Giuliani's Disgusting Slur Against President Obama

Giuliani's Disgusting Slur Against President Obama:

justtrynakeepup:

This is a disgustingly low blow, even coming from the likes of a man who waited for a press conference to tell his wife he was divorcing her:

“We’ve had four months of propaganda starting with the president that everybody should hate the police,” Giuliani said during an appearance on Fox News on Sunday. “The protests are being embraced, the protests are being encouraged. The protests, even the ones that don’t lead to violence, a lot of them lead to violence, all of them lead to a conclusion. The police are bad, the police are racist. That is completely wrong.”

The reality, of course, is that President Obama has deliberately avoided injecting himself into the racially-charged atmosphere caused by these intensely publicized, media-saturated instances of unwarranted or disproportionate police attacks on African-Americans. Unlike Giuliani, who is responsible to no one (except, perhaps, the private investors in his “security firm”), the President has a responsibility to exercise the powers of his office for the benefit of all Americans. He also has a personal responsibility that (also apparently unlike Giuliani) he takes very seriously—which is to avoid expressing an opinion which by virtue of his race

may make things worse for everyone.

This is why he has been reluctant to comment on the grand jury proceedings for the Michael Brown homicide, or the Eric Garner homicide, or express his personal views on any of a number of racially polarizing topics for which private citizens such as Giuliani are so willing and eager to offer their opinions. Candidate Obama was in a position to inspire others who sought unity and accommodation by virtue of his speeches on race relations and other subjects of national urgency. As President, however, he learned that injecting himself into racially-tinged debates did nothing but exacerbate existing attitudes:

The problem is the White House no longer believes Obama can bridge those divides. They believe — with good reason — that he widens them. They learned this early in his presidency, when Obama said that the police had “acted stupidly” when they arrested Harvard University professor Skip Gates on the porch of his own home. The backlash was fierce. To defuse it, Obama ended up inviting both Gates and his arresting officer for a “beer summit” at the White House. * * * This all speaks to a point that the White House never forgets: President Obama’s speeches polarize in a way candidate Obama’s didn’t. Obama’s supporters often want to see their president “leading,” but the White House knows that when Obama leads, his critics become even less likely to follow. The evidence political scientists have gathered documenting this dynamic is overwhelming…[.] * * * If Obama’s speeches often aren’t as dramatic as they used to be, this is why: the White House believes a presidential speech on a politically charged topic is as likely to make things worse as to make things better. It is as likely to infuriate conservatives as it is to inspire liberals. And in a country riven by political and racial polarization, widening those divides can take hard problems and make them impossible problems.

In the context of the cold-blooded murder of two New York City police officers, Giuliani resorts to demonizing a political opponent with the cheapest of shots, while Obama deliberately refrains from ratcheting up racial tensions already strained to the breaking point. This tells us everything we need to know about their respective characters. In fact, it’s the same conclusion Americans came to themselves, all those six long years ago.

from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1E0BBkt

via IFTTT