In my adult lifetime, I can remember these inaugural speeches: Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Clinton, Bush2, Bush2, Obama, Obama.  BO's speeches, but particularly the one over the weekend, were the least bi-partisan, unifying, or whatever you want to call it.  Is there anyone out there of my generation (or longer perspective) that can point out something to the contrary?  I wish somebody could, but I am not hopeful.

JC

Not sure what your generation is, but I would guess I fall under your generation of longer perspective.

I have heard all these inaugural speeches, but I don't remember any president facing the dysfunction that Obama faced the last four years. I am not sure how he could give a unifying speech against such intransigence. But I also don't think any of his comments re: tax reform, gay marriage, climate change, limits on what government can do, etc... fall way outside mainline politics. I am sure many Republicans disagree with this, but that was my take listening to him yesterday.

GHC-

I am not a Republican, but I disagree with you.   And I wasn't saying his comments were outside mainline politics. My point was slightly different, it was that all the previous presidents have also faced different levels of "intransigence" and tried..at least gave lip service to...overcoming it.  I didn't get that feeling from BO at all.  I got the feeling that he bought into the Rahm Emanuel view of "We have the votes, so **** them."  I did grow up just outside Chicago, so I am particularly sensitive to "Chicago style" politics.

To put it a different way, I honestly felt that all the previous speeches at least tried to speak to all of us.  BO's have been the only ones where I think I was told to "take it or leave it."

JC

PS I take it from your response that you agree that it was the least attempt at unifying of my (and your) memory?

His first term the GOP's top priority was making him a one term president, and that from the Senate Minority Leader's mouth.

Now that they lost the GOP is griping about an inauguration speech that wasn't bi-partisan enough?

Equal parts funny and sad.

edit:  And please don't forget the main reason we have a divided government is the shameless (but effective) gerrymandering at the state level.  The Dems got more votes every way you slice it.

Actually, that is not the case.  Nate Silver did the analysis a few weeks ago, and he found that gerymandering only increased Republican representation by a few seats.  The biggest reason that Republicans have an advantage is that Democrats are more highly concentrated in urban districts.  There is nothing sinister about that.  It would require gerymandering the opposite way; diluting the concentration of Democrats in urban centers by mixing them with more Republican leaning suburban and rural centers (while still maintaining Democratic majorities) to make House Representation more reflective of overall voting.  But that would mean that districts would have to be gerymandered.

BC

Reps have 30 governors, Dems 20.  No gerrymandering there.

Reps have total control of 25 states.  Dems 12.  There is some gerrymandering involved but not much.

I do agree, and thought so during the speech. But I stand by the rest of my response. I don't know what he could have said to induce compromise or cooperation. It just doesn't seem likely to happen.

This is the problem, isn't it?  Obama (along with other Democrats) and Republicans (especially in the House) have reached an impasse.  It has gotten personal on both sides, and it is hurting the country.

As many people here know, I am sympathetic to Obama.  I want him to succeed, and I don't blame him exclusively for the current state of politics.  But I could not bring myself to vote for him, not when I find it impossible to see a way out of the current deadlock with our current politicians in power.

BC

This is exactly why you said you supported Romney, but I am not sure he could succeed either. The problem is both sides, unfortunately, and the public is ignored.

Haven't both sides been horribly guilty of gerrymandering for years, if not decades now?    I've been reading and seeing stories on this issue for as long as I can remember...

I don't want to act like the Republicans just invented this in the last election....

Boondoggle99 wrote: His first term the GOP's top priority was making him a one term president, and that from the Senate Minority Leader's mouth.

Now that they lost the GOP is griping about an inauguration speech that wasn't bi-partisan enough?

Equal parts funny and sad.

edit:  And please don't forget the main reason we have a divided government is the shameless (but effective) gerrymandering at the state level.  The Dems got more votes every way you slice it.

But, GHC, isn't it the president's job to lead?  Forget succeeding, just for a second...think about TRYING.  I don't see any attempt at TRYING.

JC

Boonie, we don't agree on much...but just for a second try to think about this w/o responding with somethimg about the GOP.. I intentionally mentioned dem and rep presidents in my post...why is BO the most divisive of all?

JC

Boston Card wrote: Actually, that is not the case.  Nate Silver did the analysis a few weeks ago, and he found that gerymandering only increased Republican representation by a few seats.  The biggest reason that Republicans have an advantage is that Democrats are more highly concentrated in urban districts.  There is nothing sinister about that.  It would require gerymandering the opposite way; diluting the concentration of Democrats in urban centers by mixing them with more Republican leaning suburban and rural centers (while still maintaining Democratic majorities) to make House Representation more reflective of overall voting.  But that would mean that districts would have to be gerymandered.

BC

I would be interested in how Silver separated the effect or "urban" or "gerrymander" I don't think there would be universal agreement on that point if there is no specific legal provision that says any district must be "urban" or "rural" then it is just gerrymander. That's how democrats can come out ahead in Illinois, and republicans can come out ahead in Pennslvania but both states probably have similar rural urban dynamics, big difference is who controlled the legislature. http://elections.nytimes.com/2...house/big-board

Gerald McGowin wrote: Reps have 30 governors, Dems 20.  No gerrymandering there.

Reps have total control of 25 states.  Dems 12.  There is some gerrymandering involved but not much.

What is the total population of the democrat vs republican controlled states? Republicans tend to win big in small, rural states. Nothing wrong with that, but on a national level, you've got to make the adjustment.

Geez, talk about missing the point...altho it might be my fault for being obtuse.  The question was whether ANY president in recent memory from EITHER party was ever this dismissive,  alienating his opponents.  There have been larger electoral and popular pluralities, but I don't EVER remember this tone.

JC

I think your premise is wrong. If one were to do an objective analysis, you would find that Obama 2009 would be centrist in line with whatever such messaging from other presidents. That is what he ran as and tried to govern as.

But republicans didn't see it that way and slapped him upside down. His healthcare initiative that was heavily discussed during the campaign and which people went ahead and voted him in became socialist or facist or whatever your pick was, the stimulus was a complete waste but hey, I'll have some for my district when people aren't looking. Republican dragged the US credit rating into the gutter first time in history , and during a dire recesion, no less. What was their hope?

Obama himself became a boogy-outside thingy, "you lie" in the halls of congress, birthier movement, secret muslim, "hates white people" you name it. Disgraceful scurrilous stuff, not completely strange, there have always been crazies. But, abided by respectable party machines or prime mouthpieces that hadn't been seen since the time of Al Smith.

Anyway, republians should be taken at their word, no need wasting more time pretending for compromises that won't happen, - we have already seen one big example post election with the tax issue -that would be abdication of responsibility, just lay out your case, and negotiate hard for it with all the levers you have, that is what you heard in the address. And it fits the times, exactly.

Happens all the time, not every reply is to the point at top.

FWIW, per Bob Woodward, Obama and Rahm Emanuel began the vicious partisanship, convinced they had a bullet proof majority.

However, makes no nevermind. The blathering social conservative idiots - particularly the two rape philosophers - have put the GOP so far in the hole it doesn't matter. That, and Obama's very aggressive use of American force (to his credit) have de-fanged the Demented Left. (They do march on, somehow managing to praise or at least tolerate Obama policy, while making snide jokes about Bush, even though it has been the same policy continuously since 2002.)

So Obama can ignore them, since they have done a good job of marginalizing themselves.

I didn't listen to the speech or any other activity connected to the inauguration. I hate where the man is attempting to take our country and on top of that I hate the man personally. I don't like my emotional response to his image and so I make it a point to avoid him and his utterances totally.

Ummm,  this is all about the gop.  They played scorched earth for four years and now they're bitching because Obama has had enough.

Why is he most divisive?  Because he faced more partisan opposition than any of the other guys, and has had enough of thier antics.  Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

It boggles to think the actions of the gop the last four years should be without consequence.  You righties are fond of the term moral hazard, here it is writ large.

As to gerrymandering, yes, both parties do it, yes, it isn't the only reason the gop has the house, but it doesn't make it any less shameful, nor does it change the fact that more than half the country voted for a democrat for the house.