"I understand lefties not agreeing with my conservative critiques of Obama, but the inability of so many of them to even understand how needlessly divisive he was, in how he went about his politicking, is a true testament to the power of partisanship."
How was President Obama needlessly divisive? I asked you this once before but you didn't answer.
Granted, one instance was when he said the Cambridge police responding to a possible break-in "acted stupidly." That remark was stupid, and he stepped on the message of his press conference (I have no idea what it was). But he apparently learned from it. He had that "beer summit," which was better than nothing. In the polarized aftermath of the Trevon Martin case he obliquely emphasized with those outraged by the acquittal but ended up by saying something to effect that we must respect the system. He hit the right cord.
Once, in his 2008 campaign he made an off-hand reference to racial prejudice against him.
Other that those two isolated instances I don't know how he was NEEDLESSLY divisive. Many of his supporters were divisive, but that's a different matter.
My observations, as I recall, were that Obama himself mostly tried to stay above the divisiveness PUBLICLY, but he had his surrogates do the dirty work for him.
Certainly there were times when Obama could/should have taken the higher road and did not. Obama tended to use humor and wit to get his "digs" in. Trump by contrast rarely misses taking the low road himself and typically makes everything personal, retaliatory, aggressive, and nasty.
When did then Pres. Obama take the low road when he could've taken the high road?
He criticized the Republican Congress for their constant road blocks during the deep recession, but that was in response to their actions, and I think they deserved it.
Mr. Daly was referring to needlessly divisive remarks or behavior. Was it when he wore a tan suit and the right-wing talking heads exploded? Obama should have known better.
I did not say Obama took a low road, but perhaps he could have been better at times. Still, perhaps you are correct and I am attributing things said by his team as things said by the man himself and where that is the case I should be more careful!
Remember, I was responding to Mr. Daly's quote given above, that lefties sometimes couldn't grasp "how needlessly divisive he was..."
President Obama had to assume responsibility for his team, especially if they were needlessly divisive more than once, i.e. he had the responsibility to correct them the moment they were needlessly divisive. On the other hand, he cannot be held responsible for needlessly divisive supporters, unless he like Pres. Trump urged his supporters, for example, to beat up protesters at his rallies saying "Don't worry I'll pay your legal fees."
People not uncommonly say things that could be said better. But that is far
different to "how needlessly divisive he was." Here, the key word is needlessly. If someone attacks him or blocks his agenda, there's a need to respond.
The comment: Thanks for the reply, and for correcting my impression of Bluesky as a leftist bat guano holding tank. I am actually not on social media much but I am sure all the platforms have their share of crack pottery.
The question: So because I am not on social media much, I have another question.
I get the impression there was recently yet another round in the Dispatch vs. Bulwark wars, with some NR aligned people also getting in the scrum, apparently set off by Bill Kristol endorsing Court packing, which I find really confusing.
I mean, I certainly think that Court packing is a stupid idea, to say the least.
But I am a bit confused about why that specific comment inspired another round of fighting over Who Has The More Principled Approach To The Trump Era.
Personally, I think Bulwarkism is commendable in being anti- Trump, but lately they're starting to forget *why* they're anti- Trump, by playing footsie with illiberal ideas (like Court Packing) and elements on the Left (like Hasan Piker).
And that although many individuals at NR have stuck to their principles, unfortunately the publication as a whole is, if not quite pro-Trump, anti- anti- Trump by focusing on and being way more outraged by examples of Leftist excesses than Trumpian ones.
I think TD is doing the best at balancing various principles, but even they aren't perfect. I mean, this week they platformed Jeremiah Johnson, who wrote eloquently against Democrats embracing Hasan Piker ... Yet also recently encouraged people to vote for Graham Platner, because "control of the Senate is too important to risk".
I didn't even realize until that post that Johnson is apparently a Democrat, but at least that is a defense against the charge that TD is engaging in the kind of performative anti- leftism that I certainly think NR does at times.
"I understand lefties not agreeing with my conservative critiques of Obama, but the inability of so many of them to even understand how needlessly divisive he was, in how he went about his politicking, is a true testament to the power of partisanship."
How was President Obama needlessly divisive? I asked you this once before but you didn't answer.
Granted, one instance was when he said the Cambridge police responding to a possible break-in "acted stupidly." That remark was stupid, and he stepped on the message of his press conference (I have no idea what it was). But he apparently learned from it. He had that "beer summit," which was better than nothing. In the polarized aftermath of the Trevon Martin case he obliquely emphasized with those outraged by the acquittal but ended up by saying something to effect that we must respect the system. He hit the right cord.
Once, in his 2008 campaign he made an off-hand reference to racial prejudice against him.
Other that those two isolated instances I don't know how he was NEEDLESSLY divisive. Many of his supporters were divisive, but that's a different matter.
My observations, as I recall, were that Obama himself mostly tried to stay above the divisiveness PUBLICLY, but he had his surrogates do the dirty work for him.
Certainly there were times when Obama could/should have taken the higher road and did not. Obama tended to use humor and wit to get his "digs" in. Trump by contrast rarely misses taking the low road himself and typically makes everything personal, retaliatory, aggressive, and nasty.
When did then Pres. Obama take the low road when he could've taken the high road?
He criticized the Republican Congress for their constant road blocks during the deep recession, but that was in response to their actions, and I think they deserved it.
Mr. Daly was referring to needlessly divisive remarks or behavior. Was it when he wore a tan suit and the right-wing talking heads exploded? Obama should have known better.
I did not say Obama took a low road, but perhaps he could have been better at times. Still, perhaps you are correct and I am attributing things said by his team as things said by the man himself and where that is the case I should be more careful!
Remember, I was responding to Mr. Daly's quote given above, that lefties sometimes couldn't grasp "how needlessly divisive he was..."
President Obama had to assume responsibility for his team, especially if they were needlessly divisive more than once, i.e. he had the responsibility to correct them the moment they were needlessly divisive. On the other hand, he cannot be held responsible for needlessly divisive supporters, unless he like Pres. Trump urged his supporters, for example, to beat up protesters at his rallies saying "Don't worry I'll pay your legal fees."
People not uncommonly say things that could be said better. But that is far
different to "how needlessly divisive he was." Here, the key word is needlessly. If someone attacks him or blocks his agenda, there's a need to respond.
I have a comment and a question!
The comment: Thanks for the reply, and for correcting my impression of Bluesky as a leftist bat guano holding tank. I am actually not on social media much but I am sure all the platforms have their share of crack pottery.
The question: So because I am not on social media much, I have another question.
I get the impression there was recently yet another round in the Dispatch vs. Bulwark wars, with some NR aligned people also getting in the scrum, apparently set off by Bill Kristol endorsing Court packing, which I find really confusing.
I mean, I certainly think that Court packing is a stupid idea, to say the least.
But I am a bit confused about why that specific comment inspired another round of fighting over Who Has The More Principled Approach To The Trump Era.
Personally, I think Bulwarkism is commendable in being anti- Trump, but lately they're starting to forget *why* they're anti- Trump, by playing footsie with illiberal ideas (like Court Packing) and elements on the Left (like Hasan Piker).
And that although many individuals at NR have stuck to their principles, unfortunately the publication as a whole is, if not quite pro-Trump, anti- anti- Trump by focusing on and being way more outraged by examples of Leftist excesses than Trumpian ones.
I think TD is doing the best at balancing various principles, but even they aren't perfect. I mean, this week they platformed Jeremiah Johnson, who wrote eloquently against Democrats embracing Hasan Piker ... Yet also recently encouraged people to vote for Graham Platner, because "control of the Senate is too important to risk".
I didn't even realize until that post that Johnson is apparently a Democrat, but at least that is a defense against the charge that TD is engaging in the kind of performative anti- leftism that I certainly think NR does at times.