Nero in the Whitehouse

[redrumloa]

Nero in the Whitehouse

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't think everyone thinks Jimmy Carter was the worst president. A good number however may consider George W Bush to be one of the worst ever.

 

[cecilia]

no one even comes close to bush being horrible.......the mess we see now and for years to come are a direct result of his douchbaggery.

 

[Dammy]

no one even comes close to bush being horrible.......the mess we see now and for years to come are a direct result of his douchbaggery.

Let me see now, gas was below $2, unemployment was below 6%, USA had a AAA bond rating, and all wars were approved by US Congress. I'm personally reliving the nightmare of my days under Jimmy Carter's regime, and I have even worse out look for the future today then I did then.

IMO, Obama has done something that I didn't think any future President could ever do, make both Carter and Bush look competent.

 

[Glaucus]

Listen, Congress may have some blame to share, but it wasn't Congress that fabricated bullshit evidence to fool not just the US but several other nations into invading Iraq. All that crap about WMD came straight from The White House - the Vice President's office to be exact. But the fact that Bush did whatever Cheney told him to do is precisely why he was so terrible.

 

[Dammy]

I don't think everyone thinks Jimmy Carter was the worst president. A good number however may consider George W Bush to be one of the worst ever.

Things were so much different back during the Bush days, just listen to Obama and Reid's own words back then:

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Things were so much different back during the Bush days, just listen to Obama and Reid's own words back then:

Why don't you go listen to Obama's words back then because you love him so much and think he's so great, huh? Oh, you DON'T think he's so great, eh? Oh Jeez, was I making an unfounded assumption?

I guess you were!

 

[Karlos]

Let me see now, gas was below $2, unemployment was below 6%, USA had a AAA bond rating, and all wars were approved by US Congress. I'm personally reliving the nightmare of my days under Jimmy Carter's regime, and I have even worse out look for the future today then I did then.

IMO, Obama has done something that I didn't think any future President could ever do, make both Carter and Bush look competent.

Wait a moment, if things under Bush were so rose-tinted, how on earth did the Democrats get elected? Surely everybody would want this utopia to continue undisturbed.

Could it be that, in fact, your recollections are selectively missing the obvious that by the end of his administration's tenure in power, his tomfailery had set everything on the an inexorable course towards the calamity you are now holding the current administration for?

 

[Karlos]

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president

Did they mean to title the piece "Negro in the Whitehouse"

 

[metalman]

I don't think everyone thinks Jimmy Carter was the worst president. A good number however may consider George W Bush to be one of the worst ever.

Carter was very bad, but not the worst

Biggest failures as President

1. James Buchanan
2. Franklin Pierce
3. Andrew Johnston
4. Millard Fillmore
5. Warren Harding

Those who rate G.W. Bush as one of the worst also rate Obama as one of the best
So rankings of recent presidents tends to be very partisan.

 

[Karlos]

So rankings of recent presidents tends to be very partisan.

More than likely true for many older presidents too. After all, the two-party system doesn't really leave much room for indifference...

 

[metalman]

More than likely true for many older presidents too. After all, the two-party system doesn't really leave much room for indifference...

But its not always the same two parties, Presidents have been elected from 5 different parties

The 3 parties that had their candidate elected president but later dissolved are:

John Adams - Federalist party

Harrison, Tyler,Taylor & Fillmore were Whigs

Lincoln and Andrew Johnson ran on a joint Republican/National Union ticket in 1864

 

[faethor]

Nah only the same 2 parties for the last 150 years. Though they have changed positions quite a bit. Last big shift was in the 60s as the Southern racists were courted by Republicans. And don't forget the 'Republicans' such as Thomas Jefferson are now called the Democratic Party.

 

[metalman]

Nah only the same 2 parties for the last 150 years. Though they have changed positions quite a bit. Last big shift was in the 60s as the Southern racists were courted by Republicans. And don't forget the 'Republicans' such as Thomas Jefferson are now called the Democratic Party.

Jefferson was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party which fractured in 1824, but one branch formed around Jackson in the 1830's.

The elections of 1792 was the first to be contested on a partisan basis. Political parties were just being established and did not use formal names. There was no official name for each party at the time. Democratic-Republican Party members generally called themselves "Republicans" and voted for what they called the "Republican Party," "republican ticket," or the "republican interest".Jefferson and Madison often used the terms "republican" and "Republican party" in their letters.The 1804 congressional caucus that renominated Jefferson described itself as a, "regular republican caucus."The use of the term "Democratic" was also common, the two terms often used interchangeably. The term "Democratic Republican" was adopted by historians to avoid confusion with the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named in honor of Jefferson's party. Federalists often called their opponents "Democrats" or "Jacobins" to associate them with mob rule and the excesses of the French Revolution. The Jeffersonian Republican party split into various factions during the 1824 election.

The Jacksonians held their first national convention as the "Republican Party" in 1832. By the mid-1830s, they referred to themselves as the "Democratic Party," but also as "Democratic Republicans." The name "Democratic Party" has been official since 1844. So the Democratic Party is more properly described as the party of Jackson.

Democrats have been the party of Slavery and racism. To advance in the Democratic Party you needed to be a KKK member too, or at least a Copperhead.

 

[Karlos]

@metalman

How many realistically-sized (as in having a snowflake in hell's chance of ever getting into power) political parties have people been able to vote for in the US in living memory?

 

[metalman]

@metalman

How many realistically-sized (as in having a snowflake in hell's chance of ever getting into power) political parties have people been able to vote for in the US in living memory?

Answer: 1 of the 2 major parties,
that's the way the American system is designed

But that doesn't mean that the coalitions, agenda and control of each party don't change. The Democratic Party is currently still the FDR coalition, the Republican Party is currently the Reagan coalition, and the Tea Party is currently pushing their candidates and agenda forward withing the Republican Party. The Democratic Party agenda is controlled by George Soros, MoveOn.org.