The King of metaphors strikes again!

You picked up on that, too. IMO, very tasteless.

I'm getting a little tired of democrats making this crazy claim about "eight years of republican rule" that "drove us into a ditch". Oddly enough republican pundits always seem to let this slip every time I hear it on the talk shows. Democrats controlled half of conress through 2003, and controlled congress from 2006 on. So I would like to remind Mr. Obama that it was the encumbents (both D and R) that supposedly were driving the car off the cliff. (and I hate that analogy as well, since really, 'we the people' were driving the car.)

Plus, his statement supposes that Washington can "pull us out of the ditch" which I don't agree with either. This kind of messaging is the reason the dems are out of favor - they took responsibility for something they had little control over. Now voters are going to punish them for lack of results.

They keep claiming it because, as you say, the Republicans keep letting it go. I don't get it...

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent ? Mon Oct 25, 7:05 pm ET
WOONSOCKET, R.I. ? President Barack Obama attacked Republicans with gusto Monday as he plunged into a final week of midterm election campaigning, but his party's prognosis remained darkened by the feeble economy and his itinerary was designed largely to minimize losses.

Nor was his greeting totally friendly in Rhode Island where Obama has pointedly declined to endorse his party's candidate for governor.

Obama can "take his endorsement and shove it," declared Democrat Frank Caprio, battling Republican-turned-independent Lincoln Chafee in a gubernatorial race rated tight in the polls. Chafee endorsed Obama during the 2008 campaign for the White House.

In a little more than five hours in the state, Obama was booked for a factory tour and for a pair of fundraisers that party officials said would bring in $500,000.

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."



Using such a shameful metaphor from Americas painful past is just classless and clueless.

I think it aptly describes the backseat driving we've been getting from Republicans the last couple of years. Personally I think they should be put in child safety seats.

Could the lack of acknowledgement of these pundits from the right actually be part of a bigger plan?

Personally, I've always enjoyed being a back seat driver-you get to be more vocal and your parents only threaten to pull the car over.

Walk the walk, is it just me or did we both interpret his meaning as something entirely different from what is being expressed here?

There were no racial connotations. He just said Republicans lost their privilege to ride shotgun and so they traded places. I'm glad he avoided the use of the term "Chinese fire drill".

Seems the interpretation is up to the interpreter, Lucifer.

Seems the interpretation is up to the interpreter, Lucifer.

As always, but some people may simply be unaware of other interpretations and perhaps even have a knee-jerk reaction. Fox News is famous for that sort of thing.

So glad you are here to assist everyone with their thoughts.

So glad you are here to assist everyone with their thoughts.

Always happy to fill a void.

Always happy to fill a void.

Bondo fills a pretty good void on an old pick up truck.

Walk the walk, is it just me or did we both interpret his meaning as something entirely different from what is being expressed here?

Absolutely.

Different folks interpret things different ways - I saw it as nothing more than him saying who our government needs to prioritize using car seating as an analogy.

Obama said middle class families were far more important than lobbyists/special interests and that while Republicans were welcome, they took a back seat (not a back of the bus) to middle class families.

My family's car seating changes constantly based on who outranks who - and as someone who is typically relegated to the back seat (age and size trump in our vehicles), I don't find this offensive.

Frankly, I think you are just in the mindset to BE offended, so EVERYTHING is offending you or has an offensive meaning.

Especially in an article where the President is also being criticized for supporting his Republican friend over the Democratic candidate. :roll:

Perhaps he was referencing his attempt at bipartisanship that was met with a giant wall of NO! His point is that the democrats will show up with the tow truck and drag us out of the ditch, the Republicans will then claim that they could have done it themselves and the $65 tow bill was too high.

Classic case of sour grapes with Caprio.

Walk the walk, is it just me or did we both interpret his meaning as something entirely different from what is being expressed here?

Well Andy,it obviously bothered some other folks as well...
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/...s/2010/10/27/id/375089?s=al&promo_code=B069-1

lack Republicans Demand Obama 'Bus' Apology
Wednesday, 27 Oct 2010 04:17 PM Article Font Size
By: David A. Patten

Black Republican leaders are demanding that President Barack Obama apologize for what they consider a racially insensitive remark that he made on the campaign trail this weekend.

During a campaign swing the president said, "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for a ride, but they gotta sit in back."

Dr. Timothy F. Johnson, the black Republican who heads the Frederick Douglass Foundation, told Newsmax in an e-mail Wednesday that Obama should immediately apologize for the offensive reference to the Jim Crow era.

"Once again the president is perpetuating the racism that exists, and [is] portrayed by the so-called Civil Rights organizations and their leaders," Johnson stated.

"Americans are sick and tired of these divisive statements the president continues to make," he added. "Our first objective is November 2, 2010.

"Next is to find the next president of the United States, and retire President Obama to Chicago, Hawaii, or Kenya in Nov. 2012," stated Johnson.

Johnson is not alone in finding the president's "sit in back" remark offensive.

Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association, tells Newsmax: "As evidenced by his words and actions on numerous occasions, President Obama deliberately engages in the politics of race-baiting for partisan political gain, a tactic Democrats have used since the days of slavery. I believe Obama knew a racially-tinged image would result from his saying Republicans should be put in the back of his metaphorical car, and he would not even consider apologizing."

What if a Republican president had made such a remark? asked Fox News contributor Monica Crowley. She said it would have triggered an uproar from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

"I think after the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, riding in the back certainly does have some Civil Rights and racial overtones to it, and you can't tell me the president of the United States wasn't aware of it when he said it," Crowley said Wednesday on Fox News. "I found his comment there appalling [and] I found his refusal to address it in a straightforward way also appalling."

The "sit in back" remark is part of a pattern of increasingly divisive rhetoric from the president in the run up to the midterm elections, Crowley said.

In one recent example, on Monday President Obama urged Latinos to "punish our enemies" during a Univision broadcast.

?If Latinos sit out the election," Obama said, "instead of saying, ?We?re gonna punish our enemies and we?re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,? if they don?t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it?s gonna be harder . . . "

Crowley added: "This is nothing new. Ever since this man became president nearly two years ago now, he has constantly used this kind of incredibly divisive rhetoric. He seems to forget that he's no longer campaigning.

"He's the president of the United States. The president is supposed to be the president of all the people, even those who disagree with his agenda and who disagree with him," Crowley said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs did not shy away from the controversial "sit in back" statement when asked about it in a press briefing.

He portrayed it as part of the ongoing metaphor that the president has used to assert Republicans drove the economy into a ditch.

?The president said this weekend that the Republicans are going to ride in the back and the middle class will be in the passenger?s seat,? Gibbs said.

In a none-too-subtle jab he added: ?We?re certainly concerned with backseat driving.?


? Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Black Republicans Demand Obama 'Bus' Apology

What ever happened to social correctness being an affront on society?? Haven't I heard that recently on another thread? :scratch:

The President could have said any type of metaphor and would have been criticized by some group.

President: "Let's pull up our socks and work" -- The League of Senior Golfers seeks an apology: "The President clearly meant that us Republican Golfers, who are Senior, are lazy, plaid wearing, wealthy elites with droopy socks who golf secretly to plan the destruction of the middle class."

President: "Republicans have been as helpful as a chocolate teapot." --The League of African American Woman's voters demands an apology. "Clearly, the President meant people of color and since as woman, we eat more chocolate, meant to infer we had big butts".

When Obama doesn't have his speech words flashing on a screen in front of him, he does tend to let his true feelings out. ...Republicans need to be riding in the back and they also are enemies of the Latins....great talk from our leader.

I would very much like to think his thought process in making that statement did not carry the undertone as some have suggested. A simple explanation from him will cure the curiosity. I agree that he is a divisive President and he does have a history of making insensitive comments-remember the Special Olympics statement? So, we can accept this about him for the next two years and tally ho.

Clever, Mango. To some, including me, the statement was inappropriate for the President of the United States to make. He is suppose to be a leader, not a continual campaigner. Where is the uniting factor in this kind of rhetoric? The answer is, there is none.

What ever happened to social correctness being an affront on society?? Haven't I heard that recently on another thread? :scratch:

The President could have said any type of metaphor and had been criticized by some group.

President: "Let's pull up our socks and work" -- The League of Senior Golfers seeks an apology: "The President clearly meant that us Republican Golfers, who are Senior, are lazy, plaid wearing, wealthy elites with droopy socks who golf secretly to plan the destruction of the middle class."

President: "Republicans have been as helpful as a chocolate teapot." --The League of African American Woman's voters demands an apology. "Clearly, the President meant people of color and since as woman eat more chocolate, meant to infer we had big butts"

Rome is burning under the watchful eye of his party and he's out giving speeches calling everyone in the other party the enemy of latinos. I've lost a bit of respect in him. This was an inapropriate comment to make.

I think it's interesting that people who claim not to be racist can see nothing but racist remarks from the president. He's not allowed to make reference to Republicans being left behind, but another black man can make a blanket statement that every Muslim in their "garb" is a terrorist and it's political correctness run a muck.

As far as campaigning, every President has done that. Bush did it right up until 2006 when he could have cleared a room of fundraisers just by entering it.