Obama's outrageous comments

So by your Neanderthal racial theory, "Latino" is a race?
And similarly, you equate "Latino" with "Democrat", thus partisanship?
Truly disgusting.

I'm glad alan consistently posts ridiculously ignorant statements, so everyone can clearly see the type of person he is.

So you are affirming that you think "Latino" is a race? Or that Latino = Democrat? Or that all three statements are true?

"Take partisanship out of politics"...?

How would that be possible? "Partisan" comes from the word "party," as in "political party."

"Latino" is not a race. Unless Argentines are somehow ethnically related to Mexicans, and Guatemalans to Equatorial Guineans.

To quote the late, great petrzitz: Tool.

Obama as president is head of the Democratic Party. He's electioneering and getting out a campaign base. This is expected and customary and I don't see anything wrong here.

I think this proves that LICC, besides being in bed with Glen Beck, is also a bigot.

badges...badges...we don't need no stink'in badges.

obama is the first post-American president.

LICC, fott wedged squarely in mouth, has returned to his sad hole

tool??

MORON

"I think this proves that LICC, besides being in bed with Glen Beck, is also a bigot."

Anyone who doesn't agree with the brilliant,intelligent, superior elitist left is a moron a bigot a racist an idiot. That game is really really old and boring.

So then it needs to be spiced up, Jersey Housewife: simp, loser, submoron, dittohead, imbecile, Mephistopheles, schlamazel, etc.

But the concept is eternally correct.

not sure about the "anyone" part juliag, but you are, in fact, a bigot/moron

why do you so resent the descriptor, when you espouse so thoroughly the esteemed philosophy described??

Thee 99 week are just about over alanhart. The bitterness is not becoming.

"not sure about the "anyone" part juliag, but you are, in fact, a bigot/moron" I must be after all you said it. What a fool wbottom, what a fool.

Yes, LIC. How sad.

Particularly given how bi-partisan the Republicans have been.

RS- Obama campaigned as a post-partisan, post-racial candidate. He now targets a specific ethnic group and characterizes his political opponents as their enemies that need to be punished. He is pandering to low-level politics and, in my opinion, lowers the esteem of the office of President.

Of course, a mindless liberal hack like steve, who can't even understand basic matters like reporting your taxable income in the year you receive it, will make whatever idiotic comments that come to his mind to argue for his inane positions.

I don't agree with bi-partisanship. When the Democrats are pushing policies damaging to the country, the Republicans should take partisan steps to stop it.

How were the Dems bipartisan? They basically said that Republicans should agree with their ultra-liberal agenda and if they don't, they are being partisan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

The leader of the regime.

"How were the Dems bipartisan? They basically said that Republicans should agree with their ultra-liberal agenda and if they don't, they are being partisan."

... you mean they did a literal remake of your friend George Bush's years, LICcomm?

I think that encouraging the populace to be engaged in the democratic process and vote is part of the job description of the president. Univision's audience is overwhelmingly Latino. Do you think he should not have addressed his audience?

But ignoring these points means that there are some people willing to turn absolutely anything into an attack on whatever doesn't neatly fit into their small, proscribed world view.

Obama never said he was post-racial or post-partisan. Others said that about him, but he says he considers himself Black and a democrat. As for the Latino thing...please. meg whitman, rick perry, marco rubio, and of both george bushes, among others, specifically targeted Latinos in ads using the word "latino", often in Spanish-language ads.

Right on LIC! That's what Stephen Colbert has been saying for months.

why do you losers insist on political postings on a real estate site. what does this have to do with real estate - there are plenty of political blogs to take your bs to.

These others called Democrats the enemies who need to be punished? You know that if any of them said that, the liberals would be calling for their heads.

Look what NPR did to Juan Williams because they didn't like his opinions.

Forget post-racial, post-patrician,post-american, obama is post-qualified. He is the least qualified person in any room he occupies.

go away - i hear redstate/free republic and fox are dying for great political commentary from fools like you go sprout your opinions there. unless you actually have something to say about real estate. who gives a s**t about juan williams he's making 2m a year and your a loser posting politics on a real estate site.

are you more qualified?

is george bush more qualified?

is sarah palin more qualified?

"Look what NPR did to Juan Williams because they didn't like his opinions."

He violated his contract, plus what he said was outright racist: "Muslims make me nervous." If it were, "Blacks make me nervous" or "Jews are moneygrubbers," you'd hear the outcry from the world.

Rightfully so, too.

"Of course, a mindless liberal hack like steve"

Actually I'm not liberal at all. I'm a Bloomberg Democrat.

"who can't even understand basic matters like reporting your taxable income in the year you receive it"

Some income is, some isn't. Dividend income is taxable when it is declared; ditto cash bonus income: as long as it is "accessible" - meaning that you have a letter stating that you'll get it and can so borrow against it - it's taxable in the year it is declared, provided it is paid by March 15 of the next year.

"will make whatever idiotic comments that come to his mind to argue for his inane positions."

Which position is that, LICC? After all, I'm not the one "living" in Long Island City.

"Actually I'm not liberal at all. I'm a Bloomberg Democrat." Are you in the trans-fat police force or the salt police.

neither julialg - he's in the 'term limits for everyone but Michael Bloomberg' police

wait, so steve - you admit that you were wrong when you said that bonus money received in Jan '11 would be taxable for 2010?

steve is for massive government spending and government programs. He clearly is a liberal.

He also is stubborn in that he makes factually incorrect statements, idiotic statements really, and then refuses to admit he is wrong. Case in point- his dumb statement that bonuses paid to you in 2011 count as your 2010 income.

Juan Williams said nothing wrong. He was fired because the far left at NPR don't like that he is not as far left as them and that he appears on Fox. He also didn't say "Muslims make me nervous." That is another steve trait- misquote people to support his wrong assertions

of course you don't live in LICC, steve - it is well over 50% non-white, and we know how you constantly denigrate it - telling us how it is 'unsafe' and 'dirty'. hmmm, sounds like you & pat buchanan are quite simpatico.

lic you are obsessing over your difference with steve re tax-treatment of bonus income, get over it

take a walk and get some fresh air

in some other neighborhood than your own!

"you admit that you were wrong when you said that bonus money received in Jan '11 would be taxable for 2010?"

No - because it is.

LICC: Juan Williams "didn't say "Muslims make me nervous."

Juan Williams: "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

What did Juan Williams say, LICC?

Jaun who????? Anyone who has a modicum of intelligence would be scared shit if they were on a plane and 5 arab looking men(19-40years old) were sitting in first class. If you say no, you're a liar.

steve, when you use quotations, that means you are repeating someone word for word. To do otherwise is misleading. Normal behavior for you. His quote in full context (which actually goes beyond what you posted) does not have the same meaning as "Muslims make me nervous."

And of course steve does not admit he is wrong. Of all the times people point out his mistaken and wrong statements, he always stays with his dumb arguments no matter that doing so makes him appear even more foolish.

"steve, when you use quotations, that means you are repeating someone word for word."

Yet again, wrong-o for LICC! SOMETIMES it means that you are repeating someone word for word, but it is also used to distinguish between speakers. If you write Juan Williams said that Muslims make me nervous it would mean that Muslims make ME, stevejhx, nervous, because I am me. Plus it's a run-on sentence.

Sorry.

And he did say that Muslims make him nervous. Try to wiggle out of it if you can. Sort of like "When does is mean is?", right?

Obama is the President of the United States. He should be careful saying from one group of Americans that another group of Americans are enemies. That is not right. We are all Americans for the citizens.

obama has come to divide. It is unfortunately apparent.

That, and higher mathematics also. He's very smart and civic-minded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY&feature=related

alanhart can you translate the commentary for us?

> How would that be possible? "Partisan" comes from the word "party," as in "political party."

This is one of the worst lapses in logic I've heard in a long time, even from steve.

"math" comes from the word "mathematics".... as in "mathematics teacher".
Does this mean that a teacher has to be a mathematics teacher? Of course not.

Just as, while, yes, partisan requires parties, that doesn't mean that because you can put two words together, you can't have one without the other.

Orange juice... doesn't mean apple juice, or plain oranges don't exist.

BTW, politics can exist without political parties (which is actually how the framers wanted it).
We could have a non-partisan mayoral race, but NYC voted against it for some strange reason.

The core of what you said is nearly correct: "partisan requires parties". This means, literally, "divisiveness requires divisions", which is Steve's point. It's like being surprised about violent violence, or Long Island City unpleasantness.

By what cut the division occurs is irrelevant to the point he made.

"surprised about violent violence, or Long Island City unpleasantness."....... Or, alanhart's jobless,joblessness.

Not so much. But you live the life of Job, the middle years ... as a Jersey Housewife.

This is Divine Logic: "math" comes from the word "mathematics".... as in "mathematics teacher".
Does this mean that a teacher has to be a mathematics teacher?

Why not say "math" comes from the word "mathematics".... as in "mathematics problem".
Does this mean that a problem has to be a mathematics problem?

Doo-doo is more than a word: "Math" comes from the Greek for "to learn." Something you ought to try.

"Orange juice... doesn't mean apple juice"

REALLY? Oh, my word! In your example, can you please identify what grammatical function is performed by the words "orange" and/or "apple"? I'll give you a hint: it's the same function as "traffic" in "traffic jam," and "dunce" in the term "dunce cap."

There can be parties without partisanship.

steve has trouble with basic logic.

Is that like kosher pork chops?

No, it's like efficient government or fair share or shared sacrifice.

"There can be parties without partisanship."

No, actually, there can't: "partisan" means "supporter of a party"; "partisanship" is the state of being a partisan.

I think you're confusing "partisanship" with "cooperation" - "cooperation" is now on the SAT logic test: Penicillin:Syphilis as Republican:Cooperation.

That's a far more complex analogy than LICC is likely to comprehend, however.

Sometimes you get what you ask for.

They say a country gets the politicians it deserves or perhaps it deserves the politicians it gets.

It is amazing how basic you need to get to reach down to steve's intelligence level.

Definition of PARTISAN: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or concern; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance.

You can have political parties without exhibiting blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance.

steve= never right and wrong again!

"steve= never right and wrong again!" He really thinks like a childish student in a marxist class trying to suck up to the professor.

LICcomm, what is your source for that highly opinionated definition?

Excellent point Steve. LICC and julia don't have the brains to understand this!

Look what NPR did to Juan Williams because they didn't like his opinions."

He violated his contract, plus what he said was outright racist: "Muslims make me nervous." If it were, "Blacks make me nervous" or "Jews are moneygrubbers," you'd hear the outcry from the world.

Rightfully so, too.

Who cares about juan? The thought police took down a brother because he dared to question the pc line.

Rick Sanchez, anyone?

Him too. The pc police nailed him. Don't ya love what ya all created alanhart?

Yes -- responsible journalism (you anti-semitic Jersey Housewife).

Aren't you the anti-semite alanhart? That's your schtick.

If you recall, I invoked the yiddish babble in explaining why you're such an utterly miserable sadsack ... and it's not just because you're a Jersey Housewife who listens to right-wing hate-radio 24/7, it's mostly because you're the modern-day incarnation of Job's middle years. But don't expect the Disney happy ending that the hebraic babble provides.

Run along little boy anti-semite alanhart. It is time to collect your 99th. What will you do next week?

Time to vote the Dems out starting with Senator Schumer. Mr Schumer is one of the biggest crooks in NYC.

Senator Schumer has a lot of influence for New York State.

He's superawesome!

Replace him with a Tea party schmuck who doesn't understand the constitution?

Merriam-Webster isn't a good enough source for left-wing liberals anymore . . .

Schumer is awful. He cared more about becoming Senate Majority Leader than what is good for NY.

Merriam-Webster is owned by Encyclopaedia Brittanica ... try quoting AMERICAN sources for a change. And read the babble every day.

alan, you are still angry at the British for Israel?

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2010/October/25%20o/Zionism%20and%20Peace%20Are%20Incompatible%20By%20Alan%20hart.htm

Zionism and Peace Are Incompatible
By Alan hart

Alan Hart speculates whether US President Barack Obama will make one last bid for peace in the Middle East by not vetoing a possible UN Security Council resolution recognizing Palestinian independence within the 1967 borders of the West Bank and Gaza.

At last somebody has said it in the most explicit way possible. The somebody also said: “The problem is Zionism and the solution is dismantling the Zionist framework and instituting a secular democracy that does not discriminate between Israelis and Palestinians.”
...

I’m so deeply offended by the latest Obama canard, that the financial crisis of 2007-2008 cost less than 1% of GDP, that I barely know where to begin. Not only does this Administration lie on a routine basis, it doesn’t even bother to tell credible lies. .And this one came directly from the top, not via minions.

On the Jon Stewart Show (starting roughly at the 1:10 mark on this segment) Obama claims the cost of this crisis will be less than 1% of GDP, versus 2.5% for the savings and loan crisis

The reason Obama makes such baldfacedly phony statements is twofold: first, his pattern of seeing PR as the preferred solution to all problems, and second, his resulting slavish devotion to smoke and mirrors over sound policy.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/10/obama-no-longer-bothering-to-lie-credibly-claims-financial-crisis-cost-less-than-sl-crisis.html

"You can have political parties without exhibiting blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance."

Like the lockstep Republicans in the House and the Senate, you mean?

LICC, you should invest in a REAL dictionary, not use the free ones of dubious repute.

And: Oh Riversider!

obama is a post-qualified, post-competent president. As long as he gives the alanharts of the country free stuff, the mindless incompetent children will scurry behind their man.

"Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'
Study conducted by researchers at UCSD, Harvard
By ERIC S. PAGE
Updated 6:28 AM PDT, Thu, Oct 28, 2010
BUZZ UP!
260retweet11digg

Getty Images
Researchers have determined that genetics could matter when it comes to some adults' political leanings.
According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, "ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4." That and how many friends you had during high school.
The study was led by UCSD's James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Scientists matched the subjects' genetic information with "maps" of their social networks. According to researchers, they determined that people "with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults." However, the, subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.
"It is the crucial interaction of two factors -- the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence -- that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.

Just Your Average Joe-bama

Weird News Photos

Child Stars: Then and Now
"These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.
The researchers also said their findings held true no matter what the ethnicity, culture, sex or age of the subjects were.

Source: Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene' | NBC San Diego"

I knew there HAD to be an explanation!

Actually the Bonobos already have this gene.

The empathic ape
I've heard some great anecdotes about certain bonobos having behaved quite extraordinarily, like the bonobo that helped an injured bird that flew into its cage.
Yes, there was a bonobo at a zoo in England who found a little bird, a starling, that had hit the window of the bonobo's enclosure. The starling was stunned, and she picked it up. She took it in her hand, and she climbed to the highest point of her enclosure, the highest tree. She wrapped her feet across the tree so that she had her hands free, and she unfolded the bird like a little toy airplane, and she sent it out, which I think is amazing, because it's not something she would do to a bonobo; that would be stupid to do that. But for a bird, that seemed to be the appropriate help. The bird didn't survive the treatment, I think, but the intentions were very good. The bonobo put itself in the position of a totally different creature, an ability that we usually assume is uniquely human.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bonobo-all-us.html

http://video.pbs.org/video/1366159555/

That Bonobos clearly didn't have the lib gene, otherwise she/he would have either expected the zookeeper to fix the starling, or complain that had she/he had the same or higher trees as the oragutans, the bird would have flew.

All of a sudden you guys believe in science? Propounded by liberal elites at Harvard no less?

So in summation, apes who had no friends in high school, and have deviant DRD4 genes, turn conservative?

There must be some way to help people so afflicted so as to prevent future tragedies of this sort. Maybe they can be assigned to one another as "special buddies" in high school, and take DRD4 reuptake inhibitors, and re-educated.

"That Bonobos clearly didn't have the lib gene, otherwise she/he would have either expected the zookeeper to fix the starling, or complain that had she/he had the same or higher trees as the oragutans, the bird would have flew."

Great comment! Also, the Bonobos would want the alpha male to give his fair share of bananas to the others. Plus, the lower status Bonobos would demand shared sacrifice and cry racism and sexism.

That Bonobos clearly didn't have the lib gene, otherwise she/he would have either expected the zookeeper to fix the starling, or complain that had she/he had the same or higher trees as the oragutans, the bird would have flew.

No, That's the "entitlement gene" a mutated version

How to be a good...
...Democrat:
You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
...Republican:
You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread because people are evil and should be punished.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
...Republican:
You have to believe that evolution is a myth (despite the evidence of biochemistry and the fossil record) but that Intelligent Design theory should be taught in schools.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese & North Korean communists.
...Republican:
You have to believe that there is no causal link between legal, easily-obtainable handguns and high murder rates.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
...Republican:
You have to believe that global temperatures are completely unaffected by fossil fuel emissions, that the best way to save the national forests is to allow logging companies to cut down old-growth timber, and the best way to save endangered species is to allow trophy hunters and wildlife traders to import more of them.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
...Republican:
You have to believe that homosexuality is evil (despite the fact that it occurs in nature) and that women should stay at home to cook and bear children.

...Democrat:
You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.
...Republican:
You have to be against abortion but support capital punishment.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that businesses create oppression, and governments create prosperity.
...Republican:
You have to believe that corporations never purposely hurt anyone to make money.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
...Republican:
You have to believe that hunting requires an automatic rifle.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
...Republican:
You have to believe that middle class income should be taxed, but capital gains and inherited wealth should not be.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that the military is another political porkbarrel for wealthy campaign contributors of certain politicians.
...Republican:
You have to believe that everyone should support the troops - except when it comes to pay or benefits.

...Democrat:
You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
...Republican:
You have to believe the NRA is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E.Lee, and Thomas Edison.
...Republican:
You have to believe that Oliver North and Monica Lewinsky are more important to American history than Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and really a very nice person.
...Republican:
You have to believe that Ann Coulter is normal and really a very nice person.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
...Republican:
You have to believe that the only reason supply-side economics hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Sorry but if you take either party too seriously, you are merely a mirror image of the side you hate

truthskr10
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse

How to be a good...
...Democrat:
You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
...Republican: NO
You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread because people are evil and should be punished.NO

...Democrat:
You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex. NO
...Republican:
You have to believe that evolution is a myth (despite the evidence of biochemistry and the fossil record) but that Intelligent Design theory should be taught in schools.NO

...Democrat:
You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese & North Korean communists. NO
...Republican:
You have to believe that there is no causal link between legal, easily-obtainable handguns and high murder rates.YES

...Democrat:
You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs. NO
...Republican:
You have to believe that global temperatures are completely unaffected by fossil fuel emissions, that the best way to save the national forests is to allow logging companies to cut down old-growth timber, and the best way to save endangered species is to allow trophy hunters and wildlife traders to import more of them.NO

...Democrat:
You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural. NO/YES
...Republican:
You have to believe that homosexuality is evil (despite the fact that it occurs in nature) and that women should stay at home to cook and bear children.NO

...Democrat:
You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand. NO
...Republican:
You have to be against abortion but support capital punishment.NO

...Democrat:
You have to believe that businesses create oppression, and governments create prosperity. NO
...Republican:
You have to believe that corporations never purposely hurt anyone to make money.NO

...Democrat:
You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do. NO
...Republican:
You have to believe that hunting requires an automatic rifle.NO

...Democrat:
You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it. NO
...Republican:
You have to believe that middle class income should be taxed, but capital gains and inherited wealth should not be.NO

...Democrat:
You have to believe that the military is another political porkbarrel for wealthy campaign contributors of certain politicians.
...Republican:
You have to believe that everyone should support the troops - except when it comes to pay or benefits.

...Democrat:
You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. NO
...Republican:
You have to believe the NRA is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.NO

...Democrat:
You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E.Lee, and Thomas Edison. NO
...Republican:
You have to believe that Oliver North and Monica Lewinsky are more important to American history than Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.NO

...Democrat:
You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and really a very nice person.
...Republican:
You have to believe that Ann Coulter is normal and really a very nice person.

...Democrat:
You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge. NO
...Republican:
You have to believe that the only reason supply-side economics hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.NO

Sorry but if you take either party too seriously, you are merely a mirror image of the side you hate

84 comments
ADD YOUR COMMENT

Now here's a liberal!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-1028-court-execution-20101027,0,6859358.story

Washington…Justice Elena Kagan cast her first recorded vote on the Supreme Court late Tuesday, joining the liberals in dissent when the high court cleared the way for the execution of an Arizona murderer.

The 5-4 ruling overturned orders by a federal judge in Phoenix and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that had stopped the execution by lethal injection of Jeffrey Landrigan.

His lawyers, in a last-ditch appeal, had raised questions about one of the drugs used in the execution. Since the only U.S. manufacturer of sodium thiopental had suspended production, Arizona officials said they had obtained a supply of the drug from a British company.

A judge had put the execution on hold because she said she was "left to speculate" whether this drug was safe for its intended use.

This from Pat Caddel and Doug Schoen, two liberal democrats:

Our divisive president, redux
By Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen
Saturday, October 30, 2010; 12:00 AM

President Obama's post-partisan America has disappeared, replaced by the politics of polarization, resentment and division.

In a Univision interview on Monday, the president, who campaigned in 2008 by referring not to a "Red America" or a "Blue America" but a United States of America, urged Hispanic listeners to vote in this spirit: "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."

Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill.

What a change two years can bring.

We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon.

We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office.

Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon's role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and - directly from the stump - candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are "reacting just to fear" and faulted his own base for "sitting on their hands complaining."

Obama is walking a knife's edge. He has said that the 3.5 million "shovel-ready jobs" he had referred to as justification for the passage of the stimulus bill didn't exist - throwing all the Democratic incumbents who had defended the stimulus in their campaigns under the proverbial bus.

Although he said, as part of his effort to enact health-care reform, that the health-care mandates were not taxes, now his administration acknowledges in court papers that they are, in fact, taxes.

As Election Day approaches, the president and others in the Democratic leadership have focused on campaign finance by moneyed interests - an ancillary issue serving neither party nor country. They have intensified attacks on business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual political operatives such as Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie - insisting that organizations are fronting for foreign campaign money and large secret donations and campaign expenditures. Even the New York Times has noted that "a closer examination shows that there is little evidence" that these organizations have engaged in activities that are "improper or even unusual."

It astounds us to hear such charges from the president given that his presidential campaign in 2008 refused to disclose the names of all of its donors, and in past election cycles many liberal groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Center for American Progress, refused to disclose their contributors.

To be clear, we favor disclosure of every dollar spent and closing the disclosure loophole that exists as a result of the Citizens United ruling. But it is disingenuous for a president - particularly one whose campaign effectively dynamited the lone beachhead of public financing in American politics - to scream about money pouring in against his political interests.

We are also disturbed that the office of the president is mounting attacks on private individuals, such as the founders of the group Americans for Prosperity. Having been forged politically during Watergate - one of us was the youngest member of Nixon's enemies list - we are chilled by the prospect of any U.S. president willing to marshal the power of his office against a private citizen.

The president is the leader of our society. That office is supposed to be a unifying force. When a president opts for polarization, it is not only bad politics, but it also diminishes the prestige of his office and damages our social consensus.

Moreover, the divisive rhetoric that Obama has pursued can embolden his supporters and critics to take more extreme actions, worsening the spiral.

Whatever the caliber of Obama's tactics, they might achieve some short-term success. The Republican Party has offered no narrative or broad solution, and it has campaigned exclusively to take advantage of the negative environment. It contributes merely a promise of a more hostile environment after Tuesday.

With the country beset by economic and other problems, it is incendiary that the president is not offering a higher vision for the nation but has instead chosen a strategy of rank division. This is an attempt to distract from the perceived failures of his administration. On issue after issue this administration has acted in ways that are weakening the office of the president.