Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

Saturday, June 27, 2009

The Toxicity of President Obama

Congressman Mark Kirk was an up and comer in the state of Illinois. He represents the well to do area of the North Shore of Chicago. (for full disclosure he's the rep to my parents) In 2008, Kirk, while targeted by Democrats, won fairly easily in his re election campaign. He's been on the short list as potential GOP candidates for both the U.S. Senate campaign and even the Governorship. All that talk may have ended yesterday when Kirk crossed the line and voted in favor of cap and trade. He has now done something sacreligious in Republican circles.

Has Kirk's vote signalled that he's not interested in running statewide and will likely run for re-election? Is there any chance the IL GOP's conservative base would forgive this vote and work for a Kirk candidacy?

Or has Kirk sealed his political future in Illinois politics with a yes vote on the Democrats' "Cap and Trade"?


The conservative blogosphere is already in full demonization mode of Kirk and the other seven Republicans that voted in favor of this bill. Of course, all of this happened on Friday evening. Wait until Monday when conservative talk radio gets a chance to have their say about the Republican turncoats. By the time talk radio is through with them, they will all become toxic in Republican circles. Arlen Specter has already had to switch parties after he dared to cross over and support the stimulus package.

So much for the president's calls that he would "transcend politics" and become post partisan. In not quite six months, he has become so polarizing that the opposition daring to support any of his domestic agenda is met with political death. Spector knows this all too well. Congressman Mark Kirk is about to find this out first hand. For a president that was supposed to be able to reach out and bring people together, President Obama has become remarkably toxic in some circles.

16 comments:

tsiya said...

The polarization process has been underway for decades and is now coming to a head. Are you really surprised?
The Constitution was intended to limit the friction we now see, but few respect the Constitution these days. The "go along to get along" approach of so called GOP 'leaders" shows that they are more addicted to power than they care about the nation.
They were warned, now they will pay the price.

mike volpe said...

I don't speak gibberish, so you will have to be more clear. Did you just say that the Republicans are addicted to power, as if that's only on their side of the aisle? What price will Reps. pay for all of this?

Anonymous said...

How is it Obama's fault that Republicans throw each other to the wolves?

They always have.

Jake said...

So if conservatives freak out if a Republican supports anything Obama proposes, and it's *his* fault for being so polarizing? The Right decided to become the "party of no" all on its own--they don't even vote for things after Obama's already compromised on them. That's their own pathology.

VinceP1974 said...

These bizzare leftists have got to be the most irrational people around.

Tsiya thinks the Constitution was designed to limit friction....

Well yeah it was... BY RESTRAINING THE FEDERAL GOVT so that people in the vast country could live under their own rules and not have rules they dont want be forced on them by the Federal Govt. That is what enabled all these different people to live together.

But that's changing now.. The Tryannical Democrats are power mad and forcing this country to its knees.

Dont talk to us about prices, tsiya. The way I see it, and from your picture, your generation has RUINED this country. I despise people like you you had no right to destroy what was given to you and destroy it you did.

Pis off.

William said...

You are holding Obama responsible for the choice of the GOP to demonize one of their own for crossing the aisle.

Amazing!

mike volpe said...

Boy, some liberals have a short memory. I seem to remember the Democrats making the political environment very toxic when Bush was in office and then turning around and saying that Bush had broken his promise to be a "united not a divider".

I am not blaming Obama for anything but his ludicrous assertion that he would "transcend politics" and be "post partisan". I don't really care if any Reps vote for his agenda. I do however care when politicians engage in political fairy tales to get elected. I will continue to point out that in fact Obama is currently governing in exactly the opposite manner of the way he promised.

Reagan governed with the opposite legislature and still got his agenda through. Clinton was able to move his agenda forward with a Republican Congress. No one that voted with those presidents got purged.

That's a sign. Yes, I think it is a sign of a politician that has limited appeal when their philosophy is entirely and in wholesale rejected by the opponents. Reagan got his tax cuts through with a Democratic congress. How did that happen exactly?

If Obama had run on cap and trade, stimulus, and massive new health care that would be one thing. He ran on hope and change and transcending politics. You can't transcend politics when your whole entire agenda is totally rejected by the other side.

William said...

"I think it is a sign of a politician that has limited appeal when their philosophy is entirely and in wholesale rejected by the opponents."

Wrong. Your piece details some Republicans voting WITH Obama. You have contradicted yourself.

It is not about Democrats blaming Bush for dividing and then stooping to the same level. [as you have]

Its about being better than that and taking responsibility for your party rather than pointing fingers and whining.

Something you are quite clearly failing to do.

mike volpe said...

Yeah, he's had one bill go through both houses, and another go through the House. So far, he's had 11, 11, reps vot with him. He's had a lot more dems voting against him. I'm not sure what point you think you're making but to claim that because eight out of nearly two hundred voted with him means that his philosophy isn't being rejected wholesale by the opposition is patently ridiculous. Again, Clinton and Reagan did their best work work when the opposition was in power. Obama would get nothing through if the Reps were in power.

Jake said...

'Boy, some liberals have a short memory. I seem to remember the Democrats making the political environment very toxic when Bush was in office and then turning around and saying that Bush had broken his promise to be a "united not a divider".'

Boy, some conservatives have no memory at all. It was the Republicans who made the political environment toxic in the Bush years--or have you forgotten the way Democrats were excluded from meetings the minority party usually attended, and the way lobbyists were forbidden to work with Democrats? And it was the Republicans who created today's toxic environment during the Clinton years, when they tried (and failed) to take down a president they didn't like. Some of us lived through that, you know--you don't get to rewrite it yet.

William said...

"Obama would get nothing through if the Reps were in power."

Wrong again.

If the Republicans were in power Obama's policies would be more centrist. Political reality would demand it and he would get plenty passed. - albeit in a diluted form.

Question for you in a future article.
Why has U.S politics degenerated into such a partisan gong-show?

mike volpe said...

It seems that everything is Republicans fault. Yes, it was the reps that poisoned the partisan waters during the Bush years. Now, they are again poisoning the waters. Give me a break.

Obama can barely get his agenda passed with full support of the Congress. Now, you think he would get anything done without support in the Congrees.

Anonymous said...

Considering how increasingly extremist the Republican party has become since 1980, and the fact that its been reduced to less than 30% of the electorate, the only bipartisanship that really matters at this point is between liberal and conservative democrats.

mike volpe said...

First of all, the president is attempting to increase the size government on a scale that would make FDR blush and you call the Reps extremists. Please. Second, who do you think the 44 that voted against C&T were if not Conservative Dems. That's not much of a compromise.

Anonymous said...

Sorry.

I don't speak gibberish.

Your original piece was a poorly conceived piece of partisan nonsense.

I dont care about the Republican / Democrat who's worse debate.

I care about you blaming someone [Obama] for the actions of someone else [in this case the Republicans.]

mike volpe said...

I still don't speak gibberish. This isn't about who's worse or better.

Let me see if I understand you. You don't care about partisanship and then make this purely partisan statement,

" care about you blaming someone [Obama] for the actions of someone else [in this case the Republicans.]"

That takes an awful lot of chutzpah.

I also wouldn't care about Obama becoming so hyper partisan if he didn't make his campaign theme exactly the opposite.


This is about a president, who as a candidate, said he would transcend politics and be post partisan, and has turned out to be the most highly partisan president we've had after only six months.

Nothing poorly conceived, you just happen to disagree. There's a huge difference.