Speaking to an assembled group of politicians is not private.

Plus he attacked his opposition with a sexual slur, which even if private is still beneath the president.

Bush caught days of flak for ‘major league’ which is minor league compared to associating someone with a mouthful of testicle.

I see what your point is, that he is the president and should probably be more aware of what he says. I am just giving him a benefit of the doubt that he was trying to rally the troops and it was meant to stay private.

Whereas Ronald Reagan reserved his greatest venom for the enemies of the United States, Barack Obama reserves his for the adversaries of the Democratic Party and the opponents of his ideology.

That is a fantastic line! I would love to hear it from the next Republican presidential nominee. So true. But the frightening fact is that Obama has his harshest words for conservatives because as a Marxist he has more in common with Chavez, Castro, and America’s enemies than he does with American conservatives.

Remember this is a man who is on tape decrying the constitution and how it doesn’t do enough to redistribute wealth and establish powers that the government must assert over the people.

He IS Hugo Chavez.

Accordingly, Reagan spoke formally and repeatedly of deploying against criminal regimes the one weapon they fear more than military or economic sanction: the publicly-spoken truth about their moral absurdity, their ontological weakness. This was the sort of moral confrontation, as countless dissidents and resisters have noted, that makes these regimes conciliatory, precisely because it heartens those whom they fear most—their own oppressed people. Reagan’s understanding that rhetorical confrontation causes geopolitical conciliation led in no small part to the wall’s collapse 20 years ago today.

The current administration, most recently with overtures to Iran’s rulers and the Burmese generals, has consistently demonstrated that all its impulses are the opposite of Reagan’s. Critics who are worried about the costs of economic policies adopted in the last 10 months might consider as well the impact of the administration’s systematic accommodation of criminal regimes and the failure to understand what “good vs. evil” rhetoric can do.

Anthony R. Dolan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522163362062796.html

’nuff said.

Its not meant to excuse what he said or what anyone said, but it seems to be part of the game now.

For the president of the United States to use the term to describe citizens with a differing point of view is not only offensive, it is disturbing.

“Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

What happened to “listening”? What happened to “the other side has a point”?

If the Dear Reader did listen, he might find that people simply don’t want further government control of health care. Nor new taxes. Nor the further deficit increases that the Dear Reader’s plans must and will entail, even with all the new taxes of the Baucus and Pelosi plans.