think Obama has helped that much over the last three years, but even had he chosen to govern otherwise, I don't honestly know how much it would have helped, if at all. My instincts tell me, that if McCain had won, things would not be that much different. I don't see anyone, of any party, who I honestly believe can unite the country at this point. There's too little common ground to work with now, too many competing interests which cannot be reconciled. Each succeeding election only seems to tear at the social and political fabric more. There's no easy answer to this, if indeed, there is any answer at all.