Gay Patriot Header Image

Is Obama’s Divisive Rhetoric & Scare-mongering
the New Kind of Politics he Promised?

Remember how so many critics of former President George W. Bush called the Texan “divisive”? One columnist contended that the Republican used “scare tactics” to “demean politics and voters.” They faulted him for deriding his opponents.

Now, I have a challenge for those who continue to berate Bush. Can you find anything in his speeches or other remarks, particularly in his first few weeks (even months) in office, when he derided his political opponents as much as his successor has in the past two days?

Did Bush ever accuse his ideological adversaries of “peddling ‘false theories…phony arguments and petty politics’“? Did he ever attack his opponents as his successor has?

Were Bush’s policy addresses in his first term, “devoid. . . of analysis,” reading like campaign speeches?

Remember how we heard ad nauseum over the past eight years that George W. Bush was playing the politics of fear?  His successor promised to change that as Charles Krauthammer reminds us declaring, in his inaugural address, that “we have chosen hope over fear.” Yet, barely three weeks into this term, he has abandoned that pledge when he needed “fear to pass a bill.”   And now, he’s using “scare-mongering rhetoric” to push his spendthrift “stimulus.”

It seems that the criticisms Bush-critics heaped upon the former president could be more readily used to describe his successor.

UPDATE: Wasn’t it just two weeks ago, an AP “reporter” heralded the new era: Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands?




  1. He doesn’t know what he promised. He only read the teleprompter . . . he didn’t actually understand what it said. you’re expecting too much out of this guy.

    Comment by rplat — February 6, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - February 6, 2009

  2. Bush was supposedly a “scare monger” because he pointed out that terrorists had already killed 3,000 Americans and foiled plots proved that they were trying to do so again (as if anyone needed confirmation).

    Meanwhile Obama and Democrats charge that if you dont support a bill predicated on economic policies that have never, ever, ever worked in the history of the world, that the governments own watchdog says will make the economy worse than doing nothing would, then we will experience an economic armageddon rivaling the great depression.

    And they hyperventilate that if you do not allow them to turn America into a socialist command and control tyranny, that environmental cataclysm will destroy the earth, despite the fact that the Earth has been cooling, not warming, for the last 10 years and despite the fact that the models on which they base their claims have been systematically proven, by peer-reviewed science, not to work.

    Yes, everyone uses fear to promote their policy to some degree. The difference is that Republicans address real threats and base their solutions on what has been known to work, while Democrats invent threats and and base their solutions on whatever will secure them more power.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 6, 2009 @ 8:34 pm - February 6, 2009

  3. In response to your question, it’s worth repeating a comment I wrote on another blog this morning: When Obama went into attack mode on the Republicans at yesterday’s pricey House Democrat “Retreat,” I considered it a major tactical win for the Republicans. After all, many Republicans warned that Obama had no record of bipartisanship time and again during the election. And here he and his party’s leaders are whining that they’re not getting Republican support for their porkfest bill–this after he turned away Republican suggestions about the stimulus by saying “I won” during his first week in office. Increasingly, he’s being exposed for the partisan the Republicans said he was during the campaign.

    Comment by Kurt — February 6, 2009 @ 10:19 pm - February 6, 2009

  4. People won’t care about any of this – Obama’s over-adoring media, spendthrift ways, nasty partisanship and lying – until it hits their pocketbooks. Which it will, in 2010-12.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 7, 2009 @ 10:22 am - February 7, 2009

  5. Obama: Scaremonger-In-Chief

    Comment by GayPatriot — February 7, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - February 7, 2009

  6. In the book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg exhaustively runs down how the cry of “Emergency! Emergency” has always been used by totalitarians to seize control. The left knows this- hence their use of the now discredited global warming hoax. Carbon connects to everything and to control carbon…. But that has NOTHING on this crisis. Of course they know that the “stimulus” is going to make things worse. Their own people have pointed that out. Getting worse is exactly what they want. The more crisis, the more Big Daddy needs to step in and take over to “help” everyone. Welcome to Obama’s Happy Gumdrop Land!

    Comment by 23eagle — February 7, 2009 @ 12:54 pm - February 7, 2009

  7. Obama appealed to the weak minded and those who never were willing to do independent research on topics. God help us.

    Comment by Walter Smith — February 7, 2009 @ 4:50 pm - February 7, 2009

  8. […] Is Obama’s Divisive Rhetoric & Scare-mongeringthe New Kind of Politics he Promised? […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama: Guilty of Bush’s Alleged Sins — February 7, 2009 @ 5:14 pm - February 7, 2009

  9. […] on the president’s divisive rhetoric, Kurt calls the Democrat’s retreat into “attack mode . . . a major tactical win for the Republicans:” After all, many Republicans warned that Obama had no record of bipartisanship time and […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Victory to Democrats Means Opposition Must Cease — February 7, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - February 7, 2009

  10. Obamas a liar.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 7, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - February 7, 2009

  11. And clumsier than W to boot.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 9, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - February 9, 2009

  12. As I stated in a reply to a later post: Why do they continue to get away with this? Bush Derangement Syndrome essentially colored everything Bush did (or did not do) throughout the WORLD, but Obama WILL get a pass, whatever he does. Why can’t we do more than just state the obvious, get people to see the hypocrisy, to admit it’s there? Are we that ineffectual, that irrelevant?

    Comment by DoorHold — February 9, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - February 9, 2009

  13. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    Comment by Vanessa — February 9, 2009 @ 6:14 pm - February 9, 2009

  14. No matter how much you Obama bash it can’t, don’t, and won’t change the fact that George W. Bush was a terrible President. He lacked the leadership becoming the office of President, and he and his administration’s entire two terms were riddled with nothing but incompetence and failure. I don’t know what your deal is and what chip you have on your shoulder, but Obama have been bipartisan in every way. It’s Republicans as usual that put partisanship and party politics and their own agenda ahead of the best interest of the nation and the American people. But we all know that’s par for the course from Republicans, I mean it’s what we’ve come to expect from the party of divisive politics. Are you actually going to get pissed because Obama tell it like it is? That’s exactly what Republicans do “peddle false theories, phony arguments, and petty politics” I for one am happy he had the balls to call them on it. Most of you Obama bashers would rather see America fail than Obama succeed, but at the same time paint yourselves such “Great American Patriots”. You’re nothing but the epitome of the GOP…. Crooks, Liars, and Hypocrites!!

    Comment by riceroni — February 16, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - February 16, 2009

  15. Ok, riceroni, you said Obama is bipartisan in every way, please provide examples where he changed the “stimulus” package, the signature policy of his term so far, to reflect concerns of members of the Republican leadership or a consensus of their caucus.

    My, my, my, you call the Republicans the party of divisive politics, then go on to celebrate the divisive rhetoric of the nation’s leading Democrat.

    Please, as per this post, provide an example of where Bush ever used such rhetoric to describe Democrats.

    And then, you yourself show yourself to practice the very divisive politics that you claim Republicans practice by engaging in name-calling. Oh how you put a smile on my face in so easily making a point we repeat all too often on this blog . . . that of the mean-spiritedness and hypocrisy of the Bush-hating left.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 16, 2009 @ 1:30 pm - February 16, 2009

  16. The Simple Truth About The Republican party – The GOP which has proven to be nothing more than a bunch of fascist brownshirts – They show that they’re nothing more than a bunch of sore losers who’d rather play a game of political tug-o-war than solve the nations issues (largely caused by their party). The current crop of GOP leaders and loyalists are not driven by love of their country, they do not desire a better life for our society as a whole and they have a deep-seated hate towards intellectual progress. These 21st century Republicans are completely driven by the base emotions of power, greed and evil. Look at how people like Michele Bachmann, Liddy Dole, Norm Coleman and Scott Garrett have been talking to their constituents – saying that electing anyone other than themselves is tantamount to putting enemies of the state in office. And in this season political kabuki, they are ready to pull down the whole country if they slip from the reins of power. There’s the truth Republicans, they are so removed from the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt that those men are screaming and kicking in their graves at what the party has become. The only thing more obtuse and vacuous than most Republicans running for political ambition and office is the people who support them.

    Comment by riceroni — February 16, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - February 16, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.