President Obama at the Republican House Conference
I had no idea that this was going to be televised, but this is my only day in the office today so I wouldn’t have seen it anyway. But this video is from CSPAN for everyone who could not watch it live:
This is pretty long, about an hour and 20 mins or so. I gather that this appearance was CHOICE, and that President Obama really acquitted himself well here. More comments after I have a chance to see it.
EDIT — A snippet from dKos calling out a bit of hypocrisy:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8f77VVeFEI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Tags: President Obama, Republicans
wow. he’s back, baby. He’s back
This is spectactular.
I will have to give credit to the GOP for being respectful of the President. But considering that the President just destroyed them and their talking points on national television in a unprecedented gathering, I am sure Republicans are asking themselves “whose idea was it to invite the president again?”
And remember, you right wing clowns, this was the President you said was an empty suit, who needed a teleprompter to even speak, and he just destroyed you and your ideology with no notes, no teleprompter, and no foreknowledge of the questions he was going to face.
I’m watching it now. Smackdowns are coming one or two per minute. If you are in a hurry, Q&A starts at 20 minutes in.
Teleprompter smear destroyed forever.
This is infact so delicious I dont think I can eat it all in one sitting. I’m going to have to same some for later.
If every Democrat follows Obama’s lead, we may actually GAIN seats this fall.
A Price: I am ordering pizza, cracking open a beer, and watching it tonight on the big screen HDTV.
Here’s the link to the transcript.
Pretty powerful stuff. Some highlights:
Republicans are boxed into a corner with this “party of no.” This strategy may have passed its sell-by date.
I’m with ya DD. pizza, beer, and a one sided boxing match where the champ beats the hell out of 0ver 100 cumps. a great friday night
It’s all set, then — we meet at DD’s house to watch this tonite!
😉
LOL.
MSNBC’s Luke Russert, who was on the scene in Baltimore, relayed that a Republican official and other GOP aides had confided to him that allowing the “cameras to roll like that,” was a “mistake.”
Indeed, the President was so effective as telling the truth that Fox News cut away from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended, while CNN and MSNBC and CSPAN aired it live and in full.
Now that tells you all you will ever need to know about Fox News.
And FOX cut off the conference halfway through.
Hmmm… I wonder why?
Luke Russert tweets:
Oh my.
Jinx, DD! Great minds, and all! 🙂
mike pence is on hardball claiming republican victory in todays smack down.
and chris seems to be playing right into his narrative. ugh. time for matthews to retire to fox
Wow. I just watched the whole thing (don’t tell my boss). I purposely didn’t read any of the comments on this thread until I finished. I definitely think that the teleprompter myth is absolutely destroyed. It is one thing to take questions from some media talking head in the campaign, but to take on House Republicans on their terms and to do it so masterfully, is unprecedented.
He laid it out there, waved a stick and held out some carrots. Too bad it was so long that 99% of Americans will never see it.
AP is first up with the standard he said/she said article.
My favorite reaction quote so far:
Translation: “I liked it, except for the parts where he was talking.”
MSNBC is rebroadcasting tonight at 8 PM with Keith, Rachel and Chris providing some commentary. CSPAN is also rebroadcasting at 8 PM. Putting the cameras in for the Q&A – that was Obama’s idea. Remember how Republicans were whining about transparency? LOL.
It was a 1.5 hour GOP smackdown. I can’t wait to watch it tonight. My Twitter feed was on fire during this, BTW. The CSPAN servers also crashed because so many people were trying to view this.
I would like to see him do this with Democrats, too. Some of them need a smackdown, too.
Here’s the Luke Russert video:
ROFL!!!! Fox News cut away from the Obama/GOP question time halfway through because Obama was wiping the floor with the Republicans. Cowards!
Crap. It seems as though the CSPAN servers are being hammered by people trying to watch this thing.
Try this link.
Try MSNBC and I think HuffPo has the whole video.
It is on live on MSNBC right now
That was simply amazing. How anybody anticipated all of those questions to get the answers up on the teleprompter that fast, I’ll never know.
But it was an exceptional exchange and I was especially impressed by how President Obama made it clear that their own tactics of misrepresenting everything never leaves Republicans in any position to actually work with anybody. Because if you tell the world that it is the end of the country, how can you even be seen working to make it better and vote for it?
Also impressive is that he knew about the proposals submitted and that he was clear about the ideas stolen from those packages and clear that snipe hunts never feed anybody. If you want to get credit for a good idea it has to be an idea that delivers on its promise. As in don’t write checks your ideas can’t cash.
I’m sure that the GOP was not prepared for this, but I hope that the President does more of this kind of thing, not less. And keep the format simple — just like this — so that the incentives to just perform are diminished.
Nicely done, Mr. President.
I would feel better about all the verbiage if I had believed Obama was holding a large hammer behind his back. I’m not sure he is. What will he do if Republicans don’t respond to the olive branch?
On the other hand, Obama really wasn’t talking to the House Republicans, he was going over their heads and talking to the voters: straying independents and the demoralized left. He finally realized he had a bully pulpit, and used it. I wish he had spoken passionately for an hour and a half supporting the public option.
President Obama made it clear that their own tactics of misrepresenting everything never leaves Republicans in any position to actually work with anybody.
That is exactly how they like it. Rush Limbaugh at CPAC gives the working definition:
I hope that the President does more of this kind of thing
I don’t think Republicans will show up for another such beating anytime soon.
AT LAST AT LAST
I don’t think that they will, either, and really this would be a good idea to show this kind of Question Time with Democrats too.
And I think that Obama was pretty clear that you can’t mouth the words of bipartisanship when you keep boxing yourself away from it.
I do think he was speaking to Republicans. I think that the people listening, however, was everyone else. I do think that he does value working together — the story by his former State Senate colleague was instructive and I do think that he wants to respect getting the people’s business done. And while too many people tried to diminish Obama the Community Organizer (and too many on the left rushed to idolize that without knowing anything about what that means) — all of those skills were definitely on display here.
I loved the part when he schooled Price basically telling him that a stimulus that would have created 2x jobs and 1/2 the price would have been done if it was true that it worked. Basically accused him of making it up.
Some people were wondering if House Republicans agreed to let cameras into the Q&A because they believe their own propaganda? The propaganda that Obama’s just an empty suit who can’t talk without a teleprompter.
I think that they believe way too much of their bullshit — and the telepromter thing is really the least of it. For someone like Pence (who IS a moron) to call the tax cuts in the recovery bill “boutique” tax cuts when they were the largest middle class tax cuts ever (I think) pretty much shows that they can’t even get behind their own tax cut rhetoric. And those tax cuts were included to the stimulus not because they were especially an especially effective stimulus method, but because they were trying to work for Republican support. Or that fool at the end having on about creating the largest deficits ever — when those deficits were the largest ever when Obama walked in the door. And pretty much all of those guys and girls in the room voted for all of the spending with no cares at all for paying for it. I wish more Democrats would push back against this kind of unreal framing.
I think the Repubs intended to make a show of grilling Obama and making him sweat… but once the reality of the situation hit, they realized they couldn’t afford to be seen interrupting or jeering the President. Once the rules of civility and rationality were in place, the game belonged to Obama.
Obama is the coolest cat in America, and they thought they would make him sweat?
Obama already had the advantage of opponents who are A) not very bright and B) demonstrably wrong on policy.
I don’t think Obama wants to be seen explaining to House Progressives why he isn’t including their ideas. I don’t think Obama would fare so well against Weiner or Grayson.
What I think is important, and I hope continues, is the talk of specifics. And while I enjoyed the “smackdown” I don’t want that to be our main focus. Yesterday Obama countered GOP bumper sticker talking points with facts and policy discussion.
I believe Politifact will be rating the exchange, which should be interesting. And, Cassandra, your point yesterday on what a community organizer does was extremely valid.
Well, given that Weiner was part of the run for the hills faction I’m not so sure we are talking about much of a real threat. And as much as I admire both Weiner and Grayson, Question Time with the House Democrats would look very much like it did yesterday — lots of civility and rationality and a President very much in command of not only all of the arguments, but alot of the data too.
I would bet — and I would bet alot of money — that the House Democrats would not be so eager to conduct their own televised Question Time.
Politifact already gave Obama a win on his analysis of the inherited deficit.
Question Time with the House Democrats would look very much like it did yesterday — lots of civility and rationality and a President very much in command of not only all of the arguments
Excepr that the only arguments against the public option are political arguments, not policy arguments. It would be a totally different kind of discussion. And not one that Democrats should have on TV.
It would be a policy argument — and it would make a great deal of sense too. Because he will talk about this directly from the numbers and from the details of the Public Option as it currently exists in the House Bill. It would certainly NOT be different kind of conversation — and that would be exactly why Democrats would really rather not do it.
i think a Q&A with the senate dems would be a lot more damaging. make Carper explain why he thinks the public option is a bad idea. make Nelson explain why Nebraska should be treated like the favorite.
I’ve watched it three times now and I’m ready to watch it again. Now, we need to drag half the Dem. Congress in to a room, make them watch it twenty times and then to go vigorously sell it in their home districts.
Hey, where did all the GOP trolls go?
Good question, Geezer. I took a spin around the right side of our blogosphere today, and other than Dave Burris, mum is obviously the word. Maybe they think that if they ignore what happened yesterday it will go away.
LOL, a 40+ comment thread with no trolls. That’s how solid a smackdown it was.
i love the orgasmic reaction in this thread. he abused his base for an entire year and with one appearance all is forgiven. once again, you hear his words and believe that he will follow through, though he’s given you no reason to believe he will. it’s like battered-wife syndrome.
i would love nothing more than to see both sides come together to get something done. i hope he follows his pretty words with some action this year rather than sitting back and letting congress try to figure it out on their own.
the most ironic aspect of the reaction from the left is that he went there to extend an ‘olive branch’ and the overriding sentiment here is that it was a ‘smackdown’. nice.
I maintain that this is an olive branch. Talk of a smackdown are, I believe a violation of Obama’s leadership.
he abused his base for an entire year and with one appearance all is forgiven
Only a portion of his base think that they’ve been abused — and if you spin around the web to those places who have been most vocal about that, there is little mention of this appearance. And, of course, pretending that everyone has exactly the same opinions points to the fact that you’re still relying on the lazy political narratives. But some things not changing really is a comfort sometimes.
Maybe they think that if they ignore what happened yesterday it will go away.
Actually that is not a bad strategy for them, with a very high chance of success.
Ignoring the Oregon tax vote seems to be working so far.
Only a portion of his base think that they’ve been abused
The rest aren’t really paying attention.
Some of the disappointed “base” are actually single-issue voters on gay rights or troop withdrawal timelines. They are in fact experiencing a lot of abuse, but on a very narrow issue. Politics is bigger than that though so I don’t have much patience for them. I guess I support and respect their viewpoint but I can’t say I feel their pain.
Public health care, on the other hand, is a core Democratic value and also happens to be a key to solving today’s economy. Plus, it is a winning election issue for Democrats. Getting abused on that is a bigger problem.
I agree with dominique. Furthermore – she was right all along. Senator Clinton would have been better than Obama for dealing with the post-Bush GOP. Oh well, sorry about all the invective during the primary dominique.
Looking forward, what is the best way for Obama to stop Republicans from winning elections and further ruining the country? Olive branches or smack downs? I favor smack downs, it is the only thing the fucktards on the right understand.
To paraphrase Ulrike Meinhof, you deliver one smack down and it is a speech – if you deliver 100 it is a movement.
I favor smack downs, it is the only thing the fucktards on the right understand.
And fucktards on the left don’t even understand smackdowns when they receive them, like when Obama told them in September he wasn’t getting behind the public option.
Gritting my teeth for running to the center and the return of the 50 +1 strategy…
Liberty Country Ohio uber alles.
Liberty Country Ohio uber alles.
November is so much nicer in Florida; can’t we make that the battleground instead? I’m sure Governor Rubio will have a nice safe area for us to protest in for the recount.
Senator Clinton would have been better than Obama for dealing with the post-Bush GOP.
So apparently a withdrawal from politics involves a retreat into magical-thinking.
Check.
Ouch. Please correct me if I am wrong but as I recall part of Clinton’s message was that the GOP would not compromise, therefor the incoming President would be required to fight for their programs and policies. I remember that because I was among the legion who wanted to believe n the unicorn of Obama’s ability to “bring the country together” (Talk about magical thinking).
I and many other Democrats simply made a mistake when we eschewed Clinton’s grasp of political reality. Water under the bridge. No hard feelings. What to do now. I say, wake up to reality and fight.
which is exactly what Obama is about to do? what did they R’s do to the D’s for the entore Bush administration? shut them out, abused them, kept them out of policy. If that was what Obama, or CLinton would have done from the begining, the R’s would be saying “YOU NEVER LET US DO ANYTHING!” and if ANYTHING went wrong, they would be able to use that as something to run on. But they have been given the chance to participate and blown it. They were offered a chance to compromise and chose to fight.
You think that “we will extend a hand if you unclench your fist” remark was just for the Taliban in other countries? I love how people’s attention spans are too short of an Obama presidency He doesn’t play by the rules of the 24 hour sound-bite news hour that even smart people like Jason have apparently come to accept as reality. In order to bring the country ot gether to oust the people holding us apart, he first had to demonstrate what people like Eric Cantor, and Jim Demint were. sure they have support from voters, and i say screw those people. They are the rednecks who think Bush was the best president we’ve ever had, and that Saint Sarah would make a good leader. And ya know what? they aren’t smart enough to deserve a voice. Let them keep pulling the lever, but most of the country will see the Conservative movement for what it is, and you Lefty Obama haters who be trying to make all the rest of us forget your fair-weatherness.
Oh boy. And I am accused of magical thinking. Have you ben asleep for the past year? The GOP would rather the country was plunged into a 1930’s style depression than give up the “us v. them” rhetoric.
BTW – The GOP also control the entire mass media so have fun trying to manage a 24 month news cycle when you can’t manage the 24 hour news cycle. Anyway – The world needs it’s dreamers I guess. Have fun in dreamland.
have fun giving up. That was why the 60’s failed. One little set back to the movement and everyone rolled over and put their asses up in the air for the conservatives. Well i am not going to let that happen again because of weak-stomached half-hearted wimps. What is wrong with the Democrats and Liberals is no one is really willing to fight. You’d rather spend a year electing someone then let them handle it all while you whine and bitch the whole time that things aren’t going exactly your way…. how pathetic.
I admire your fighting spirit, aprice, now all you need is something to fight for, and a plan. Are you going to fight for the center?
Look – Obama’s proposals are in the center, and he is calling for compromise with the far right. Doesn’t anybody else see the problem with this approach?
Is there something between Obama is perfect and Obama is a failure?
And while I liked Hillary, I don’t see a different scenario had she won. Obstruction was always going to be the name of the game with Republicans. Fight them, try and work with them, ignore them… none of those choices would matter.
and if i remember correctly, Doms rant back during the primaries was that OBAMA COULDN’T WIN. well, you’re right jason she was right! he lost the presidency to McCain and we should have nominated Clinton.. then we wouldnt have a republican president and some sort of economic recovery might have passed and GDP might be at a 12% reversal IF ONLY WE HAD LISTENED TO DOM!!!!!
you’re right pan. There are only 2 choices either Obama is everything these people imagined him to be, despite what he ACTUALLY said in the campaign….. or we would have been better off electing Palin.
don’t patronize me, anon. Maybe it is growing up a fan of Philly sports, but i don’t get up and walk out because of a tough first quarter. you are clearly one of the ones who thought Obama was kidding in the inaugural address when he said turn around and change wouldn’t be instant. I have ADD and I’m not distracted by the flashy objects on TV telling me to give up. All liberals have known how to do the past decade is whine about how the government hates them, so i can understand how your battered citizen syndrome may be acting up, but take a breath and realize that when it comes to Obama, you are CLOSE to out-bitching the TeaBaggers
Please. Hyperbole is the refuge of scoundrels. Point out where I said Palin would be better. I simply said that events have shown that Clinton would have been the better choice. It is astounding to me that you guys don’t understand the full blown horror that is the GOP right now.
Whatever. Here is to hoping that you are right and I am wrong. Maybe Lucy will let Charlie Brown kick the ball after all. She couldn’t be that pernicious right?
An absolute smackdown of the GOP.
I and many other Democrats simply made a mistake when we eschewed Clinton’s grasp of political reality.
Actually, your memory is creating new narratives for you — sort of like Fox News.
What is true is that many of us thought that the repubs would unite in complete opposition to Mrs. Clinton on everything. They worked hard at opposing Mr. Clinton and the old BS was coming back alive. Barack Obama actually had a track record of successfully working with Republicans (a thing acknowledged by one of the questioners at this event) — and not one of us guessed that repubs would just say no to everything, in spite of President Obama’s clear reach for support for alot of policies.
Mrs. Clinton would have had not only the same ground to cover — a requirement for 60 votes for everything, Harry Reid, a Big Tent utterly lacking in party discipline, and the Party of No and No Ideas. Perhaps she would have been on TV more pounding desks or something, but so what? The board is the board and NO ONE is changing the board or the rules of the board.
But I guess it is useful to pretend that other choices may be better when such flights of fancy relieve you of staying in the fight for Better Democrats.
don’t patronize me
Sorry A. for what I am about to do…
A.Price today:
A.Price earlier this month:
Moral of the story: It is possible to bitch about Obama and still be a fan.
The “What Would Hillary Do” scenario is too hypothetical for me. Actually I think McCain would have won. But had Hillary won, I don’t think she would have made this speech:
… because Hillary knows the decades-long Democratic push for health care was never about insurance companies. She knows because she was there.
Cassandra I asked you to correct me and you have. That was a side point, but thanks anyway. Who cares about what might have been? I’m wondering how otherwise smart people in the Obama administration (including the President) can be so naive and yes, stupid, when it comes to “working” with the GOP.
It is pure foolishness. The longer we simply HOPE for Republicans to behave like rational adults, the worse for the country.
Right anon, I’m turing my back on them after a few years of demonstrated incompetence and disappointment. it’s worth mentioning i gave Andy Reid a shot when he showed up, and was one of a small group of Eagles fans who DIDN’T boo McNabb because he wasn’t Randy Moss.
If by year 6 of the Obama administration he still hasnt fixed all my problems, it will be a different story. so your cute little attempt to make me look bad is actually quite lame.
I still hold that Obama had to give the Republicans a chance to participate, so now that they have proven they wont, they can be steamrolled. BUt simply pushing everything through would have played right in to Beck’s narrative and even more independents would say “HEY, this guy said he was for bipartisanship… but he is just a liberal version of Bush”
now they can say “Hey, this guy really tried for bipartisanship, but all this stuff has failed cause republicans refuse to work together”
so when he DOES roll over them ha can say “well, at least i tried’
Try to keep up scardy-dems
BUt simply pushing everything through would have played right in to Beck’s narrative
I’ll take that deal.
McNabb just gave up an interception for a touchdown.
That was a side point, but thanks anyway. Who cares about what might have been?
C’mon, man — you wrote an entire post on what might have been. I didn’t exactly make that up. And this:
I’m wondering how otherwise smart people in the Obama administration (including the President) can be so naive and yes, stupid, when it comes to “working” with the GOP.
The answer to that is this:
This has been relatively consistent throughout the year. People do not see him as the obstacle to bipartisanship — Congress is. The only person with any kind of credit for good faith is currently Obama. And really, I’m not going to turn that loose unless I know the rest of my party has my back. Which they don’t.
But even more than that, people who expect Congress to work together to do the people’s business are not the crazy ones. There is no doubt that we have:
**repubs who show up to vote NO, get on TV, and collect a check to collect more checks; and
**Democrats who show up to check their poll numbers, get scared, talk out of both sides of their mouths and vote for the people who write them checks.
Neither group is especially serious about the work they were sent to do. But they need to be. No one is asking for lockstep on anything,but the system is built to work around compromise . Ending a spirit of compromise really does break what the Founders started and pretty much puts us on the path to being California. That can’t happen. Because if the government of the world’s largest superpower gets as broken as California’s government the only things that will get 60 votes will be for opportunities to kill people and the political theater of the day. This cannot happen.
The only alternative to a no compromises stance is to change the Constitution to re-create our government as a parliamentary one — where the party in charge gets to implement their agenda until voters toss them out. This is pretty much the GOP stance right now — except that they can actually stand in the way of alot AND they do not have to deliver on any real alternatives.
Once big thing that could change here is for the narrative to give the President AND Democrats more credit for working with Republicans. I’ve been pointing out for weeks that the “they won’t play with us” whine that repubs have been up to for weeks is dead wrong. But I am not Fox News and nor am I the Drudge Report and even the people who would normally agree with me on this thing are too busy navel gazing about Why Obama Really Is Not The Messiah.
The typically astute Tom Shaller has a great take on Question Time — Enough is Enough.
Exactly. But if this is a shift in posture, it can’t just be Obama with this message.
cass, dont try and make valid points to the fair weather dems. WHen things turn around, they will be right back on the bandwagon denying any loss of loyalty.
Good comment, AP. Had Hunter used birth control, some would be telling us Edwards should have been nominated.
“I simply said that events have shown that Clinton would have been the better choice.”
Grass is always greener, eh, Jason? She failed to pass health care the first time, and there’s no way she would have carried Mark Begich and Al Franken into office on her coattails. You think we’d be better off with Terry MacAuliffe (proven loser) as chief of staff than Rahm? I don’t like Rahm, but anything’s better than Terry Mac. Sorry to refight the primary wars, but that’s some stupid-ass wishful thinking there. You might as well have said we’d be better off with Mike Gravel.
amen. things arent 100% perfect so the fair weather dems give up. there is a metric fuckload of problems and to think that ANYONE is capable of doing it within a year with the opposition repubs and the “i voted for you, my job is done, you handle it” liberals, is just dumb. But dont worry soft core liberals, there is room on the bandwagon when you come crawling back.
I hadn’t realized it until Xstryker said it. We have never stopped fighting the primary wars. In my personal experience I have been constantly dealing with the fall-out of the Dem primary. Never have I seen a President attacked by his own side so quickly in a I told you so sort of way.
To this group no matter what Obama does it simply is never enough. Not only does he receive no credit from Republicans, he receives none from a group of his supposed supporters – a group, who at times, seemed far too ready to throw up their hands and declare him a failure. And, no, I’m not calling out people who have stated policy concerns in a constructive manner – they are assets. I’m calling out the people who use Republican talking points and childish name-calling to say how doomed we are and what a complete failure Obama is; people who have nothing positive to say about the President, and I sense, deep down, they never did. This sort of attack from the left comes off very orchestrated to me, as if the script was written in the summer of 2008.
And it’s destructive because it’s presented in an all or nothing sort of way. If I praise Obama, I’m labeled a sell-out. If I criticize Obama then I’m congratulated by this group for seeing the light. There simply is no balance. And the scariest thing to me is that these detractors from the left have boxed themselves into their stance, just like Republicans.
Look his preformance Friday renew my faith in voting for him.Now it’s time for him to stop kissing Repuks asses and get something done,
I think some of you don’t recognize frustration talking when you read it. A lot of liberals want to fight conservatives using conservative tactics — a cri de couer I’ve read from many commenters here over the past couple of years. Others don’t want to stoop to that level. That, I believe, is what we’re fighting about. Obama is in the second camp, and it frustrates many in the first camp. And it’s simply not constructive to write off the disheartened. Ask Margaret Coakley.
I’ll repeat this again: Scott Brown’s vote total was only 64,000 higher than McCain’s in Massachusetts. Coakley’s was 830,000 below Obama’s. The enemy is less the minority party than it is loss of heart by Democrats.
A lot of liberals want to fight conservatives using conservative tactics — a cri de couer I’ve read from many commenters here over the past couple of years. Others don’t want to stoop to that level. That, I believe, is what we’re fighting about.
I loved Obama’s rhetorical performance, of course. But if it isn’t followed by some wins for a real Democratic agenda, history will see Obama’s begging for cooperation from Republicans as his “malaise” speech.
The enemy is less the minority party than it is loss of heart by Democrats.
Hypothetical: Suppose before the MA election, Obama had signed a WPA-style jobs bill that immediately put 1 million or more people to work. And suppose Obama had bribed/threatened enough Senators to pass the House public option.
Then Scott Brown would have been reduced to campaigning to take away people’s jobs and health care. Do you think that kind of campaign might have turned out a few more Democrats?
he would have needed a jobs bill to sign, anon. One that the senate is taking their sweet time on. Since Obama is NOT Bush, the Senate doesn’t bend to his will, or apparently, the American people’s will.
“oh he hasn’t done this, he hasn’t done that” Most of your issues lie with a different branch of government than the one you are blaming…… but it is easer to blame one guy than get informed and find out who the real culprit is i guess.
he would have needed a jobs bill to sign, anon. One that the senate is taking their sweet time on. Since Obama is NOT Bush, the Senate doesn’t bend to his will, or apparently, the American people’s will.
If you believe this, your rightful President is Joe Lieberman.
last time i checked, we had separation of powers and the president was not a dictator….. if you oppose this, YOUR rightful president is Hitler
🙂
a. price – i have a life, so i didn’t commit every one of my blog posts to memory; however, my beef with obama was not that he couldn’t win. for shit’s sake, the dems could have run an impotent squirrel and won after gwb. my issue with him was that he couldn’t FIGHT. i repeatedly said he lacked the spine and the political wherewithal to maneuver his agenda through congress. he had no track record of going to the mat for anything (other than political office). additionally, he never struck me as having an ounce of fire in his belly about any of the core issues. i have yet to be proven wrong. this is what happens when you pick style over substance.
“And, of course, pretending that everyone has exactly the same opinions points to the fact that you’re still relying on the lazy political narratives.”
that’s rich, cassandra. kind of like you do with the gop every single minute of every single day? please tell me you were being ironic.
“But some things not changing really is a comfort sometimes.”
agreed.
funny dom, because Hillary has a history of failure when it comes to “going to the mat” on HEALTH CARE. OOOO FIRE IN HIS BELLY ….. how primitive to require the alpha male warrior as your leader… neanderthal….
but you are right. it has been a full year and he has only 96% of the votes in congress have gone in his favor. Let’s impeach him now.
and funny you only come out of the woodwork when you smell political blood…. too much to hope for that you have been working ot advancing the agenda, but rather waiting for him to fail so you can “troll” it up.
OK… There are two different agendas here. Progressives want to pass a Democratic agenda to save American prosperity. And Obama wants to “change politics.”
If that is his goal, shall we judge him on that instead? Who here thinks he can succeed at changing politics?
Maybe asking him to save American prosperity was too lofty a goal. Perhaps Obama is a transitional president who will make politics safe for liberals again. And then the actual implementation of policy can be done by some future Democratic president.
Of course, if Obama doesn’t succeed in either changing politics, or passing a Democratic agenda, we are all screwed. Politics will be changed forever, but not in a good way.
Remember, the New Deal wasn’t passed until we starved for five years.
i repeatedly said he lacked the spine and the political wherewithal to maneuver his agenda through congress.
Ummm… except that you also attacked his agenda.
I think some of you don’t recognize frustration talking when you read it. A lot of liberals want to fight conservatives using conservative tactics
I think that there is alot of recognition of the frustration — leaving the rest of us to actually wonder why they expected a guy who largely did not campaign on conservative tactics would start using them now. And leaves the rest of us to wonder where they think all of the party discipline and the media noise machine — both key to conservative tactics — are supposed to come from.
Standing in front of Republicans and speaking the truth rather than working within wingnut frames and utterly made up narratives does work. And more is needed on that front. Alot more. The pulling the plug on grandma BS and the like gets plenty of time to lodge itself in the public mind — the real story does not.
And I do not think that Obama necessarily wants to change politics. I do think that he wants American governing institutions to work the way they were intended. I think that he does want to re-orient government policy back to supporting the middle class and real investment in infrastructure that keeps us in the game for an evolving world economy. This is a fairly ambitious turning back of the Reagan-era reset which put us on the path to the broken economy that we are slowly working out of. How much of a reset Obama can accomplish is probably the thing to judge him on.
well Dom is right… it takes a pretty spineless wimp to answer questions on national TV thrown at you by a ravenous opposition who’s main goal is to ruin you. what a wimp. .
Standing in front of Republicans and speaking the truth rather than working within wingnut frames and utterly made up narratives does work.
Some of this would have been helpful last August. Better late than never though. Back in September, instead of taking Repubs to task, Obama was giving speeches telling progressives to pound sand on the public option.
I agree the Baltimore speech ought to be only the opening shot.
actually, i don’t think i did. other than having an issue with the concept of universal health care, i don’t ever remember attacking his agenda. the focus of my ire was the fact that his political track record and level of experience weren’t befitting of a president.
we romanticize the concept of a novice outsider coming in and cleaning up washington. unfortunately, mr. smith goes to washington was just a movie. in reality, in order to accomplish anything in washington, you need to know how to push an agenda. that knowledge can either come through years in washington or years in an executive position. obama came to the table with neither, so he’s learning on the job. maybe he’ll figure it out; maybe he won’t. we’ll see.
as a moderate, i’m glad he’s moving to the center. i don’t hate the man. i want him to accomplish something while he’s in office. i just don’t want it to further bankrupt the country.
Dom: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me you have moved noticeably to the right ever since Hillary conceded. I see no evidence that YOU had the stomach to fight for your agenda — or that you even supported Hillary’s agenda in the first place.
Back in September, instead of taking Repubs to task, Obama was giving speeches telling progressives to pound sand on the public option.
Well, no, he wasn’t — but apparently you guys can’t get your story straight on this. Either he told everyone No Public Option or he didn’t fight hard enough for it. It isn’t both.
But it would have been helpful if he had been more in the mix in August. It would have been helpful if all Democrats had been more in the mix in August. Because, really, he cannot be the only Democrat speaking honestly about the programs and policies on offer.
Sorry I got pulled into a Clinton thing. I did so in order to apologies to Dominique. She was not as wrong and I was not as right as I thought during the primary. That is not my main point. Read Geezer and take head Democrats. The 50 + 1 campaign is nigh.
BTW. Democrats are fools a deserve their beatings if they don’t fight fire with fire.
Jason: Fighting fire with fire is the last resort. First you fight fire with water and chemical retardants. You only use more fire if the first two don’t work. Arguably, Obama has now tried water and chemicals. We’ll see soon if he agrees that it’s time to roll out the fire.
Also, fighting fire with fire involves burning something down in a controlled manner to stop the spread of the uncontrolled flames. If we extend the metaphor, I think that means burning down the Ben Nelsons, Joe Liebermans et al.
Changes are happening
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-quiet-revolution
Okay Geezer. Clumsy metaphor exposed. Dems need to bring guns to the gun fight. My basic premise is that with the mass media in the hands of the right wing, the rules have changed. There is no reason why the GOP would go back to playing by the old rules. We need to get that.
great article JM. thanks for the link. too bad the bandwagon jumpers only care about the Obama portrayed by the right wing MSM.
JM those appoinments are nice but they are temorary. We have a activist SCOTUS which will last longer and have more influence on policy than Obamas EPA picks.
Obama is not setting Democrats up tp to win elections. Without that focus everyhing else I’d bullshit.
Read to the last sentence of the article pricey. Then STFU
Either he told everyone No Public Option or he didn’t fight hard enough for it. It isn’t both.
It is both. Failure to fight is a failure to win. It’s true he didn’t say “Read my lips – no public option.” But when you are playing a 60-vote game, a lack of enthusiasm is a clear thumbs-down. Obama’s statement telling progressives not to get their hopes up smelled of the manicured hand of Tom Carper.
Obama is not setting Democrats up tp to win elections.
Democrats are not setting themselves up to win elections. And the real crime of this is that repubs aren’t doing themselves any favors, but Democrats are not capitalizing on being the grownups in charge. Bill Clinton noted that people vote for Democrats to clean up the mess, and while they are doing some of this — not nearly enough — they are way too involved with perfecting their protective crouches based upon polling OR in protecting the people who pay for their campaigns.
One of the reasons I really think it would be a good idea for Obama to do Question Time with the Democrats too is to give him an opportunity to remind Dems that they have work to do, especially if they think they want to be re-elected. Plus there are real votes to be had in the Dem caucus where there really isn’t among the Rs.
That would at least be somthing.
geezer – i am far left in terms of equality and right-leaning in terms of social/entitlement programs and spending. same as i was when hillary was in the race. i was a fan of her tenacity and her work ethic, not necessarily every one of her policies.
Dom preferred McCain and Palin’s work ethic and tenacity.
If that’s the case, Dom, why were you for Hillary in the first place? Surely her positions on social/entitlement programs would be just as objectionable as Obama’s. Or were you only for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination, and you would have been for McCain in the general? I’m not being snarky, just asking.