The September 2 issue of the Town Crier contains a letter to the editor taking exception to an earlier guest column (August 26) praising President Obama.

My response, which I submitted via "Comment" below the 9/2 letter:

The Ruzumnas describe themselves as having "honest disagreements with the Obama policies," then turn around to make the accusation that "Instead he has become the most polarizing, divisive president in all our history. He and his supporters never show any respect for the opposition and in fact continually express contempt, and when that fails to incite people, bring false charges of racism."

Yes, one can have honest disagreements, but this characterization certainly doesn't qualify. No, it fails by reason of hyperbole ("most polarizing/divisive in history"--by what measure?), fact ("never show any respect--why, then, in the face of a health care system that everyone agrees is broken, did the President work tirelessly to incorporate Republican ideas into his proposed solution?), and outright dishonesty ("false charges of racism"--how to explain, then, that the President not only goes out of his way not to invoke such charges, but whose candidacy high point was arguably his speech against racism?).

We face complex problems to which the solutions are uncertain. Implementing potential solutions has been hindered by both a Congress and an electorate that is indeed polarized, but if anything, President Obama's tenure in office has been marked not by being part of that polarization, but rather, by being caught in the middle of it.

I'm interested in other examples of President Obama's divisiveness (or lack thereof), his failure to respect the opposition (or lack thereof), and his bringing false charges of racism (or lack thereof).