Polarization of parties: President Obama's makeover

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2011 12:39 a.m.

    The filibuster stopped democrats except for the brief period when they had 60. Those 60 however is in name (or uh...number) only when it included Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Liberman... the first three are either conservative or are from really conservative states. Lieberman... he's a schill for the insurance industry in Connecticut. Between the four of them, everything had to be severely watered down in order to pass.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Oct. 16, 2011 11:42 p.m.

    Pitting Americans against Americans is a disgusting way to get votes, and is decaying our country. Thou shalt not covet. The rich millionaire Obama needs to find ways of improving our country.

  • care4usa Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 16, 2011 9:05 p.m.

    Would someone please explain why the Republicans are so powerful that they are able to obstruct a Democrat President and majorities in both branches of Congress for the first two years of Mr. Obama's presidency? Oh by the way, the Democrats controlled both branches of Congress for the last two years of Mr. Bush's term. Not to mention the fact that the Republicans currently only control the House of Representatives. Sure seems illogical that they are seriously that they and only they are responsible for the gridlock in Washington.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 16, 2011 5:16 p.m.


    The Deseret News won't let me respond to your response. Let it suffice that you and I know that Obama and Occupy are on the same team. I wish I could say more but the DN has decided not to include reasonable debate on this forum.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2011 12:44 p.m.

    George W had No Child Left Behind. that's it? not much of a piece of legislation you should be trumpeting as a Bush administration success.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Oct. 16, 2011 12:02 p.m.

    "...Congressional Republicans were obstructionists made obstructionism identical with Republicanism...".


  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 16, 2011 9:52 a.m.


    You couldn't be more wrong about the Occupy group and Obama. TARP and the bailout was enacted under Bush. Many Dems are fed up with Obama because he has allowed Wall Street to profit immensely from the bailouts. The ratio of CEO pay to that of entry level workers is now 400-to-1.

    And if you think things would suddenly become tranquil and prosperity would return to all under a President Romney, you would be mistaken. Romney would be seen as an out of touch rich guy who made his fortune by laying people off. That's exactly what the nation needs, as economic forces push the US rapidly toward third world levels of income distribution.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 16, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    The president is mired in the mess that is our political reality. It will be worse for the next president, because it's just going to get worse in general.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Oct. 16, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    This article can't be serious. Blaming Obama for polarization is ridiculous. The minute Obama was elected the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, announced publicly that his number one goal was to make Obama a one term president, and the conservatives have done everything in their power to prevent Democratic, or bipartisan victories. In fact the biggest complaint against the president has been a health care plan that is Republican in origin, coming from leading GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. President, Obama, has also been castigated for his Tarp program, and stimulus packages which were started by George Bush!

    I think the polarization has come from an extreme right conservative movement that gets its world view from corporate funded conservative think tanks, and has moved so far from the center that it has lost touch with all reality.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Oct. 16, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    You know Michael, sometimes the right thing just has to be done despite the petulent reaction of the foks involved. Another truth worth learning Michael..reality has a liberal bias.

  • 1Infidel APO, AE
    Oct. 16, 2011 4:44 a.m.

    Mr Obama's attempt to portray any interest in bipartisan solutions is a big lie, as is this disingenous article. He was "the Won" from day 1, and has never approached bi-partisanship, transparency, or truth in gov't.

    Every week the employment figures and inflation figures are quietly re-adjusted mid-week. The press largely ignores the tinkering, and the impact and consequences.

    The Census bureau overestimated the numbers of same-sex households in America by 39%. Hope(ful) on the administration's part - obvious. Reality? Not in this administration.

    The amount of fraud and waste in the, wait, not DoD, but in the entitlements and social justice arenas have skyrocketed under Obama. Quiet redistribution of wealth? Pigford, anyone? Reparations to black "farmers" who never farmed more than daisies in a window box?

    Not two months after allowing the Bush tax cuts to be continued for "two more years" Mr. Obama was threatening them. He cannot be bargained with. He does not negotiate in good faith. There is no attempt at bi-partisanship from his side. The article itself is a partisan attempt to smear the other side with equal responsibility for Mr. Obama's born-to-fail "progressive" socialist ideology.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 16, 2011 12:06 a.m.

    "has seen the rise of the tea party and occupy wall street." Yes, Obama had something to do with both. The tea party came about because of the insane spending of this congress and this administration. The occupy wallstreet group came about by community organizers and Obama himself. Both groups polar opposites yet both groups a clear result of this president.