“I’m the first one to confess that the spirit that I brought to Washington, that I wanted to see instituted, where we weren’t constantly in a political slugfest . . . I haven’t fully accomplished that. Haven’t even come close in some cases . . . My biggest disappointment is that we haven’t changed the tone in Washington as much as I would have liked.”
— President Obama on “60 Minutes,” Sept. 23
Comments
Jeff, you remind me of the bully who finally gets smacked hard by someone tired of being picked on. Republicans from the beginning were out to destroy Obama, as Mitch McConnell goal was to make Obama a one term Presisent. This isn't 2004 where John Kerry was swift boated having his military record distorted without replying back to all the lies, especially from a man whose daddy pulled strings to get into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid being drafted to serve in Vietnam, and then goes AWOL his last year in the Guard.
Wah, wah, wah, wah wah. Time for a diaper change Jeff.
please: black is white, up is down in jacoby world. The Republicans have turned into the most divisive party in modern American history. Obama tried repeatedly to reach out to them and they were determined to oppose him at all costs, even on things they previously supported.
My hypothesis that this Jeff Jacoby is just a bot set up by the Globe to generate page hits is strengthened by idiotic articles like this.
This comment has been removed.
Grow up, Jeff. Your boy Mittens is going down in flames and all you can do is sit and watch the inferno. Maybe Fat Boy Christie will make you happier-in 2016.
Great column Jeff and Happy New Year to you and your family.
Let's just "Hope" that this "Great Divider" is sent packing back to Chicago next January.
Wow, even for you, this weak. As previously mentioned, Senator McConnell articulated the GOP game palan as he clearly as he could: "Our number one goal is to make Obama a one-term president". Not the economy, the wars, not healthcare, dumping the president was their paramount goal. The president tried engagement and was rebuffed at every turn. Your column, like most of them, is delusional. Check out David Brooks' column from yesterday for an example of a reality-based conservative commentator.
I have a nearly 100-year old relative who told me who he voted for president and why...."Give him a chance.." The republican leadership made it a no. 1 priority to get him out office, and to NOT COMPROMISE. Did they give him a chance? I am going to give him my vote again in a few weeks. The rise of the new republican party as we have it today was like a swelling pimple: It recently burst, to expose the pus that it is really made of. Gov. Romney, Paul Ryan, Scott Brown....their fetidness is plain obvious. Jeff Jacoby did his job writing this column....thats what he is supposed to do. but it plain stinks. Z
This comment has been removed.
What a joke, Jeff. There is nothing in American history to compare to the Republicans' monolithic obstruction of the past four years, their only goal to bring down Obama. Repubicans flushed their own legitimacy down the toilet, abandoning their responsibility to help fashion policy, sacrificing it in the pursuit of power. Whatever political gain they have garnered has come at the expense of the American economy, the American political system and the American people. Looking at recent polling numbers, it seems a majority of Americans recognize this and understand it, and are ignoring the obfuscation brought forth by the kind of pablum you've laid out here. The main question everyone should be asking -- recenttly brought forth by a more legitimate and insightful columnist who actually takes the time to think instead of spewing automatic talking points, EJ Dionne of the Post -- is what kind of government we will have if Obama is re-elected. Will Republicans come to the table to actually govern? Or will they continue their destructive morality play just to further their own interests? As Jonathan Capehart noted in the Post, Karl Rove's PAC is becoming less interested in funneling his dirty money toward helping Romney win, and more interested in supporting Republican Congressional candidates. Why? Because if they win the majority and set the legislative agenda, they will become great clients for the GOP lobbying machine. It's all about the Benjamins.
Jacoby has now completely detached from reality, which might elicit sympathy in some quarters, but he's laughing all the way to the bank. It's clear that he's longer writing for the Globe's readership but for the audience that reads him in syndication where he can pretend to have some stature and credibility using the Globe name.
"Obama is the great divider" but this column is one of a long list that does not contribute to that I suppose. Obama must sit up at night thinking how he might yet divide this nation more. Perhaps by coming up with division-creating policies as a Healthcare policy on a national level, budget policy (to mitigate and reverse the effects of near collapse of the economy when he entered office), and so on. It's not the man who is dividing the nation, it's the reactions to what seems to be reasonable policy. Policy I might add that reasonable people may not agree with, but not so far out as some of the real dividers would have us believe (e.g., people saying Obama is a socialist, apologizes for American values, is not a US citizen, and so on -- the usual junk that has nothing to do with anything).
This comment has been removed.
Do they really pay you to just write down the stuff Michael Graham says on the radio?
This comment has been removed.
The responses to this insipid piece of "writing" have brightened my day and given me some hope for this country. Thank you everybody.
my thoughts exactly !
Gosh, reading all the anti Jacoby blather is almost as much fun as reading his column. The dander of the lefties has been inflamed here, because they know that Jeff is right. Obama had no intentions of working with Republicans and exhibiting serious leadership. He took his victory in 2008 as a license to force left wing policies sown the throat of the country. As he famously said to Eric Cantor, "We won".
Contrat this to President Bush. Immediately upon entering office, President Bush sought to work with both parties He worked with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind. He won bipartisan support for his tax cuts of 2001, and for all the various military actions that came after 9-11. President Obama has never done anything approaching the level of calm presdential leadership that was the hallmark of Bush II.
Rather, he scolded the the Supreme Court in a state of the Union address. He invited Paul Ryan to a speech, and lambasted his effort at entitlement reform. And now, in the thick of the campaign, his gutter level attacks are the height of desperation: Romney causing a woman's death, for example.
Clearly, Obama is warrior for himself, and the rest of us be damned.
Richmond12, you're piggybacking on Jacoby's comedy routine when you make claims about the "calm presdential leadership that was the hallmark of Bush II." Yeah, he was calm all right, to the point of incompetence and criminal negligence about al-Qaeda, as former NY Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald recently described: "The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible. But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day. In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real." [ See "The Deafness Before the Storm" at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html ]
MECN-You are free to acribe any conspiracy theories you wish. But the point I was making was about the level of presidential timbre between the two men. Obama has none, and Bush had plenty. Bush had many occasions where he worked with the other side, and he never stooped to the gutter to attack those who disagree with him. Obama's lack of executive experience shows loud and clear in his behavior and his demeanor. Of course, your reply to this will be more anti Bush conspiracy screeds.....
Qusetion: Whay are Republicans fanatically religious? Answer: It allows them to offer you a prayer if you are in need, rather than a dollar, which also makes it seem virtuous to be a greedy Republican.
Full of it, Jacoby. Just absolutely full of it, and right up the "states' rights" line (coded, that's "let's blame the liberals and noisy minorities"), demonizing Obama for the chasm in American political life. When the Senate majority leader simply announces his #1 priority as a Senator is making sure this is a one-term president, he throws away a few centuries of how the system is supposed to work. Republicans simply refused to debate, discuss, or consider. That was and is their strategy. Make the entire situation go as badly as possible then blame Obama in 2012. Go ahead and play along. Wonder what you'll write in 2016? Oh, never mind... we'll just listen to other conservatives repeat their slogans then expect a slightly watered down version, by you, written for the Globe.
This comment has been removed.
This column is so off base it is absurd. When Obama took office, Obama tried the bi-partisan approach for many months. The Republicans openly stated in Congress (1) that they would block any Obama initiative so that he would not get credit for it and (2) that their sole goal was to prevent his re-election. Only when faced with the mid-term election and the prospect of a Republican house did he -- under pressure from his supporters, most Democrats and even some moderate Republicans -- use the majority to Congress to push through some of his legislation, such as the healthcare act. Of course, that then made the opposition even more intractable and Washington entered paralysis. From the quote above, he is clearly being honest that he still longs for a time when the two parties can reasonably work together to make improvements for the American people.
People like YOU are the dividors.
You want to see "division", just imagine what things would be like if, heaven forbid, Romney were to actually win. If this were to occur Romney's teaparty politics would bring this country close to civil war. Years of ideological partisan politics by Republicans have torn apart this country's social fabric. If Republicans wanted Ayn Rand, John Wayne-style gun toting--what they euphemistically call "rugged individualism"-- they certainly got it. Republicans are now reaping what they've sown: you can't go on doing "willie horton's", or "swiftboating" without consequences.
If Obama had to cave on all of his principles just to "heal" the rift in politics, then no I don't want him to do that. Go back and look at all the concessions he has made to crazy Republican demands on his major policies and then look at how few concessions Republicans made for him. Then get back to us on who's the divider.
Jacoby is the great divider. He has spread more misinformation about Democrats than anybody else on the Globe staff. Obama has made more of an effort to be bi-partisan than the Republicans have in years. Consider Dick Cheney and his attacks through his staff on Joseph Wilson.
Ah, Cheney's staff had nothing to do with Joe Wilson.
Obama bent over to the point of spineless trying to find compromises with Republicans. Where exactly did that get him? Absolutely nowhere.
really? proof?
"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy," Yet, how many GOPers STILL voted no? I believe it was 66. When Obama wanted the Bush rates kept for all but the top bracket, the GOP still said no, because, well, if Steve Forbes doesn't get to keep his taxes low, neither does anybody else. he took the public option out of Obamacare.
Jeff, you and the republican narrative on this topic are way off base. Obama hasn't divided the nation. The Republican Party led by Fox News has led the charge on creating division since before Obama was officially sworn in.
And who can forget the infamous "You Lie" by Republican Joe Wilson. Absolutely Pathetic!
Then all one has to do is take a look at democrat gatherings: plenty of diversity. GOP: homogeniously white.
GOP: homogeniously white. -just like MSNBC.