Stoke caustic rhetoric?? President Obama has not indulged in a moment of “caustic rhetoric.” If anything, people are bothered by the fact that he never seems bothered. (I personally think his coolness shows statesmanlike maturity.)
Frankly, that surprises me more than a Republican making an accusation against that is not just unreasonable, or baseless, or base, but just flat weird. Note that Rubio does not actually accuse Obama of caustic rhetoric but of “stoking” it, which, in a sense he does, by breathing, because that is all it takes to set some of his critics off.
This is typical modern day Republican delusion. It’s like an illness. This morning on Meet The Press, a video clip of President Obama was played. Concerning the violent nature of recent Trump rallys, Obama mentioned that this has been brewing over time with the politics of fear, and the nasty way Republicans have been speaking about Mexicans, Muslims etc.
On comes Ted Cruz, reacting to the clip, and he calls Obama divisive.
Delusion is the word.
A) Obama didn’t cause the disintegration of the GOP. I don’t see anything in his words or actions that deserves the level of vitriol directed at him. And to the extent that they are reacting to him, how they react is their responsibility, and theirs alone.
B) If Obama did cause the destruction of the GOP, isn’t that what a Democrat should do? Presumably, he’s supposed to want other Democrats to succeed. We can debate how adversarial our political process should be, but it’s not a Democratic president’s job to promote the Republican Party.
The Republicans are locked into their insanity now. Admitting that the president is right and that Trump is the logical extension of their bullying, obstructionist strategy is admitting that they’ve been wrong all along, and they especially can’t do that now in the middle of a campaign. It’s kind of pathetic to see Cruz desperately trying to save face with tired old talking points, but that’s all the GOP can do–keep repeating their mistakes and hope for a different result. I think there’s a definition for that somewhere.
Hurting the other team is probably a bad idea. Richard Nixon showed where that leads.
But the President is head of his party too. It’s completely traditional for the President to campaign for Senators and Congressmen, Governors, and state candidates of his party. The “coat-tails effect” is perfectly legitimate.
This is a bit of a sensitive subject for me - living in Singapore where the ruling party repeats, adnauseam, “It’s not our job to help the opposition” while at the same time putting in place policies and structures that make the emergence of a credible alternative “difficult”.
Anybody is free to promote their own ideas / party the best way they see able -
I simply cannot agree that they should actively try to “hurt” the “other team” - the competition is on ideas, and the quality of an idea doesn’t depend on the team that came up with it.
In my mind, the current general trend towards greater tribalism in politics hurts. It hurts governance, it hurts policy development and it hurts the country.
That’s not to say I support Republicans - their current behaviour is despicable. It simply means that we act against the ideas, not against the party.
If Obama provoked the GOP to set fire to itself, that may make him the finest Democrat machine politician in decades entirely by accident.
Part of the task of the leadership of a political party in a mature democratic system is to prevent *itself *from catching opposition derangement syndrome. You oppose the other guy and resist his platform vigorously because they are contrary to yours and wrong for the country, but you don’t make your platform be just opposition for the sake of opposition itself.
I don’t think Obama is responsible for Trump, but he is responsible for the widespread cynicism and desire for change, even among his own base. A Democratic candidate attaching herself firmly to Obama’s legacy should have a smooth path to the nomination. The discontent on the Democratic side is all on him.
And if Trump was to win the election, Obama would deserve every emotion he would be feeling as he handed the keys to him. We can’t blame Obama for Republican self-destruction, but we can sure as hell blame him for creating an environment where the public wanted change so badly that they elected Donald Trump. Obama was supposed to be the change. Instead he was just more of the same.
Yeah, because Duhbya was so much better. Democrats are disappointed in Obama because he did not accomplish as much as they expected him to. Because Republicans engaged in obstructionism instead of doing what’s good for the country. They put Party before the United States. It is the Republican Party that is responsible for creating the monster.
“Change” is not about getting bills passed. It’s about changing our politics. That was Obama’s primary message until Jan. 20, 2009. Then it became about getting bills passed, using precisely the old strategies and tactics candidate Obama condemned.