Obama's Usama bounce over

[werepossum]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullshit Spidey07, the Dems never had a filibuster proof Senate, and unlike the GOP, the dems don't vote as one single block. As many blue dog dems thought they could gain re-election by sometimes siding with the GOP, it did not work, they lost anyway.

The Dems DID indeed have a filibuster proof Senate; all they had to do was promote legislation moderate enough to get support from all the Democrat Senators. The Pubbies only vote en masse when the Dems propose something truly horrendous or a fellow Pubbie proposes something too popular to oppose.

One thing at which the left excels is painting the right as a unity. Remember, the opposition to Obamacare was bipartisan. It was the support for Obamacare that was partisan, yet the left has gone far toward reversing public opinion by simply having their BFFs in the mainstream media repeat the lie.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Democrats had massive control of the legislative branch for two years and for a good part of it a filibuster proof majority in the senate. They could have passed any legislation they wanted, and did so, going directly against the will of The People. Republicans were powerless to stop it.
Revisionist history much?

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for seven months - if you count the two Independents as Democrats, forgetting that one of them actively campaigned against the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008...

 

[werepossum]

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for seven months - if you count the two Independents as Democrats, forgetting that one of them actively campaigned against the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008...

One of those Independents is a life-long Democrat who only ran as an Independent because the party left, of which Obama is the poster boy, turned on him demanding that party purity that the left continually attributes to the Republicans. (A basic failure of progressive strategery here.) The other is an avowed Socialist - which is an Uber-Democrat. Sanders will never be far from Pelosi's opinion on anything.

 

[senseamp]

GOP is working hard to crash the economy for next year. I guess it sucks for Obama and the unemployed, but I am looking to buy a house in that time frame, so I guess there is some upside for me in more foreclosures and short sales.

 

[fskimospy]

The Dems DID indeed have a filibuster proof Senate; all they had to do was promote legislation moderate enough to get support from all the Democrat Senators. The Pubbies only vote en masse when the Dems propose something truly horrendous or a fellow Pubbie proposes something too popular to oppose.

One thing at which the left excels is painting the right as a unity. Remember, the opposition to Obamacare was bipartisan. It was the support for Obamacare that was partisan, yet the left has gone far toward reversing public opinion by simply having their BFFs in the mainstream media repeat the lie.

If by 'bipartisan opposition' you mean 15% of the Democrats in the House and 0% of the Democrats in the Senate I guess the opposition was bipartisan. Of course 99.5% of the Republicans in the House and 100% of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the bill. Seems like both the support and the opposition were mighty partisan to me. Anyway, if you look at party unity totals over the last decade which will include both Democratic and Republican controlled congresses you will see Republican party unity scores at far higher levels than Democratic unity scores on the whole. This is simply a fact. So as compared to Democrats yes, Republicans are more unified. Period.

Now about your health care and the media thing. What's interesting about this is that this isn't the first time you've brought up the media misrepresenting the passage of the health care bill. In fact you've made a very similar claim in the past where you said the media had portrayed the passage of the health care bill as bipartisan, but when I challenged you on it you completely and utterly failed to find even a single incident of this occurring. Yet here you are a month or two later still clinging to the same discredited myths. Why are you repeating things you know aren't true?

 

[Anarchist420]

Fuck both Parties. They're both Hamiltonian/Wilsonian to the core.

 

[fskimospy]

Fuck both Parties. They're both Hamiltonian/Wilsonian to the core.

Nobody cares what you think, you're ignorant and stupid.

 

[werepossum]

If by 'bipartisan opposition' you mean 15% of the Democrats in the House and 0% of the Democrats in the Senate I guess the opposition was bipartisan. Of course 99.5% of the Republicans in the House and 100% of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the bill. Seems like both the support and the opposition were mighty partisan to me. Anyway, if you look at party unity totals over the last decade which will include both Democratic and Republican controlled congresses you will see Republican party unity scores at far higher levels than Democratic unity scores on the whole. This is simply a fact. So as compared to Democrats yes, Republicans are more unified. Period.

Now about your health care and the media thing. What's interesting about this is that this isn't the first time you've brought up the media misrepresenting the passage of the health care bill. In fact you've made a very similar claim in the past where you said the media had portrayed the passage of the health care bill as bipartisan, but when I challenged you on it you completely and utterly failed to find even a single incident of this occurring. Yet here you are a month or two later still clinging to the same discredited myths. Why are you repeating things you know aren't true?

Where are your examples of the media touting the bi-partisan opposition to, and the partisan support for, Obamacare?

Here's a New York Times (all the news that fits, we print) piece on Obamacare. Notice that although the article decries the "partisan split", at no point does it mention the Democrats against the bill. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/politics/16health.html

here's a little tidbit over ABC and NBC refusing to run an opposition (to Obamacare) advert because it is "partisan". http://www.chandlerswatch.com/2009/...es-to-run-tv-ads-critical-of-obamacare-video/
You may remember that this is soon after ABC ran an Obama infomercial touting Obamacare, including picked questions all in support of Obamacare and no one in opposition, and then devoted almost a whole programming day to Obamacare advocates. Note especially this quote:

“The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue,” spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. “Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News.”

That's ABC News, home of George Stephanopolis, Clinton's senior political adviser, so we KNOW they're fair, right?

here's an article about the coverage of the CBO's evaluation of Obamacare. You know, the one that during the debate showed us how Obamacare would cut the deficit. Not the one after it became law, that showed us how it would increase the budget.
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/201...dia_Skip_Criticism_of_NonPartisan_Agency.html
Notice the many emphases of "bipartisan" and "independent".

Here's an article about CBS's Maggie Rodriguez interviewing Michelle Obama about how President Obama handles stress, such as that from health care reform "being held hostage by partisanship." http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100223125206.aspx
note that while ONLY Democrats supported Obamacare, both Democrats and Republicans opposed it, yet CBS labels it as "being held hostage by partisanship."

Perhaps now you can deliver some of those fair and balanced examples of the mainstream media correctly identifying the opposition bi-partisan and the support partisan. And just for the record, "discredited" implies that there is evidence that I am wrong. "Unproven" is the most you can honestly claim.

 

[fskimospy]

Ahahahahahahahaahaha. Where to start?

First link: You quoted an article from July 15 of 2009, and asked why it didn't mention Democratic opposition to the bill. That's because there was no Democratic opposition to the bill in July of 2009. The vote that the article was about was a vote in which every Democratic member voted for it. You're mad at the NYT for not using a time machine. Do you even read the links you post?

Next few links: Your 'evidence' comes from ultra right wing sites that claim the media referencing the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is some sort of bias because they believe the hilarious claim that the CBO is leftist in origin. Then they are mad because the media didn't include enough criticism leveled at it by ultra right opinion factories like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. (I won't mention how many times Cato and Heritage use the CBO's projections when they conform to their ideological desires) Do you realize just what sort of insane, delusional world you are inhabiting? Where not including obvious biased opinions is somehow now evidence of bias the other way? You really need to stop reading the ultra right wing sites.

I also happen to see you've changed your tune. After being blown up while trying to claim the media declared the support for the bill to be bipartisan, you're now trying to claim that by not declaring opposition bipartisan often enough because ~10% of total congressional Democrats voted against it, that it's evidence of some huge lie perpetrated by the media.

Seriously man, what world are you living in?

 

[DominionSeraph]

I'm sorry werepossum, you're way off. The media did report on how the bill was being held hostage by a few Democrats. It went quite in-depth about their personal motivations and the lengths that the congressional leadership was going to to get their votes.
The reason they had that power was because the Republicans were playing partisan politics.

You should really get out of the conservative spin zone more. You just don't have the brain to be able to safely navigate it on your own.

 

[werepossum]

Ahahahahahahahaahaha. Where to start?

First link: You quoted an article from July 15 of 2009, and asked why it didn't mention Democratic opposition to the bill. That's because there was no Democratic opposition to the bill in July of 2009. The vote that the article was about was a vote in which every Democratic member voted for it. You're mad at the NYT for not using a time machine. Do you even read the links you post?

Next few links: Your 'evidence' comes from ultra right wing sites that claim the media referencing the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is some sort of bias because they believe the hilarious claim that the CBO is leftist in origin. Then they are mad because the media didn't include enough criticism leveled at it by ultra right opinion factories like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. (I won't mention how many times Cato and Heritage use the CBO's projections when they conform to their ideological desires) Do you realize just what sort of insane, delusional world you are inhabiting? Where not including obvious biased opinions is somehow now evidence of bias the other way? You really need to stop reading the ultra right wing sites.

I also happen to see you've changed your tune. After being blown up while trying to claim the media declared the support for the bill to be bipartisan, you're now trying to claim that by not declaring opposition bipartisan often enough because ~10% of total congressional Democrats voted against it, that it's evidence of some huge lie perpetrated by the media.

Seriously man, what world are you living in?

So in your world when the CBO declares during debate that Obamacare will cut the deficit, it passes, and then the CBO reverses itself and says oops, it's actually going to increase the deficit, that comes from, what, a surplus of non-partisanship? Hilarious non-partisanship?

When ABC does a full day promoting Obamacare, with nary a dissenting view to be found, and refuses to allow dissenting groups to even BUY ad time, you find this to be good, unbiased journalism?

 

[fskimospy]

So in your world when the CBO declares during debate that Obamacare will cut the deficit, it passes, and then the CBO reverses itself and says oops, it's actually going to increase the deficit, that comes from, what, a surplus of non-partisanship? Hilarious non-partisanship?

When ABC does a full day promoting Obamacare, with nary a dissenting view to be found, and refuses to allow dissenting groups to even BUY ad time, you find this to be good, unbiased journalism?

Uhmm, the CBO doesn't say that it's going to increase the deficit. I'm not sure how you don't know that. The CBO has said that REPEALING it would increase the deficit. I guess I'll chalk this up to 'hilarious inability to read'.

If you're upset that networks air things the president does but not opposition ads, you're quite a few years too late. (networks gave the Bush administration plenty of airtime to sell the war, then refused to air ads against the war) Instead of realizing that this is some problematic deference to executive power regardless of the party holding the White House (as would be correct), you filter it through your lens of ultra right wing partisanship and find a conspiracy of libruls against you.

 

[fskimospy]

What's sad is that even when example after example after example is blown up in your face, it does absolutely nothing to change your mind. Your belief in the media conspiring against you is an article of faith, and it is unshakable. You will just be back tomorrow with more easily disproven examples that you will believe just as wholeheartedly.

I don't know why I bother responding, because your political religion demands the myth of persecution and victimization. It won't ever change.

 

[PokerGuy]

What's actually pretty tough is to figure out who actually "loves me some me" more, obummer or eskimospy

 

[zsdersw]

So, in summary... those on this forum who hate and attack Obama still hate and attack Obama, and those who like and defend him still like and defend him. And neither will objectively consider, ever, whether he deserves praise or criticism... because it may conflict with their existing opinion.

Fantastic. You've all demonstrated nothing more than your own idiocy.

 

[werepossum]

So, in summary... those on this forum who hate and attack Obama still hate and attack Obama, and those who like and defend him still like and defend him. And neither will objectively consider, ever, whether he deserves praise or criticism... because it may conflict with their existing opinion.

Fantastic. You've all demonstrated nothing more than your own idiocy.

Without calling anyone an idiot, that was kind of my point. Seems to me that Obama actually deserves more credit than he is getting - if perhaps not quite as much as he would like, Eskimospy's linguists aside.

 

[zsdersw]

Without calling anyone an idiot,

I gotta call 'em like I see 'em.

 

[Atreus21]

Nobody cares what you think, you're ignorant and stupid.

For some reason I think this belongs in my sig. It's just great.

 

[Atreus21]

So, in summary... those on this forum who hate and attack Obama still hate and attack Obama, and those who like and defend him still like and defend him. And neither will objectively consider, ever, whether he deserves praise or criticism... because it may conflict with their existing opinion.

Fantastic. You've all demonstrated nothing more than your own idiocy.

I think I disagree also. My opinion of Obama took a marked leap when OBL got flushed down the terlet.

You might also be interested to know that Rush Limbaugh opened his next show after it happened in unequivocal praise of Obama. I had to listen for awhile because I honestly wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic or not. But surprisingly he was serious and honest. I didn't listen, but I heard Hannity did the same on his show, as did Dennis Miller.

 

[fskimospy]

I think I disagree also. My opinion of Obama took a marked leap when OBL got flushed down the terlet.

You might also be interested to know that Rush Limbaugh opened his next show after it happened in unequivocal praise of Obama. I had to listen for awhile because I honestly wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic or not. But surprisingly he was serious and honest. I didn't listen, but I heard Hannity did the same on his show, as did Dennis Miller.

Sadly, he was not being serious. Here's a clip of him laughing at everyone who thought the same way you do.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/245885_Limbaugh_laughs_at_media_who_t

 

[werepossum]

I think I disagree also. My opinion of Obama took a marked leap when OBL got flushed down the terlet.

You might also be interested to know that Rush Limbaugh opened his next show after it happened in unequivocal praise of Obama. I had to listen for awhile because I honestly wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic or not. But surprisingly he was serious and honest. I didn't listen, but I heard Hannity did the same on his show, as did Dennis Miller.

I heard all three shows, and I agree, but I also think only Miller really gives Obama enough credit for it. I've heard Rush and Hannity both argue on later shows that Bush deserves more credit for the kill, on account of the "enhanced interrogation" and secret CIA prisons that generated the first intel. While the lion's share of credit goes to the CIA and the military, I think Obama deserves more credit than does Bush because he had to make the controversial calls to make the riskier but more certain strike with men rather than with missiles and to not bring in the Pakistanis. Also, the President gets credit and blame for everything that happens on his watch, even things like gas prices and unemployment for which he has reasonably little control. And Obama made the tough call to go beyond even what Bush did against actual terrorists and Taliban, with many more drone strikes. (Granted, a great deal of that increase is merely our increasing ability to make such strikes as we build up our stable of Predators and pilots, but Obama still has to authorize use of the additional resources.)

That gives three reasonable reasons to give Obama the lion's share of credit (outside of the CIA and the military, who of course deserve the bulk of the credit.) Eskimospy's linguists aside, Obama's speech was a misstep, the evolving story of the raid was a misstep, and arguably Gallup's transparent attempt to boost the bounce was a misstep (though not Obama's), but these are mere details after the fact. I remain surprised at the small bounce and even more so, at its short lifespan. Getting UBL was a major deal.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's all about the economy. Getting OBL was great, but it doesn't do much for me if I don't have a job right?

That, and he blew much of the the credit he should get for getting OBL by doing his little "praise me, I, me, great, me, wonderful I, me, I loves me some me!" stunt.

Fox News viewer LOL

 

[fskimospy]

I heard all three shows, and I agree, but I also think only Miller really gives Obama enough credit for it. I've heard Rush and Hannity both argue on later shows that Bush deserves more credit for the kill, on account of the "enhanced interrogation" and secret CIA prisons that generated the first intel. While the lion's share of credit goes to the CIA and the military, I think Obama deserves more credit than does Bush because he had to make the controversial calls to make the riskier but more certain strike with men rather than with missiles and to not bring in the Pakistanis. Also, the President gets credit and blame for everything that happens on his watch, even things like gas prices and unemployment for which he has reasonably little control. And Obama made the tough call to go beyond even what Bush did against actual terrorists and Taliban, with many more drone strikes. (Granted, a great deal of that increase is merely our increasing ability to make such strikes as we build up our stable of Predators and pilots, but Obama still has to authorize use of the additional resources.)

That gives three reasonable reasons to give Obama the lion's share of credit (outside of the CIA and the military, who of course deserve the bulk of the credit.) Eskimospy's linguists aside, Obama's speech was a misstep, the evolving story of the raid was a misstep, and arguably Gallup's transparent attempt to boost the bounce was a misstep (though not Obama's), but these are mere details after the fact. I remain surprised at the small bounce and even more so, at its short lifespan. Getting UBL was a major deal.

I love how people with actual knowledge who take a look at the real speeches are somehow 'my linguists', and when they come to the opposite conclusion you just dismiss it.

 

[CPA]

It's always been about the economy. I don't know of anyone who thought his bounce would last, but as mentioned before it's hard to tell at this point. If he only gets even a 1% permanent bump from this, it's a big advantage.

As for the 'I love me some me' idea, that's a debunked extreme right wing myth. Language analysts checked the number of personal references in his speech as compared to ones by GWB, Clinton, etc. and he actually comes in below any of them.

You don't know anyone who thought his bounce would last? Do a search on "Obama just won the 2012 election" and you will get a list of folks who thought it would last.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't know anyone who thought his bounce would last? Do a search on "Obama just won the 2012 election" and you will get a list of folks who thought it would last.

I don't think you understand what people meant by that. A 'bounce' in politics usually means a pretty significant uptick in polls, I would say at least 4-5 points. What people were arguing when they say Obama can't lose in 2012 was not that he would ride some tide of popularity from here on out, but that he would pick up a couple of percentage points that he might not have otherwise, and in presidential politics a few percentage points is a huge advantage.

Obama was already going to be hard to beat in 2012, and if you spot him a few points extra things start looking really bad.