Karl Rove underscores one of President Obama's least attractive features, one which explains why he so roils the nation's anger, provokes its consternation and deepens its divides. The multitudes who find his unprecedented push towards Statism and government hegemony objectionable, and moreover who don't want to pay taxes or interest on burgeoning debt to support it, oppose his aggressive overreaching because.... they intend evil.
No honest differences are possible with Mr. Obama. He will impugn the motives of any who disagree with him. As he told the AP, his opponents want to "let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity." His agenda "isn't a partisan feeling . . . [it]isn't a Democratic or Republican idea. It's patriotism." To disagree with him is unpatriotic. That's to be expected from Republicans, whom Mr. Obama says stand for "thinly veiled social Darwinism . . . [that is] antithetical to our entire history."
Mr. Obama will build entire edifices on top of one fake premise, all dressed up in one big phony assumption... He warned that if the GOP's "cuts . . . were to be spread out evenly across the budget," then "Alzheimer's and cancer and AIDS" research would be slashed, 10 million college students denied assistance, and "thousands" of researchers and teachers "could lose their jobs." But Republicans don't cut across the board. Instead, their focus is on waste, duplication, programs that do not work, and on reform.President Obama's vision of omniscient, omnipotent government that accumulates and dispenses national resources on the basis of fairness--as if politicians and bureaucrats are best suited to judging what fairness entails--is noxious enough. In addition, we unfairly suffer the sting of his demagogic lash as the nation's economy languors, its liberties are confiscated and its finances deteriorate.
Rove's article is well worth reading as it highlights the President's facility with saying one thing while doing another. Viz.,
Among Mr. Obama's more appealing 2008 campaign lines were his pledge not "to pit Red America against Blue America" and his promise to "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."
Mr. Obama gave into that temptation the moment he was inaugurated. His harsh attacks, angry misrepresentations and outright falsehoods are light years away from the message of unity and post-partisanship that propelled him into the Oval Office.
Mr. Romney ... should remind Americans of Mr. Obama's lofty words from his 2008 acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in Denver. There he said, "If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."Among other ways, he has pitted Red America against Blue America in his stimulus bill and subsequent jobs initiatives, which are thinly veiled transfers of Red State resources to Blue State shortfalls caused by excessive spending, taxation, cronyism and corruption. There is no consideration or magnanimity in him towards those whose opinions of fairness differ from his.
Mr. Obama attacked such a strategy then. Lacking any fresh ideas or a record to run on, it's the strategy he's adopted now.
Though "revolutionary" is the word that best captures his essence, "partisan" is a close second. Come to think of it, both words can be rolled into a third: "lawyer."
That pretty well describes the President, and many if not most graduates from America's prestige law schools, whether they become civil rights attorneys, corporate lawyers, tort litigators, or community organizers.