“More Polarized”


President Barack Obama’s job approval ratings were even more polarized during his second year in office than during his first, when he registered the most polarized ratings for a first-year president. An average of 81% of Democrats and 13% of Republicans approved of the job Obama was doing as president during his second year. That 68-point gap in party ratings is up from 65 points in his first year and is easily the most polarized second year for a president since Dwight Eisenhower.

Yeah, I know, more polling data. Yawn.

But give this one another look. George W. Bush was a polarizing figure and Barack Obama, as of January of ’09 when The God President was “ready to rule,” The Anointed One was going to fix this. Remember that? Fix the economic mess, make us more respected around the world and heal our divisions.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

We are seeing the effects of the holy healing. Barack Obama’s ratings are polarized, because Barack Obama has a polarizing effect. Which is not to say it’s all His fault, and it’s certainly not to say President Bush wasn’t polarizing…the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that both presidents are & were polarizing.

Or maybe it’s us. We’re ready to be polarized. The Lewinsky matter, the debacle in Florida, maybe those are the events that put something unhealthy in motion.

In fact, I see a pattern.

Slick Willy wanted a knob job in the big chair; he lied about it, and when he got caught the democrats decided to circle the wagons and make it look like it was the other guys who had a problem. It turned out to be the wrong thing to do. They got what they wanted, but their cherished radical-left feminist movement has never been taken seriously since then, and it polarized the country. They blame conservatives and Republicans.

When Al Gore lost Florida and thus the presidency, democrats decided to fly all kinds of high-priced lawyers in to argue that Florida’s vote should be decided by means of cherry-picking the most liberal counties and extrapolating the results across the state. This time they didn’t get what they wanted. It was the wrong thing to do and it polarized the country. They blame conservatives and Republicans.

When Sen. Paul Wellstone died the democrats transformed his funeral into a pep rally with a perceptible overtone of “aren’t we so awesome we’re going to kick those other guys’ asses.” It turned out to be the wrong thing to do and it polarized the country. It doesn’t seem to me that they seek to blame conservatives and Republicans for this, but they’d much rather the whole thing never get brought up again. And if they could find a way to blame conservatives and Republicans, they would.

When it was time to confront Saddam Hussein about something, they decided to play it off like it was President Bush trying to avenge his daddy’s assassination attempt…conveniently forgetting it’s been time to confront Saddam Hussein about something, oh, every three or four years since 1991. This time, the intel said Hussein had to be dealt with for good, and they decided to make this look like a “lie.” It turned out to be the wrong thing to do and it really, really polarized the country. A lot. You know who they’d like to blame for this.

When Republicans tried to make an issue about the developing financial problems with Fannie and Freddie, the democrats stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled “I can’t hear you la la la.” That turned out to be the wrong thing to do. It didn’t polarize the country because it was a bunch of boring financial stuff…but it did break the country.

When New Orleans was flooded they blamed the President. It turned out to be the wrong thing to do and it polarized the country.

When they won the House of Representatives and the Senate they put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge. That was wrong, and it polarized the country.

When it turned out democrat voters were evenly split between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they spent all summer of ’08 trying to decide the matter through their “super-delegates,” none of whom wanted to be on record going on either direction on this. It turned out to be the wrong thing to do. It didn’t polarize the country but it certainly polarized the democrats.

And then there’s Barack Obama. In my living memory, I struggle to remember the last time a presidential candidate trashed the incumbent so thoroughly, in such bad taste, with such a consistency that, before every speech, you knew with absolute certainty what was going to be discussed ad nauseum. “FaPoBuAd” became our token word of choice to abbreviate the “failed policies of the Bush administration,” which quickly found a permanent home on the Obama Speech Bingo card. Well, at the beginning of 2011 it has become painfully clear that our country’s problems were not due to the FaPoBuAd. Inventing this boogeyman was the wrong thing to do. It was a big mistake; not so much from the perspective of the interests of the Obama campaign, but for the continuing survival and welfare of the country.

It polarized us, big time.

Am I reciting the history of the last decade or so unfairly? Making something up that didn’t happen? Leaving something out that might change things? Forming the wrong take on any of it?

Let me know.

In the meantime, these assclowns should never be given credit for healing any divisions about anything ever again. Not until such time as they really do.

Somebody please let the Nobel Prize Committee know…

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes and Washington Rebel.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!