Has History Passed Obama By?

[jackstar7]

I don't even know who Frank Lunz is. I looked him up and he runs focus groups. Is he supposed to be important in some way that is not identified in the Wiki bio?

He creates the language and memes that become the things you say and type.

He all but puts the thoughts in your brain.

 

[CallMeJoe]

He creates the language and memes that become the things you say and type.
He all but puts the thoughts in your brain.

I beg to disagree.

I am quite certain that PJIBBERJABBER is fully capable of manufacturing his own delusions.

 

[Fear No Evil]

If he will have failed at anything it's trying to recover from the mess your bitch, GW, left us with. It's not looking too good at the moment but then it would have taken a Messiah to do it and obviously Obama's just a man.

And now YOUR bitch Obama is making it worse.

 

[manimal]

I don't even know who Frank Lunz is. I looked him up and he runs focus groups. Is he supposed to be important in some way that is not identified in the Wiki bio?

Frank Lunz runs focus groups and creates the "talking points"..his messaging can be taken word for word from the mouths of the republican leadership...ever notice how Mitch Mcconnel repeats himself?

He helps frame the narrative.....

Sorry for the attack, I have a drain port in the side of my neck after surgery and the pain and annoyance make me cranky..

 

[Throckmorton]

I stopped reading on the 2nd line of your post.

Democrats compromised everything to hell, gave us a healthcare bill almost identical to what Rs proposed in the 90s, a stimulus that was 35% tax cuts, watered down financial regulation, and on and on... And Republicans still refused to be anything but The Party of No.

 

[boomerang]

Shame on anyone who thinks this post is about Obama. It's about the country, the direction we're going and whether it's too late to make the near impossible decisions that need to be made to prevent a complete collapse.

The post is about who, if anyone, has got the balls to do what's right for the country versus what's right for the candidate or party. Someone, some party, has got to step up and act like adults while being surrounded by those acting like children.

Obama is not that person. He had his chance and instead chose the selfish path. The path of milk and honey for everyone funded by vapor. He could have cut up the credit cards and had us hunker down and watch every penny. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree with no concern for the future. Some think it was planned.

If not for the change in control of the House, he'd have changed nothing. Now, he's going to be forced to. Will he seize the opportunity for his legacy, for history, to laud him as the President that made those hard choices, who rallied the people behind him to bring us back from the precipice? He has neither the ability nor the interest in doing so. He'll be whining for the next two years. Like a child, he'll be blaming everyone else. He's done it for the first two, I can think of no reason he'll change.

Barack Hussein Obama is no leader, he's just another in a string of incompetents who rose to the highest position in the land for reasons historians will ponder for centuries.

Support him at your own peril. In doing so, you will help seal our fate.

 

[dmcowen674]

Shame on anyone who thinks this post is about Obama. It's about the country, the direction we're going and whether it's too late to make the near impossible decisions that need to be made to prevent a complete collapse.

Barack Hussein Obama is no leader, he's just another in a string of incompetents who rose to the highest position in the land for reasons historians will ponder for centuries.

Support him at your own peril. In doing so, you will help seal our fate.

Support Republicans and seal the deal of the death of the country.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Support Republicans and seal the deal of the death of the country.

Thanks for voting for Bush! Why do you hate America?

 

[CycloWizard]

Do you really think the R's are suddenly going to become fiscally conservative for any reason but to spite the D's? They had plenty of opportunity for that 5 years ago and punted the ball away. Face it - they suck too.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Do you really think the R's are suddenly going to become fiscally conservative for any reason but to spite the D's? They had plenty of opportunity for that 5 years ago and punted the ball away. Face it - they suck too.

But these are the New, Improved, Tea-Party-Infused Republicans - now with 500% more Fiscal Responsibility!

 

[nobodyknows]

But these are the New Improved Tea Party Infused Republicans - now with 500% more Fiscal Responsibility!

LOL, deficits don't matter...... unless of course it's politically expediant.

 

[Jaskalas]

If the economy recovers he'll recover.

Given current federal meddling, IF the economy recovers in time to re-elect President Obama then we would have done so using a bubble the likes of which will go down in the history books of better nations.

If the economy is not utterly stagnant and/or falling in the next two years, then we'll have one lash huzzah before collapse. We are either in a depression or in the end. I do not expect them to gracefully guide us through a bubble the size of our entire currency when you can see for yourself the devastation the housing market caused.

The economy does not recover so quickly without destroying it with fake wealth.

 

[OrByte]

good grief the OP is full of assumptions..

 

[OrByte]

Bush screwed the pooch, but Obama misread the situation and assumed that whatever he wanted would automatically be seen as beneficial. From one of his latest interviews he seemed to not understand that communication with the public is necessary and not just "we need to change how things are done". He also decided to pursue his agenda as he, not the people wanted. He put health care as THE priority when the public really wanted jobs. The emphasis was all wrong. Too much of what people didn't want and without connecting with the people. It was his opportunity, but he committed the sin of most DC types, hubris.

Can he recover? Who knows?

disagree. The first major thing Obama got passed was ARRA. The second was his Healthcare.

After launching ARRA (which was a MAJOR compromise between Ds and Rs...do you remember what ARRA originally was supposed to look like!?!) just what else was this administration supposed to do to attend to the economy?

Edit: an even better question, after launching a 1 Trillion dollar stimulus program, would we have had the stomach for Washington to DO MORE? I can gar-un-teee you the GOP wouldn't have allowed Obama to launch more economic legislation, what with them being the party of fiscal responsibilty and austerity.

ARRA #2 never made it to main street, if you can remember that far back...
people like rewriting history too much...

 

[Craig234]

Shame on anyone who thinks this post is about Obama. It's about the country, the direction we're going and whether it's too late to make the near impossible decisions that need to be made to prevent a complete collapse.

The post is about who, if anyone, has got the balls to do what's right for the country versus what's right for the candidate or party. Someone, some party, has got to step up and act like adults while being surrounded by those acting like children.

Obama is not that person. He had his chance and instead chose the selfish path. The path of milk and honey for everyone funded by vapor. He could have cut up the credit cards and had us hunker down and watch every penny. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree with no concern for the future. Some think it was planned.

If not for the change in control of the House, he'd have changed nothing. Now, he's going to be forced to. Will he seize the opportunity for his legacy, for history, to laud him as the President that made those hard choices, who rallied the people behind him to bring us back from the precipice? He has neither the ability nor the interest in doing so. He'll be whining for the next two years. Like a child, he'll be blaming everyone else. He's done it for the first two, I can think of no reason he'll change.

Barack Hussein Obama is no leader, he's just another in a string of incompetents who rose to the highest position in the land for reasons historians will ponder for centuries.

Support him at your own peril. In doing so, you will help seal our fate.

There's a certain amount of truth in what you say, that we have serious fiscal issues and that we aren't addressing them enough.

You make some big errors in not recognizing the Republicans are far worse for the country; not recognizing the qualities of the progressives; in underestimating Obama.

Some of Clinton's balanced budgets was based on abberations, like the tech bubble, but he was still a lot better than the Republicans the last 12 years who skyrocketed deficits to win elections and reward the rich while harming the nation and thenext generation of average tazxpayer, beginning a massive transfer of wealth to the most rich - and than the Republican after him. That's 'socialist' Clinton, Democrat Clinton, better than 'conservative' leaders.

And it wasn't 'the Republican Congress' or 'gridlock', he cut the deficit the same each year his first two years with a Democratic House and Senate.

Obama IMO will retun to fiscal conservatism as fast as any major candidate, faster than most. He is keeping the economy from disaster, or trying to and has so far.

We can't afford the corrupt right-wing agenda, money for the wealthy, tax cuts for the wealthy, bankrupting the country and breaking democracy by fiscal crisis.

'Pass entitlements now, you sleazy masses - you are out of funds'. That's the old radical anti-public pro-rich Grover Norquist 'starve the beast' plan.

Is the problem that Obama isn't doing enough - or that the rich are so politically strong that only someone who does things for them is viable?

That things like calling for the end of their extra tax cuts is the pro-public policy, but the propaganda steers voters to the Republicans who are the servants of the rich?

Your post has little constructive on these issues, implicitly endorsing the party of the rich and the continuation of the bankrupting policies, even as you demand radical cuts.

Until you get the rich curtailed in our elections, how are you going to do that?

Which political faction is least beholden to the rich and most to the public: Republicans, corporate Democrats, or progressive Democrats? The latter, but don't see you for them.

The propaganda - Republicans are for you the little guy against limousine liberals - seems to have done well on your opinion.

You accuse Obama of being childish, but use naive and ineffective rhetoric yourself - 'someone has to step up and do these things', to 'have the balls'.

You call serving the agenda of the rich 'incompetence' which greatly misrepresents the problem. Look at how the most rich are doing, and they're competent - for the rich. Theft without 'revolution'. Presidents have their hands tied even if they want to do something else, their fates tied to the economy that Wall Street can affect. Clinton was informed in no uncertain terms at the beginning of his presidency that his options were limited this way, and he understood and compromised. He got some good done - and some bad.

No one can 'step up and do these things' in a system rigged for the rich. Bernie Sanders would - is he a viable presedential candidate? You may as well tell the KKK it's time for someone to step up and be a ciivil rights champion. But you won't support the people who are the best for fighting the corruption, the progressives.

Which means you will just rant as Rome burns, which is just what 'they' want you to do as they pillage the country and reverse the middle class liberal advances since FDR.

Ever notice how during all this 'bad fiscal policy' since Reagan, the higher the income and wealth, they better they do, down to the top 20% getting all the economic growth and the bottom 80% none, and the top 1% getting a lot more than the rest of the top 20%, and the top 0.01% getting a lot more than the rest of the top 1%, and the top 500 getting a lot more than the rest of the top 0.01%? Think that's a coincidence?

Go look at the radical billionares who fund the country's leading 'think tanks', which are really propaganda machines for selling the public on a radical right-wing ideology.

Are the likes of Coors, Scaife, Olin the sort who should determine the nation's policies? Who lead the nation to the point 20 of the 20 top viable Republican presidential canidates - putting Ron Paul aside who is a quirky figure and not the answer to these issues - are all servants of the radical pro-rich agenda, as well as too many of the Democrats? Where former Wal-Mart board member Hillary, or top private donor Goldman Sachs Obama, are the 'left'?

You are not helping get 'change' by not supporting the progressives who are the political group strongest for the public against these rich interests.

They're not anti-rich, they're anti-radical moving the nation to plutocracy, to bankruptcy that bankrupts everyone but the top, returning the nation to their serfs.

Save234

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Craig, I think a large part of the problem is the two party system which is so ingrained in the public that some (perhaps shockingly, perhaps not) believe it's part of the Constitutional system of government. While that's obviously not true, Congress is nevertheless set up functionally as if it were. Look at seniority and committees. Look who gets to be the Speaker.

While I may disagree with many of your positions, I think that our system does Progressives a disservice, and others for that matter. Those at the top will make sure you don't have a real chance. They'll allow input of course which they are free to discard, but a real chance for other representation? Not bloody likely.

If I could change some things in DC it would be to free the voters from the stranglehold the Big Two currently enjoy and give other parties a fair shot at being heard and having a chance based on the merits of their ideas, rather than Party considerations.

 

[trenchfoot]

If it's not in the best interest of the repubs that the economy gets better, then it's going to stay just where it is or they're going to try really hard to make things worse and pin it on Obama for the 2012 elections.

The repubs have the luxury of having an even stronger "NO" to jam things up in Congress and have an even stronger platform to blame the Dems for it all, because, "well, we only have the House and the Dems still control everything", except of course, the repub's hushed up ability to filibuster at will in the Senate.

So here we have a situation where Obama needs bipartisanship to get anything done, and the repub's need only to sit on their hands and obstruct some more to get rid of Obama in 2012.

It's simply amazing to see how much legislation (damage) the repubs got done from 2000-2006, compared to what the less organized Dems have managed to push through so far. Sure, the repubs don't have their version of the blue dogs to deal with, but I still admire the discipline, however corrupt it is, that they push their agenda with.

 

[xj0hnx]

Obama IMO will retun to fiscal conservatism as fast as any major candidate, faster than most. He is keeping the economy from disaster, or trying to and has so far.

That's the funniest thing you've ever posted. How can he return to somewhere he has never been?

 

[zsdersw]

But these are the New, Improved, Tea-Party-Infused Republicans - now with 500% more Fiscal Responsibility!

Too bad 500% more zero is still zero.