[Orion27]

I have to say, Obama answering questions from House Republicans today was the most compelling
political television I have ever seen. I am and have been a big critic of Obama, but I have to say Obama took the Republicans to school. Articulate, compelling arguing for bi partisanship, Obama came across sincere and in command of the facts as he interprets them. I want to see more of this. Open, transparent debate. The growth in Obama is palpable. Phoenix from the ashes. Let the games begin

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I have to say, Obama answering questions from House Republicans today was the most compelling
political television I have ever seen. I am and have been a big critic of Obama, but I have to say Obama took the Republicans to school. Articulate, compelling arguing for bi partisanship, Obama came across sincere and in command of the facts as he interprets them. I want to see more of this. Open, transparent debate. The growth in Obama is palpable. Phoenix from the ashes. Let the games begin

I was wondering if somebody would start a thread about this, I just finished watching this political theater. It was clearly a bad idea for Republicans to permit this to be televised, although perhaps they were boxed into a corner. From a purely staging perspective it came across as Obama lecturing like a school teacher and at times treating the GOP like a bunch of school kids.

My favorite part was the dude that led off his question with all of this rhetoric about the debt Obama is responsible for, or something like that, and then asking a completely leading question about what he is going to tell the kids or something like that. I can't remember exactly what the question was, but it was one of those extremely leading questions designed to put the person answering the question on the defensive right off the bat and having to defend themselves from attacks that were not substantiated in the question, which was actually more of a diatribe.

Democrats do this, Republicans do this, Obama was absolutely right in identifying this and calling for this to stop. You cannot have a serious debate with this tone just like I cannot have a debate with somebody in here who is pro-abortion when I ask them a question along the lines of "so, how will you rationalize to the children you come into contact with as to why you don't seem to be bothered about murdering babies"?

[besson3c]

The other point that Obama made in this that I agree with strongly is the notion of throwing the legislative baby out with the bath water.

He used the example of a hypothetical stimulus package. If this hypothetical stimulus package includes tax breaks which you support, some other projects which you support, but some infrastructure you don't, it doesn't do much good to just vote against the entire thing, throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is better to break the bill up into smaller pieces and work these things out, but still work towards getting the core pieces of the legislation you agree with to pass.

My perception, rightly or wrongly, is that the Republicans have been very obstructionist, and I think for this very reason. It is cool if they feel passionate about some aspect of a necessarily massive and complex bill such as health care and really cannot let that pass in good consciousness, but to just thumbs down the entire bill just creates a real log jam and gets nothing accomplished.

Many Republicans in this video said that they have ideas. Maybe they (and Democrats) need to encourage this sort of forking so that we don't have to trash otherwise agreeable legislation?

The other thing I liked about this video: Obama admitting fault on multiple occasions.

In the interest of fairness, what I did not like about this video was that it didn't really result in dialog and back and forth debate with members of the GOP. It was rather hostile at times on both sides, but Obama was able to sort of have the last word and seemingly steer this debate.

[hyteckit]

Obama has a teleprompter™

[Orion27]

Let's keep things in perspective.

Investors Business Daily on why the market is down:

[R]ight now, the market seems to be saying: "It's the policies, stupid." Specifically, the socialistic policies that the Obama administration keeps pushing at Americans who know that's not the way this great country was built.

It isn't just the efforts to socialize medicine or nationalize the car industry or control banks or punish both consumers and industry for climate variations that have little to do with it either. It's every initiative that comes out of this White House.

[besson3c]

Where is all of this leftist legislation Orion? There is none, aside from an attempt to stimulate the economy with spending. I'm tired of hearing this repeated all of the time as if it is true.

[besson3c]

Here is the moment I was referring to, with the question:

The president grew more exasperated when Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas challenged him on the spending plan he will unveil next week. “Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?” he asked.

Mr. Obama called the question “an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.”

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

In other words, "yes".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

In other words, "yes".

Exactly!

Furthermore, Obama was still in campaign mode himself during the State of the Union hinting yet again at having "inherited" this crisis citing the troubles of the prior Administration's economic policies HE VOTED IN FAVOR OF at the time such as the 2009 Budget including Tarp, etc... with only TWO Republican yeas at the time.

It's not enough to say "both parties are to blame" when one of the parties has had a decisive majority in Congress and all, but shut the other out. It's a start and I'm hopeful for change, but Obama has shown that he has absolutely no control over this Congress.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Exactly!

Furthermore, Obama was still in campaign mode himself during the State of the Union hinting yet again at having "inherited" this crisis citing the troubles of the prior Administration's economic policies HE VOTED IN FAVOR OF at the time such as the 2009 Budget including Tarp, etc... with only TWO Republican yeas at the time.

Don't you get tired of all of this tiresome blaming and endless loop? Republicans blame Obama, Obama/Democrats tries to deflect blame, Republicans fire back, etc.

Of course Obama is going to deflect blame so that he is not in a politically bad place, that's what politicians do, but he also pointed out how counter productive this back and forth is, and he was right. Trying to bog down people trying to take the high road by painting them as hypocrites is equally as counter-productive. Why not try to take an ever higher road than him?

All of this score keeping, trying to figure out who is more to blame, who is the biggest hypocrite, who started it, meow meow is tiresome and pointless. Moreover, it reduces a nuanced and thoughtful answer such as the one Obama gave in answering this question to political bickering.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Exactly!

Furthermore, Obama was still in campaign mode himself during the State of the Union hinting yet again at having "inherited" this crisis citing the troubles of the prior Administration's economic policies HE VOTED IN FAVOR OF at the time such as the 2009 Budget including Tarp, etc... with only TWO Republican yeas at the time.

It's not enough to say "both parties are to blame" when one of the parties has had a decisive majority in Congress and all, but shut the other out. It's a start and I'm hopeful for change, but Obama has shown that he has absolutely no control over this Congress.

It is pretty amazing. Obama acts like he just arrived in Washington last year as a total outsider, and 'inherited' all these problems that he had nothing to do with. Let's all forget that he was a senator in the Democrat-controlled congress, and personally voted for every spending bill that came down the pike. He's no outsider to this mess, he was a principal participant in it.

Of course the choir he's trying to preach to can't remember the day before yesterday, let alone several years back. They actually buy all his 'outsider' stepping in to fix the mess bullcrap, and the fact that he's now -in light of immanent Democratic party meltdown- been told to utter 'bipartisan' as many times as possible so he can inevitably blame Republicans as equally if not completely responsible for the resulting further train wreck.

And besson, as always, you're as predictable as the politicians you love so much. You've got no problem placing blame, you just don't like it when the blame is as white-hot a spotlight on 'your guys' and as it is now. Whenever a 'D' is in the hot seat, suddenly it's "oh stop placing blame! Oh boo hoo! How dare an 'R' ask a hard question! Boo hoo! Let's all chant 'bipartisan' until all the calls for accountability on the 'D' goes away!"

[besson3c]

As always Crash, you are predictable in picking a fight and being edgy.

I don't have a problem with making Ds accountable. Have at it. I just a problem when this is all that some people seem interested in doing, particularly when it is targeted at a single party (I mean this generally).

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In the interest of fairness, what I did not like about this video was that it didn't really result in dialog and back and forth debate with members of the GOP. It was rather hostile at times on both sides, but Obama was able to sort of have the last word and seemingly steer this debate.

I think the moment the President knew it was going to be televised was the moment he decided he was going to be doing the talking. Most of his answers and responses could have been more concise.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It is pretty amazing. Obama acts like he just arrived in Washington last year as a total outsider, and 'inherited' all these problems that he had nothing to do with. Let's all forget that he was a senator in the Democrat-controlled congress, and personally voted for every spending bill that came down the pike. He's no outsider to this mess, he was a principal participant in it.

I also recall Bush letting Obama be privy to, and consulted on, the steps wbeing taken during the last few months of his presidency as it related to dealing with the financial mess. I understand this reasoning from the outgoing President's perspective, but it's disingenuous as best for the current President to act as if he had no part in any of these decisions.

Our President is all about blaming others. Bush came into office as the internet bubble was bursting, with a new recession on his hands, and eight months later, our nation under attack. Yet through all of this, I can't remember him blaming the previous administration for this. Occasionally when asked, he'd maybe mention the previous administration's policies (like the Clinton policy of regime change in Iraq), but generally he focused on moving forward instead of blaming this person, that department, his political opposition, liberal extremists and activists, news channels and media outlets, etc..

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I think the moment the President knew it was going to be televised was the moment he decided he was going to be doing the talking. Most of his answers and responses could have been more concise.

Yeah, he has a way of monopolizing these sorts of venues, that's for sure. However, I don't have a problem with his wordiness, I think he was relatively concise. I think that in general politicians and many of the debates that happen nationally are concise to a fault, reducing extremely complicated issues to rhetoric, bumper stickers, and sound bytes. I welcome thoughtfulness, no matter what the subject matter or opinion.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I also recall Bush letting Obama be privy to, and consulted on, the steps wbeing taken during the last few months of his presidency as it related to dealing with the financial mess. I understand this reasoning from the outgoing President's perspective, but it's disingenuous as best for the current President to act as if he had no part in any of these decisions.

Our President is all about blaming others. Bush came into office as the internet bubble was bursting, with a new recession on his hands, and eight months later, our nation under attack. Yet through all of this, I can't remember him blaming the previous administration for this. Occasionally when asked, he'd maybe mention the previous administration's policies (like the Clinton policy of regime change in Iraq), but generally he focused on moving forward instead of blaming this person, that department, his political opposition, liberal extremists and activists, news channels and media outlets, etc..

I agree, Bush was pretty good about not skirting blame to past administrations. I think at times he wasn't good about accepting blame in general, defending his policies and rarely if ever acknowledging a mistake, but at least he didn't punt these sorts of problems to somebody else.

I think Obama overdoes his "reminders" about his inheritance a little too much in order to secure political capital. On the other hand, in his hostile political climate I think that politicians on both sides are quick to reduce problems to labels and assigning them to individuals as well (for instance, the idea that Obama is a socialist, the idea that the Republicans are obstructionist, etc.). So I would also say that this is a much larger problem as well.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

... On the other hand, in his hostile political climate I think that politicians on both sides are quick to reduce problems to labels and assigning them to individuals as well (for instance, the idea that Obama is a socialist, the idea that the Republicans are obstructionist, etc.).

I actually think the labels sort of fit. The Administration and Democrats in Congress are absolutely in favor of bigger government, increased control of industries, and more centralization. Socialist isn't the correct term, but it's definitely of a Marxist flavor, or as others say, a "soft" tyranny. And yes, the Republicans are obstructing this, because not only are their beliefs different, but also because examination of these policies as they've been implemented around the world (now and historically) have led to undesirable results.

So I don't think the labels are necessarily incorrect, but I think they have to be presented together. The Democrats who are in power are aiming to rapidly take the nation leftward, and the Republicans (and their constituents) wish to take a slower approach (or alternative approach).

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, he has a way of monopolizing these sorts of venues, that's for sure. However, I don't have a problem with his wordiness, I think he was relatively concise. I think that in general politicians and many of the debates that happen nationally are concise to a fault, reducing extremely complicated issues to rhetoric, bumper stickers, and sound bytes. I welcome thoughtfulness, no matter what the subject matter or opinion.

That's fine, but only when all involved get to participate that way. It sort of seemed like the President was the only one permitted to expand to such a degree.

I suppose that's the bully pulpit we hear about so often. Is any official truly going to attempt to speak over and/or dominate the President in a setting such as this, or any setting for that matter?

[hyteckit]

It's Clinton's Fault.™

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Don't you get tired of all of this tiresome blaming and endless loop? Republicans blame Obama, Obama/Democrats tries to deflect blame, Republicans fire back, etc.

I get tired of the President using his incredibly influential office to repeatedly blame a prior Administration for economic problems he helped vote for. When it comes to taking the high road, I'd certainly expect it to start from the highest office in the land regardless of the party holding it.

Of course Obama is going to deflect blame so that he is not in a politically bad place, that's what politicians do, but he also pointed out how counter productive this back and forth is, and he was right.

Again, it is not enough IMO when he's been an integral part of the forth. His Administration and supporters in Congress should stop projecting their anger at the American people onto the Republican party. Obama should not refer to their contribution as nothing more than "no" when in reality there's a whole bunch of "yes" he's not listened to. Granted, I've long wanted alternative ideals expressed more vocally and Republicans may have finally gotten the message. Obama obliging their request for a meeting was a good idea too and IMO they both did okay.

Trying to bog down people trying to take the high road by painting them as hypocrites is equally as counter-productive. Why not try to take an ever higher road than him?

Unfortunately people are too busy and this hasn't traditionally gotten the Republicans very far. They needed to be more vocal instead of leaving so much of it up to townhalls, tea parties, and a wealth of others not necessarily as skilled at speaking as their representatives.

All of this score keeping, trying to figure out who is more to blame, who is the biggest hypocrite, who started it, meow meow is tiresome and pointless. Moreover, it reduces a nuanced and thoughtful answer such as the one Obama gave in answering this question to political bickering.

I think the above completely misses the point. The loudest bickering this past year has been between the American people and their leadership from Obama, down. To project this on to the Republican minority in Congress by referring to them in context of "no" perpetuates the childishness he's supposedly addressing. A great many D's are saying "no" as well and the problem has not been their representation of the American people, it is the fact that disagreement has gotten in the way of political goals. I understand politicians do this besson, but we apparently want something more. I like the fact that people are starting to pay a little more attention and I like the fact that Obama is paying more attention. I hope Congress is listening and I hope they act in a way that's more constructive. Both parties.

Clean slate right?

[macforray]

So, he drives the Republican school bus? That's nice. He may need a new occupation after January 2013. Might as well get proficient now.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I actually think the labels sort of fit. The Administration and Democrats in Congress are absolutely in favor of bigger government, increased control of industries, and more centralization. Socialist isn't the correct term, but it's definitely of a Marxist flavor, or as others say, a "soft" tyranny. And yes, the Republicans are obstructing this, because not only are their beliefs different, but also because examination of these policies as they've been implemented around the world (now and historically) have led to undesirable results.

So I don't think the labels are necessarily incorrect, but I think they have to be presented together. The Democrats who are in power are aiming to rapidly take the nation leftward, and the Republicans (and their constituents) wish to take a slower approach (or alternative approach).

The label of "socialist" is factually inaccurate, and at best a great exaggeration. Supporting public health care like so many other countries have and increasing spending as a means to counter the recession alone are nowhere near the grounds to take us from very squarely free market all of the way over to the other extreme end of the spectrum. There are many of stops off in between, somewhere where Obama's policies (including tax breaks and many other free market based policies) reside.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

That's fine, but only when all involved get to participate that way. It sort of seemed like the President was the only one permitted to expand to such a degree.

I suppose that's the bully pulpit we hear about so often. Is any official truly going to attempt to speak over and/or dominate the President in a setting such as this, or any setting for that matter?

I would like to see more of these sorts of events, and ones where the Republicans go a little further than the rhetoric that some of them employed heavily, and ones where instead of both Obama and the Republicans agree to disagree on some specific of a bill that they actually debate this further and draw out this conversation, so long as it is relevant and not just bickering about something fairly inconsequential.

[Big Mac]

Takes Republicans to school? Hardly. Yes, he's capable of giving slick, half-truth responses to questions when he's pressed, but I wasn't impressed by that. If he thinks that kind of performance will be enough to save his party in November from a stunning defeat, he will be in a for a rude awakening.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: weren't you the one that predicted a stunning Obama defeat in November 2008?

[Big Mac]

besson, stifle yourself. Seriously, though, that was wishful thinking. The same type of wishful thinking that allows atheists to believe all of life came from primordial pond scum - well, not nearly that deluded, but you get the point.

Does the recent electoral trend not tell you anything, besson? President Obama can grandstand and demagogue as much as he wants, but the people are angry at his politics and his party.

[Buckaroo]

Lets not forget that Obama for the past year has been the most arrogant and ruthless about locking out the Republicans from ALL involvement with all laws created and passed. It isn't until he has lost his grip around the american people that he has to even talk to a Republican. He is the most one sided arrogant idiot I have ever witnessed. He has NO right to lecture anyone one this subject.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

besson, stifle yourself. Seriously, though, that was wishful thinking. The same type of wishful thinking that allows atheists to believe all of life came from primordial pond scum - well, not nearly that deluded, but you get the point.

Does the recent electoral trend not tell you anything, besson? President Obama can grandstand and demagogue as much as he wants, but the people are angry at his politics and his party.

People are angry at politics in general. Some might turn to the other party for all of their answers, some are just blowing off steam.

My point here was that your predictions are shaped by your own bias and wishful thinking. It is too early to predict stuff.

[stupendousman]

I didn't really see the magic in Obama's rhetoric.

Essentially, it can be summed up as "we won, we're going to do it our way, so don't fight it and we'll call that 'bi-partisanship".

Really, the Democrats have all the power. Bi-partisanship should start with them, but they've acted as partisan or more than any other group I can remember. Obama started by telling Republicans that "he won" when he got into office and that they were going to do it his way. He continued by telling Democrats that didn't agree with his stands that he was "keeping score." I can't remember Bush (or any President in the last 30 years or so at least) EVER communicating that sort of angry nonsense to the opposition. Someone who does that really isn't all that interested in working with the opposition as much as they are bending them to his will.

It's the same thing he's been dishonesetly saying about for the past year or so.

Republicans most certainly have tried to obstruct all the unpopular policies Obama has been putting into place. It's pretty much the job of congress to do what the people want. But, the thing is that they've offered alternatives or have the American people on their side when the policies in question don't need to be put into place with any alternatives.

The question asking Obama if he was going to moderate himself enough with the budget to give the Republicans something they could support is a classic example of shifting blame and not answering the question. That's not taking someone to school, that's fudging answers when you get in front of the class.

Not impressed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not impressed.

I think we all assumed this prior to your post, but thanks for the confirmation

Just teasing

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think we all assumed this prior to your post, but thanks for the confirmation

Because I've previously illustrated at length that all Obama does in regards to bi-partisan cooperation is to tell the other side to do it, and the evidence is already out there?

Yeah, pretty predictable.

Seriously, I still think the Benefit Of The Doubt™ I earned by supporting your take on Obama in a couple of threads of late shouldn't have expired by now. I think it's got a month or two left on it at least.

[hyteckit]

Wow. Compared to Pres. Obama, Pres. Bush and Sarah Palin sound like retards.

Awesome to watch.

[hyteckit]

Too bad Pres. Obama is too much of a moderate. More defense spending. Continuing the Afghan war. More gun rights.

Pres. Obama needs to be a real progressive. Stop listening to Republicans who want nothing more than to score points and cares little about the American people.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Too bad Pres. Obama is too much of a moderate. More defense spending. Continuing the Afghan war. More gun rights.

I've already complimented him on doing what the military brass have asked in regards to overseas defense. That's the one area he's getting it reasonably right.

Pres. Obama needs to be a real progressive. Stop listening to Republicans who want nothing more than to score points and cares little about the American people.

It's not the Republicans who aren't listening to them. I think the Scott Brown victory sort of proves that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Pres. Obama needs to be a real progressive. Stop listening to Republicans who want nothing more than to score points and cares little about the American people.

It's not about listening to Republicans, it's about listening to the people who put him in office. By doing what you suggest, he will only ensure he loses the White House and his party, progressives included, the majority in Congress.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I actually agree with hyteckit for once. Obama does need to be the REAL 'progressive' that he is, and stop pretending otherwise.

The American people need to see more of the real Obama that's not hiding his real intentions and beliefs- that way they can get a whiff of the real deal, and respond accordingly at the ballot box. We've already seen the start of that.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I have to say, Obama answering questions from House Republicans today was the most compelling
political television I have ever seen. I am and have been a big critic of Obama, but I have to say Obama took the Republicans to school. Articulate, compelling arguing for bi partisanship, Obama came across sincere and in command of the facts as he interprets them. I want to see more of this. Open, transparent debate. The growth in Obama is palpable. Phoenix from the ashes. Let the games begin

You are absolutely right. When you look at the video or listen to the radio broadcast or even read the transcript ... in its entirety ... I don't see how anyone can credibly come to any other conclusion.

As a general note to some of the criticisms being leveled in this thread ...... IMO the Obama Administration should stop reminding the American people about the deficit it inherited as soon as its Republican critics recover from their collective case of convenient amnesia and end their constant attacks which are clearly, obviously designed to imply that the "whopping 1.9 trillion dollar deficit" is the result of Obama's policies. The minute he walked in the door the deficit was 1 trillion dollars ... 8 trillion over the next 10 years. That's a fact. Period, dot, end of sentence. Caused primarily by what, you might ask? The Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, the Prescription Drug benefit for Medicare, and the Bush tax cuts. None of which were paid for. Only one of which was even necessary. And most importantly, none of which the conservative critics are in favor of curtailing. But then they want to turn around and b*tch about the deficit! Contrast that with the stimulus bill which arguably was necessary to prevent the Great Recession (which for the record occurred and was in fll swing under the Bush Administration) from becoming the Great Depression v. 2.0. 1/3 of which was tax cuts to 95% of Americans ... which any other time is the typical Republican mantra but quite conspicuously couldn't even get an applause from them during the State of the Union address b/c it was Democrats who pushed it through. And 1/3 of which was financial support to the states which were hemorrhaging red ink ... needed to extend unemployment benefits and prevent mass layoffs of teachers, police officers, firemen, etc. Again, these are facts. And it's funny how since the Republicans can't stand on the facts, they are now trying "flip the script" and accuse the Obama Administration of not being "bi-partisan" because they point this out in response to Republican attempts to lay the deficit at the feet of Obama. GTFOOH!!!

Regarding the specifics, we'll see if any of the Obama critics actually deals with any of the actual statements that the President made. That is, list the question ... list Obama's response ... and make an attempt at a rebuttal. Because thus far all we are seeing is a lot of generalities.

Finally, I would love to see this type of event occur regularly. Not just with the opposition party though. I think it would helpful to our democracy.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You are absolutely right. When you look at the video or listen to the radio broadcast or even read the transcript ... in its entirety ... I don't see how anyone can credibly come to any other conclusion.

As a general note to some of the criticisms being leveled in this thread ...... IMO the Obama Administration should stop reminding the American people about the deficit it inherited as soon as its Republican critics recover from their collective case of convenient amnesia and end their constant attacks which are clearly, obviously designed to imply that the "whopping 1.9 trillion dollar deficit" is the result of Obama's policies. The minute he walked in the door the deficit was 1 trillion dollars ... 8 trillion over the next 10 years. That's a fact. Period, dot, end of sentence. Caused primarily by what, you might ask? The Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, the Prescription Drug benefit for Medicare, and the Bush tax cuts. None of which were paid for. Only one of which was even necessary. And most importantly, none of which the conservative critics are in favor of curtailing. But then they want to turn around and b*tch about the deficit! Contrast that with the stimulus bill which arguably was necessary to prevent the Great Recession (which for the record occurred and was in fll swing under the Bush Administration) from becoming the Great Depression v. 2.0. 1/3 of which was tax cuts to 95% of Americans ... which any other time is the typical Republican mantra but quite conspicuously couldn't even get an applause from them during the State of the Union address b/c it was Democrats who pushed it through. And 1/3 of which was financial support to the states which were hemorrhaging red ink ... needed to extend unemployment benefits and prevent mass layoffs of teachers, police officers, firemen, etc. Again, these are facts. And it's funny how since the Republicans can't stand on the facts, they are now trying "flip the script" and accuse the Obama Administration of not being "bi-partisan" because they point this out in response to Republican attempts to lay the deficit at the feet of Obama. GTFOOH!!!

Regarding the specifics, we'll see if any of the Obama critics actually deals with any of the actual statements that the President made. That is, list the question ... list Obama's response ... and make an attempt at a rebuttal. Because thus far all we are seeing is a lot of generalities.

Finally, I would love to see this type of event occur regularly. Not just with the opposition party though. I think it would helpful to our democracy.

OAW

The collective amnesia of course would include the 3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit or the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program and the $787 billion stimulus bill. All voted for by Obama. Period. End of story. Obama is absolutely, positively as culpable for the out of control spending perpetuated by a Democratic Congress and signed by Bush. The attempt to distance himself from the deficit is a sorry joke that plays the voting public for a bunch of fools and it's going to cost him the office. Don't take my word for it. Either watch them change this tactic or watch them lose. It's very simple.

Newsflash, we're still in Iraq and we're spending more in ramping up our efforts in Afghanistan.

[stumblinmike]

Well, we COULD have gotten Sarah and John to lead us out of this mess. IMHO, I think we are better off with President Obama. He seems a tad smarter....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Well, we COULD have gotten Sarah and John to lead us out of this mess. IMHO, I think we are better off with President Obama. He seems a tad smarter....

You could be right.

[stumblinmike]

But probably not smart enough...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Well, we COULD have gotten Sarah and John to lead us out of this mess. IMHO, I think we are better off with President Obama. He seems a tad smarter....

I disagree. While I don't think a lot of McCain's policies would have been much better, at the very least I think that McCain was sincere in regards to his goals during the campaign and would have kept most of his campaign promises.

Obama on the other hand ran a cynical campaign of "I'm just like McCain, only a tiny bit to the left and I'm SOOOO charsimatic." He got into office and immediately abandoned all pretense of bipartisanship and reasonable compromise that McCain would have embraced (as his past record and experience showed) and now that people see that it was all a charade, his approval numbers are in the toliet.

ebuddy is right. He's either going to have to pull a MAJOR "Bill Clinton Moment" and turn things around towards the moderate end of the spectrum, or be satisfied as a fairly unpopular one-term president.

[besson3c]

I'm surprised that nobody here has mentioned Fox News cutting away from this pretty unusual event?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The collective amnesia of course would include the 3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit or the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program and the $787 billion stimulus bill. All voted for by Obama. Period. End of story. Obama is absolutely, positively as culpable for the out of control spending perpetuated by a Democratic Congress and signed by Bush. The attempt to distance himself from the deficit is a sorry joke that plays the voting public for a bunch of fools and it's going to cost him the office. Don't take my word for it. Either watch them change this tactic or watch them lose. It's very simple.

Newsflash, we're still in Iraq and we're spending more in ramping up our efforts in Afghanistan.

I think you are missing the point. Which is quite simple really.

The Republican party only concerns itself with the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House.

Put aside who controlled Congress and who voted for what blah blah blah. I've been following politics since the Carter era ... and this certainly seems to be the case. When the deficit skyrocketed under Reagan and Bush II you simply did not hear the level of complaints about "spending" and "red ink" from Republicans as you did under Clinton and now under Obama. You didn't see Tea Party protests and people frothing at the mouth over the issue. When the PAY-GO rules ... enacted under Bush I .... which required that all new spending or tax changes be deficit neutral expired in 2002 ... under Bush II ... deficits returned spurred on by the Bush tax cuts and the Medicare Prescription drug benefit, along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now let's bring this up to recent events. Since the Republicans are getting their panties in a bunch because they don't like being reminded of the historical facts. Just last week the Senate voted, along party lines, to increase the debt ceiling by 1.9 trillion dollars. Now this had to be done as it was simply essential to prevent the federal government from defaulting on its debt obligations. A default would simply have catastrophic consequences which can't credibly be denied. But all the Senate Republicans decided to play a political game and vote against anyway. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of the debt accumulation that made this step necessary in the first place occurred during the time that Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House through 2007. Oh did I go there again? My bad! The point is that the Senate also approved an amendment that would re-establish the PAY-GO rules .... again, along a party line vote. And guess what? Every single Senate Republican voted against it. Why?

The measure, which also needed 60 votes under Senate rules, was approved by a 60-to-40 vote that also fell along party lines. Many Republicans objected that the requirement would make it too hard to cut taxes, which is why they let a previous law lapse in 2002 when their party controlled Congress.

Senate, on Party Line Vote, Raises Debt Limit - NYTimes.com

So let me break it down to the very last compound for you here. Senate Republicans had an opportunity to restore the fiscal discipline (enacted under the Bush I Administration) that erased the deficit and led to a surplus (under the Clinton Administration) and they voted against it. Unanimously! Because the rules would prevent them from cutting taxes that would result in higher deficits! Like the Bush tax cuts did! Like the tax cuts to 95% of working Americans that made up 1/3 of the Stimulus Package did. So tax cuts done under the Obama Administration which resulted in higher deficits ... targeted to the middle class and needed to help bring the economy out of a recession ... that was a problem for Republicans. Couldn't even get an applause in the State of the Union address from them on that one. But tax cuts done under the Bush Administration which also resulted in higher deficits .... primarily benefitting the wealthy and definitely not needed at the time ... that was cool.

Bottom line? Deficits that result from tax cuts or spending sponsored by Republican Administrations are cool with Republicans. While deficits that result from tax cuts or spending sponsored by Democratic Administrations are a sign of the apocalypse to them. So like I said before regarding all of the sudden "wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth" about the deficit among Republicans ..... GTFOOH!!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm surprised that nobody here has mentioned Fox News cutting away from this pretty unusual event?

Indeed. It certainly didn't go unnoticed. Anyone want to place a small wager on whether or not the Republicans invite Obama to do it again?

OAW

[besson3c]

OAW: did you see that Barbara Walters roundtable thing where Huffington asks Ailes why he did that, and he just went on blabbering in a very defensive way about how Fox is the most trusted news source without actually answering the question? Kind of funny, but not...

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

OAW: did you see that Barbara Walters roundtable thing where Huffington asks Ailes why he did that, and he just went on blabbering in a very defensive way about how Fox is the most trusted news source without actually answering the question? Kind of funny, but not...

Seems like an honest answer to me.

Fox News is the most trusted news source. Our audience trust us to know what's best for them. They can't think for themselves anyway.

After all, their slogan is "We decide. You listen."

[OAW]

Besson3c: No I think i missed the Barbara Walters interview you mentioned. Sounds most believable though.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Besson3c: No I think i missed the Barbara Walters interview you mentioned. Sounds most believable though.

OAW

It's the third video from the bottom here: Roger Ailes On "This Week": Defends Glenn Beck, Insists Fox Is No Longer At War With Obama

[kido331]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Bottom line? Deficits that result from tax cuts or spending sponsored by Republican Administrations are cool with Republicans. While deficits that result from tax cuts or spending sponsored by Democratic Administrations are a sign of the apocalypse to them. So like I said before regarding all of the sudden "wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth" about the deficit among Republicans ..... GTFOOH!!

OAW