Gay Patriot Header Image

The post-partisan president’s “bitterly partisan speech”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:27 am - April 5, 2012.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery,Divider-in-Chief,Media Bias

As I read the president’s speech Tuesday speech to the Associated Press luncheon (an audience which offered him a warmer welcome than it did his likely Republican rival in the presidential contest this fall), I thought I’d heard it all before.  It wasn’t just that his critique of the Ryan budget sounded like another Obama speech — which, to a large extent, it was.

It was that it also sounded like the standard liberal critique of Reagonomics back in 1982 before the Gipper’s policies had been tested. It’s how the anti-Reagan left sounded when Obama was in college. The guy still talks like he’s an undergraduate where the rhetoric mattered more than the facts.  As I wrote yesterday, the President of the United States offered a “cartoon version of Republican economics . . . more like a college activist’s impassioned critique of Reaganomics than an elected leader’s considered response to his rivals.

Leaders of democratic nations do not deliver speeches so deriding the serious proposals put forward by their political opponents.  This is not to say that he shouldn’t criticize Mr. Ryan’s plan if he objects to it, but that when he does so, he owes the people he serves more than just the same tired bromides that he and other Democrats have been offering for 30 years — even after the Reagan boom — which continued into the Clinton era (when federal spending fell as a percentage of GDP — from 21.4% in FY1993 to 18.2% in 2001).

It is yet another defining moment in the career of this divisive politician where he attacks his political adversaries rather than trying to find common ground with them.  Hugh Hewitt called the speech “risible” and links what he calls Guy Benson’s epic analysis of the address.  The post-parisan president delivered, what Benson called, “a bitterly partisan speech”; he proceeds to analyze point by point.

The more Americans who hear this speech (and others like it), the more quickly the image of his 2008 campaign will fade and the less likely they will be to trust him with another term as the nation’s chief executive, particularly given the pressing fiscal problems our nation faces.

Share

9 Comments

  1. Leaders of democratic nations do not deliver speeches so deriding the serious proposals put forward by their political opponents.

    Well, suppose you are Chavez The Won and the “democratic nation” has a paid electorate and a fawning press that will keep you in office?

    The idea that political opponents are given respect is a first world concept where politics transcends the lust for raw power.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 5, 2012 @ 9:27 am - April 5, 2012

  2. So what happened to the post-racial, post-partisan world that “The Won” promised 4 years ago ?

    Comment by Neo — April 5, 2012 @ 1:24 pm - April 5, 2012

  3. Leaders of democratic nations do not deliver speeches so deriding the serious proposals put forward by their political opponents.

    Dan, you have to stop this – I’ve run out of ways to call you an overly sensitive crybaby. I mean what is this? You don’t think politicians argue against other politicians?

    God help you conservatives if a true liberal is ever elected President in this country. The way you’re flailing about because President Meanie-Face doesn’t have anything nice to say about your stupid budget is one thing, but a liberal that actually wants to govern as a liberal? Oh, I can imagine your fits.

    Comment by Levi — April 5, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - April 5, 2012

  4. Levi, read the post. It’s not the criticism per se, but the manner of criticism.

    Read the line which follows the one you quoted:

    This is not to say that he shouldn’t criticize Mr. Ryan’s plan if he objects to it, but that when he does so, he owes the people he serves more than just the same tired bromides that he and other Democrats have been offering for 30 years — even after the Reagan boom — which continued into the Clinton era (when federal spending fell as a percentage of GDP — from 21.4% in FY1993 to 18.2% in 2001).

    It’s one thing to criticize, another to distort and dishonestly deride.

    Let me repeat, so you don’t miss my point. If he objects to Ryan’s plan, he should criticize it, but do so in a manner befitting his office and his role as leader of this country.

    Capisce?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 5, 2012 @ 2:33 pm - April 5, 2012

  5. [...] I figured that my response to Obama’s speech on Tuesday would be gentle compared to other conservatives’.  And it was.  For example, there is Guy Benson’s analysis (hat tip Gay Patriot). [...]

    Pingback by The Most Partisan President « Canadian Rattlesnake — April 5, 2012 @ 2:41 pm - April 5, 2012

  6. Levi, as has been pointed out to you several times, it is not being an “overly sensitive crybaby” to point out the unnecessarily acrimonious rhetoric that Obama (and other leftists) frequently use, especially when they have condemned such rhetoric in the past (which Obama has done). He is a hypocrite, and pointing out his hypocrisy is not equal to whining or complaining. The same goes for pointing out the hypocrisy of gay liberals who relentlessly preach “tolerance,” but then treat gay conservatives hatefully.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 5, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - April 5, 2012

  7. I don’t recall Levi calling anyone an “overly sensitive crybaby” when liberals were attacking Rush Limbaugh.

    Comment by V the K — April 5, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - April 5, 2012

  8. Levi was likely too busy insulting women to notice.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 5, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - April 5, 2012

  9. One has to understand, Rattlesnake, that Levi has openly wished for the physical injury and death of conservatives.

    He is a very sick child, and should be treated accordingly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 6, 2012 @ 1:44 am - April 6, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.