jump to navigation

Obama isn’t Divisive? Depends on your point of view… January 25, 2009

Posted by neoavatara in Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Pretty soon, McCain may be the only Republican believing in bipartisanship.

Pretty soon, McCain may be the only Republican believing in bipartisanship.

It is funny how biased both sides of the media are.

MSNBC and the Associate Press (can we admit they are definitely liberal?) have articles today stating how Mr. Obama has totally avoided divisiveness in his first week, unlike George Bush.

Then we seen the London Telegraph (and most of the foreign papers atleast try to be more moderate in their views) show the many ways in which President Obama has been very divisive.

First, let us start with President Obama’s rhetoric.  This has clearly been very bipartisan.  He had Republican Congressman to meet him in the White House.  He met with conservative media before the inauguration.  He had mostly praise for President Bush (well, other than the inauguration speech).

But his actions speak louder, I think.  He kept his promise to close Guantanamo, which I agree with.  But he gave no plan on what to do with the prisoners, which is the biggest problem. The order was a gift to the liberal left; it answered none of the major questions regarding Gitmo prisoners.

On the stimulus package, the biggest spending bill in World History, Obama and the Democrats have not involved the Republicans.  The one time they did, Obama had a meeting with Republican leaders in the White House.  Nancy Pelosi today argued that the bill is bipartisan, DESPITE the fact that Republicans didn’t have a voice in writing the bill, and the vast majority will vote against it.  She obviously doesn’t understand simple definitions.  They stated their preference for larger tax cuts, less pork spending, more oversight.  For example, Republicans are furious over $300 million for contraceptives, rightfully asking how that will stimulate the economy.  For example, the Congressional Budget Office report projected less than half of the $355 billion that House Democrats would spend to create jobs through infrastructure programs and other efforts is likely to be used before the end of fiscal 2010.

Obama’s response: too bad, I won the election.  How bipartisan is that? 

Obama quickly rescinded the presidental order blocking funding of abortion clinics abroad.  Though this was expected, this was not exactly bipartisan.  Using tax dollars for abortions is a very emotional issue for the religious right.  Obama responded by stating, “It is time we end the politicization of this issue.”  That is easy to say when you don’t understand the opposition to your point of view.  Meanwhile the decision by the Food and Drug Administration to approve the first human trials of embryonic stem cells, anathema to the Christian right, has intensified the bubbling culture war.

Then to compound matters, he for some reason felt compelled to rant against Rush Limbaugh.  Apparently, Mr. Obama hasn’t come to the realization that he is the most power man in the world, and Mr. Limbaugh is just an entertainer.

Ultimately, I am not certain Mr. Obama had a more bipartisan week than Bill Clinton did when he announce the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy in his first week.  Basically, rhetorically Mr. Obama has been bipartisan, but almost none of his real actions has.  In fact, I would say his comments about winning the election and Rush Limbaugh were muct more partisan than Bill Clinton.  And people forget that George Bush was much less partisan than either Obama or Clinton in his first few months, even having the whole Kennedy family over to watch a movie in the White House.

The liberal media may try to keep up the bipartisan chant.  But reality has a way of seeping in.  Unless Mr. Obama shows real bipartisanship, the political right will not keep quiet for too long.



1. John - January 25, 2009

Now Obama has been inaugurated, he’ll be bringing change to the people that need it most. Therefore he’s made free grants available to over 50 mil American Citizens! See for yourself if you’re eligible.

2. Ted - January 25, 2009

Rush Limbaugh was born in 1951 to an American mom “Millie” and an American dad lawyer & WWII Fighter Pilot in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Since ‘President’ Obama now wants to silence El Rushbo even before BHO has a chance to try to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” to silence all conservative talk radio, I’ve got three questions (but answers to only two of them):

FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

ANSWER: Joe Biden

Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)

This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT under either and/or both of two theories — (1) BHO refuses to show Birth Certificate to deny Kenyan birth/res ipsa loquitur “action speaks for itself” or (2) BHO admits dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen at Jr’s birth), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.

SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?

ANSWER: Hillary Clinton

One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.

THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?

ANSWER: Yet undetermined.

neoavatara - January 26, 2009

I agree with almost none of the last post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: