We touched on this last week, but Marco Rubio has been working on this problem for months now. If you didn’t hear his quote from last night, here it is:
OK, no surprise to us. We know that Obama divides on purpose, and that he actively seeks to pit one group against another. But I think Marco misses something here.
Look at what he says again:
“He deliberately divides Americans against each other for purposes of political gain,” Rubio said.
“If you look at this White House, they never pass up an opportunity to pit one group of Americans against another for purposes of improving his electoral chances. Time and again, whether it’s one group of Hispanics against another, men against women, rich against poor, he is constantly looking for opportunities to tell one group of Americans that they would be better off if another group of Americans were worse off, and I think while that’s common in politics, it’s not just Obama, it’s common in politics, but I think what’s really sad is he had a chance to be different.”
Rubio may be correct that “pit(ting) one group of Americans against another” is common in politics, but common with whom? Progressives/Liberals, of course. That’s their brand of politics, and it’s one that Obama uses with their implicit blessing:
- What else would you call the (alleged) 1% against the (even more alleged) 99%?
- What about the Catholic Church and her followers vs. the “I want free condoms and abortifacients” crowd?
- Of course, we recently had the “Obama & gay marriage” thing, as well as
- Voter ID laws that Obama’s Department of Justice is fighting tooth-and-nail.
- And the ongoing battle over energy in the country.
Do all of THOSE topics divide people? Absolutely. I’d put Obama’s Gestapo-ish EPA among the absolute worst offenders, choosing enviro-weenies over the country time-and-again.
And now you have this utter disregard of the law which is breath-taking.
Charles Krauthammer actually summed it up pretty well over the weekend:
“Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process is simple constitutional decency. This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say months ago ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.’ Well, I have news for the president: The laws remain on the books, they haven’t changed”.
So Rubio had it right, as far as he went. But Obama is intent on going much further than that, and I wouldn’t put anything past him now.
I need to point out that Rubio’s plan isn’t the greatest, he advocates making illegals legal if they join the military or graduates college. The only way they can graduate college is to be here illegally until they do. Do you really want illegals serving in our military? The majority are only here for what we can provide for them, they have no loyalty to the United States whatsoever, if they did they wouldn’t be waving their not so grand ole flag.
As far as divisiveness, Bush was just as divisive, not by pitting different groups against each other by by pitting half the country against the other, “either you’re for us or you’re for Al Quida”, if you don’t agree with the invasion of Iraq then you’re unAmerican. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone told me to leave the country and if I had a dollar for every time I told those same people they were the unAmerican ones to try to deny me my freedom of speech I’d be in the 1%.
It’s ironic that during Bush’s term, those who didn’t agree with govt were told to leave the country and now under Obama, those who do agree with govt are told to leave the country.
Here’s a totally random thought, do you realize that if Gore had been elected that we wouldn’t have had Obama?
I’d argue rather stridently against Bush being anything even approaching “equally divisive”, my friend.
The war in Iraq ended up being divisive, but does anyone (other than the Daily Kos crowd) believe that Bush went to war for political GAIN?
Even in retrospect, the only logical explanation was that Bush felt that the War was the best way to defend the country, and the personal political cost to himself could go hang.
Additionally, Bush went so far as to make huge political overtures to the Left, which was his attempt (foolish though it was) at trying to offer olive branches and be IN-clusive, quite the opposite of Obama. “No Child Left Behind”, “Medicare Part D” and “Amnesty” were just 3 examples.
Bush deliberately backed such liberal programs (which drove me nuts) as outreach, so you could hardly call those efforts *divisive*, unless you define it as he ended up dividing himself from his own base.
Obama has done nothing of the sort. He has been virtually 100% partisan with every policy, and thus deliberately divisive.
Bush certainly did enough things that aggravated me no end, but he’s not even in the same hemisphere as Obama.
Bush only divided the country not segments of the country, so that’s less bad or divisive? Bush was more cunning about it, not blatant like Obozo. I’ve made no secret that I detested George Bush, probably not to the degree that I detest Obama, they both, as all politicians, did and do what serves their own personal agenda, not the American people.
What you need to blame Bush for is the Patriot Act, Medicare Part D is small potatoes compared. His stance on amnesty was not a go along to get along situation, he wanted it himself and don’t forget, he wanted the bailouts also, they began on his watch. Now tell me again, the difference between Bush and Obama? Bush set the stage for Obama.
Almost forgot, Bush also wanted to go ahead on his own to defeat Saddam just like Obama and Syria.
For a real comparison, look at Iraq and Libya.
Bush spent months trying to build up support and laying out his case for Iraq.
In Libya, however, Obama didn’t even tell Congress; he just did it.
If Bush had done that, he’d have been pilloried. But with Obama, the media didn’t say “boo”, and Congress didn’t scream like they should have.
You’ve made a valid point and thanks for discretely correcting me on my Syria mistake, it was Libya.
The only reason there was any screaming with Bush is because only liberals scream loudly, conservatives swear silently to themselves which is much, much worse.
Obama wants to defeat Syria?
No. What I was trying to relay was that Obama wants to do things on his own the same way Bush would have liked to, making the two not so different.
We’ll have to disagree about Bush, Phoebes. He wasn’t my favorite prez ever by a long shot, but he doesn’t hold a candle to the $@!*&! who sits behind the desk today.
Bush set the stage for Obama primarily due to the way the media (successfully) made Bush into a caricature. The man had plenty of his own flaws, but they turned him into Bushitler.
Re: the Patriot Act, yeah, I hated that, too, and should have included it above. Amnesty was a two-fer: the libs would like it, and Bush wanted to use it. He should have known the conservatives would hate it, and they hung it around his neck.
A truly cunning guy would never, ever have done it.
I wish Bush WAS cunning. Clinton was cunnning, and thusly loved by his base. If Bush was cunning, he was the dumbest cunning guy ever.
Bush ended up being divisive because of his lack of cunning; Obama is divisive because he picks things that are CREATED to be divisive.
Consider it the difference between manslaughter and homicide: they both kill ya’, but the 1st guy did it deliberately.
Again, not trying to change your mind on Bush (doubt that I could, actually). But my contempt for Obama climbs higher with his every utterance.
Again you make a valid point, maybe cunning isn’t a word I should have used to describe Bush but his handlers sure were.
“Obama is divisive because he picks things that are CREATED to be divisive.”
Excellent point and a good analogy.
See, lookie here, I’m open to new points of view, who’da thunk it.
Hate, hate, hate to argue with friends, so I just prefer to “politely discuss”. ..
AND….Did Bush ever tell you to leave if you disagreed? Did you ever actually hear with your own ears Bush tell people to leave the country? If he said it, you can easily finditon the internet.
Hispanics in the military aren’t loyal? I doubt that. I have relationships with many people from different continents who are very proud to have earned citizenship. If an immigrant is here and is working towards citizenship, he probably knows more about history and government and has more appreciation of what this country offers than either you or I…well, maybe not more than me, but I am unique.
In fact, when hispanic individuals feel like an American is going to be something more than a gringo pig, they are a VERY warm culture, much more loving than ours.
Lastly, we are talking about Rubio’s plan. He is addressing the young people who were brought here as children, raised here…Their lives are here. If they have not been convicted of breaking any laws, graduated or served in the military, they should not have to live in fear every day. People like that are GOOD CITIZENS. I can tell you living in fear is a HORRIBLE curse for someone to live under..
JustTurnRight–I think this wonderful person is a plant! LOL
You’re really good at misconstruing everything I say or attempt to say. Maybe I’m holding my mouth wrong today.
As far as you and immigrants having more knowledge than I, I doubt that, I guess that makes me unique also. 😀
You are obviously pro amnesty but whether or not they’ve been here since childhood they are still illegal. Do you feel the same way about the children of illegals who were born here?
Illegals in the military, they’re still illegal, they are adults who should leave and get the here by applying for citizenship before they swim across. I also said the majority of illegals not those who have already received their citizenship.
if we go along with Rubio’s idea of amnesty for college graduates just think about the impact that will have on our own American children getting into college, they are already being pushed aside for illegals, it will be far worse.
If I’m a plant then I’m a beautiful rose.
OK..I get it now. You are correct. I was misconstruing you. I apoliogize. I am not pro-amnesty. Absolutely opposed to it. I am not even saying that Rubio’s plan is the best plan, but it is the best plan I have heard so far and I do think that, while it is agreed that they are here illegally, it is equally true that it is through no fault of their own.
Just like with every other group, the quiet whole is often stereotyped by the loud few. It is the same case withmost illegal aliens. Just as Rubio said, who of us, if we were watching our children starve and KNEW we could not provide for the where we are, would be held back by a paper.
I am not saying that to make it right. I am saying it is so.
People should not be allowed to stay here illegally. We NEED to secure the border first but Obama and the LIBs refuse to let that happen. Meanwhile, a 6 year old child was arrested as an illegal alien (I heard that on Fox).
I happen to like Rubio’s plan. I do not consider it amnesty. Anyone here illegally that does not fit the appropriate categories should be deported IMMEDIATELY!
Regarding the knowing thing, I thought you were an idiot….but I have already said that I was grossly misinterpretting you. Again, please forgive me.
I am quite sure about the ROSE part though…that was a genuine Southern thing, in case you didn’t pick up the accent.
I live in the South and there are many southern accents that I have a hard time understanding. 😀 I forgive you.
I agree with Rubio and yourself, I would do anything to make sure my child didn’t suffer but that doesn’t make it right. There are billions and billions, if not trillions of dollars running thru Mexico, Mexico is not poor, the people are, why don’t they stay and fight for their better life there. By the same token, I wonder how many of us are going to fight for our country when Obama finishes sending it down the sewer.
I don’t view the minor children of illegals as criminals but there should be some repercussions to the parents and the parents are responsible for the consequences to their children.
I agree with everything you said. I just think that the repercussions to the children should not be being taken from the only place they have every known and sent to a country in which they may not even speak the language.
Considering that the requirements are so stringent, I would LOVE to figure a way to have them stay and create and implement a policy to ensure that.
In fact, it could be an exhange. Every ILLEGAL immigrant who fits those requirements can stay, and we will ship back to that person’s home country one of the lazy, whining, suckling-at-the-govt-teet “citizens” who think the country owes them.
Almost forgot your initial point, partner.
Yeah, I’m not super enthisiastic about Rubio’s plan yet, either.
Any form of Amnesty leaves me cold (see my previous comment). I acknowledge there are folks that are here through no fault of their own….and gee, that’s too bad.
But if I break into your house and leave my kid, I don’t expect you to raise him for me.
I try to stay open-minded about amnesty in general, but I have a problem with the topic right out of the box.
Time for some closure on this one, at least as far as this aspect of it goes.
Bush wasn’t perfect, by any stretch, …BUT:
Obama stinks on ice.
“In fact, it could be an exhange. Every ILLEGAL immigrant who fits those requirements can stay, and we will ship back to that person’s home country one of the lazy, whining, suckling-at-the-govt-teet “citizens” who think the country owes them.
Now you’re talking. lol I knew we could find some common ground somewhere.
Pingback: Obama in 2007 (video): President Demagogue strikes again | Two Heads are Better Than One