[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Since you seem to be a Washington insider yourself, tell us all what critical dealings Obama is losing ground on by choosing to spend a few evenings with his family?

I am no Washington insider, nor have I claimed to be. I quote the opinions of those who actually are, as their take means more than yours and mine.

What dealings has Obama lost ground on ? How productive has congress been lately? What has been passed?

According to the Chicago Tribune (Obama's hometown paper), the 112th congress is the least productive in YEARS, in terms of votes taken, bills made into laws, nominees approved. This even underperformed the "do-nothing congress" of 1948, as Harry Truman dubbed it. Even the volatile hot-tempered era during the Clinton impeachment hearings saw more bills become law, but then he was willing to play the game while dealing with his other problems (and helping to raise Chelsea). Washington Post says it's not yet half as productive as the next least productive congress, thats how bad it is.

I'd post actual links, but last time I did that, you got all bent out of joint about my links being all over the place. I'm sure readers here are clever enough to google it if they want, especially since I've given the source names.

I never said the Romney campaign was knocking the ball out of the park, far from it. But if he does get elected, he has a pretty low bar to clear to improve congressional progress. Just want to point out to any undecideds reading this, that he doesnt need to be the greatest POTUS ever to be an improvement.

If Obama wins again, then I guess all the Republicans will continue to be wingnuts, and refuse to play nice with Barry. My money is on the bar being set even lower with the next congress if that occurs. Of course none of that will be Obama's fault.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

If you have limited time to do 2 of 3 things, which 2 should a President do?

1. Spend time with kids
2. Work on fostering relationships with congressmen
3. Make time to have interviews with Nancy O'Dell of E.T., and Whoopi Goldberg.

Which of those 3 would the taxpayers expect you to cut out ? Even if you think the role of Dad usurps the role of President, you cant argue that Barbara Walters or the video equivalent of "People Magazine" usurps the role of President....

Those are false choices. If you are president and you can manage to do all 3 then that's what you do, there is no conflict. A president's job is to reach and communicate with constituents through various mediums. The shows you mentioned have large female audiences. It's an election year. Women are a core constituency for the president and he is smart to reach them through shows like E.T. and The View. Every living president before him has done TV talk shows while in office. It's no big deal.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Those are false choices. If you are president and you can manage to do all 3 then that's what you do, there is no conflict. A president's job is to reach and communicate with constituents through various mediums. The shows you mentioned have large female audiences. It's an election year. Women are a core constituency for the president and he is smart to reach them through shows like E.T. and The View. Every living president before him has done TV talk shows while in office. It's no big deal.

May not be a big deal but it certainly isn't his job. Election year or not.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I never said the Romney campaign was knocking the ball out of the park, far from it. But if he does get elected, he has a pretty low bar to clear to improve congressional progress. Just want to point out to any undecideds reading this, that he doesnt need to be the greatest POTUS ever to be an improvement.

Let me also point out to the undecideds that Romney is a candidate without a core and without a soul politically. He has one of the lowest favorability and highest negative ratings of any recent presidential candidate. People just don't seem to like the guy and they don't think he understands them or cares about them. He is one of the worst presidential candidates ever to run for office, so in the unlikely event he does become president he is not likely to be an improvement over the current president. In fact he is not likely to be as good as the current president because in order to lead effectively people have to like you and people don't like Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney's calling card is is supposed to be his competence. He has yet to display competence in his campaign to be president.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

If Obama wins again, then I guess all the Republicans will continue to be wingnuts, and refuse to play nice with Barry. My money is on the bar being set even lower with the next congress if that occurs. Of course none of that will be Obama's fault.

If Obama wins again, which he likely will, more Democrats will likely be swept into office with him. I believe the Republican fever of obstruction will break by necessity. It will have to or Republicans will be blamed for their obstruction and nothing getting done and they will get slaughtered in the mid terms. After the eleciton I see the Republican party taking one of 2 paths:

The party will completely implode and relegate itself to permanent minority party status.

Or the party will be forced to do some serious soul searching, reorganize and come up with new ideas that appeal to demographics beyond Christian Evangelicals and wealthy white men.

A Republican party that is perpetually angry, fearful, and defines itself by being against everything presented by the other side will not win a lot of young voters. A party that is constantly nostalgic for the past is not sustainable either as it tends to alienate a lot of minorities for whom the past was not necessarily a better time than the present. In order to grow and remain viable the party needs to attract more of the very voters they have alienated in this election cycle. That will require a serious overhaul of the party platform.

If by some miracle Romney wins this election the Republican party will put off their inevitable need to change for several more years. Either way stay tuned. Interesting times ahead...

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

May not be a big deal but it certainly isn't his job. Election year or not.

Reaching voters is one of the president's responsibilities. You may not approve of the way the president goes about doing that, but yes, that is his job.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

in order to lead effectively people have to like you and people don't like Mitt Romney.

I would dispute that. Take a look at the financial statements of Apple, then read Steve Job's biography. The guy, by ALL accounts, was a misanthropic, mean spirited bully who mercilessly slammed his own people. He makes the fictional Dr. House seem like Mr. Congeniality, and yet that did not impair his ability to lead effectively and take Apple to where it is. Romney may not be Mr. Personality, but there's no evidence he is as personally harsh and abrasive as Jobs was, not by a long shot.

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Mitt Romney's calling card is is supposed to be his competence. He has yet to display competence in his campaign to be president.

Take a look at the Salt Lake Olympics for concrete evidence of competence. In fact, one Bill Clinton used the words "Sterling Business Record" to refer to Romneys credentials. The Olympics, just like corporate boardrooms, are filled with politics. If he can get the IOC to play nice, congress should be a walk in the park.

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

If Obama wins again, which he likely will, more Democrats will likely be swept into office with him. I believe the Republican fever of obstruction will break by necessity. It will have to or Republicans will be blamed for their obstruction and nothing getting done and they will get slaughtered in the mid terms. After the eleciton I see the Republican party taking one of 2 paths:

The party will completely implode and relegate itself to permanent minority party status.

Or the party will be forced to do some serious soul searching, reorganize and come up with new ideas that appeal to demographics beyond Christian Evangelicals and wealthy white men.

IMHO, those hardly seem like the most plausible outcomes. When the Republicans won 2 consecutive terms with Dubya, that did not cause the Democrats to move to the right ideologically speaking; in fact, their next candidate has gone farther to the left than his predecessor, stating in an interview he is in favor of wealth redistribution. Why would the Republicans suddenly go farther to the left, ideologically speaking, after 2 consecutive Democrat wins? There's no precedent for it, it hardly seems likely.

As people see what is happening in Europe, where decades of more socialist style democracies have finally caught up to them, financially speaking, and they see rioting in the streets of Madrid because excess entitlement spending can no longer be sustained, the well has run dry, I can't imagine everyone here watching that and suddenly stating; hey, lets really embrace more of that approach.

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Interesting times ahead...

I'll agree to that, assuming you share my sentiment that "interesting" does not always equate to "joyous".

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

^^^WOW! You just pretty much plagiarized a nice portion from your source while writing it as if it's your own summerization by adding a few of your own words. Holy Sh!t!

How very predictable. When shown very damning and irrefutable facts about Obamas feckless record with Congress, try and distract and redirect attention away by using bolder fonts, with exclamation points, and the crazy assertion that I was plagiarising, as if that somehow makes it OK that he can't get anything done. First of all, many of my posts here an in other threads contain content that originated in other articles. This makes it easier for readers to get the point without having to click a link and read thru a big long article. I've never claimed this to be my work (and even if I did, who cares? this isnt a postgraduate thesis submission). This is no different. Think about it, if I really wanted to pass this off as mine, why would I cite the originating newspaper source, and invite the reader to google it for themselves?

Your childish distraction attempt takes nothing away from the facts. His lack of accomplishment, legislatively speaking, represents a new low not seen for decades.

Originally Posted by 48Laws

McConnell. Nuff said.

Seriously, 1 old man can single-handedly derail the whole Hope and Change platform by himself?

Obama is like an inexperienced, novice teacher, who cannot control his unruly class, and thus the entire lesson plans go off the rails. "Gee Mr. Principal, there's one bad boy, Mitch McConnell, and he's so disruptive I just dont know what to do, he's ruining it for all the other kids. Sure, I'm the teacher, so ultimately it's my responsiblity to make sure things get done, but I cant do anything about it."

Even Clinton got stuff done with him there, but then he was willing to schmooze. Or, maybe you think McConnell's approach is just purely racist in motivation? If that's the case, then we're all really screwed. I'm no fortune teller, but I'm pretty sure if Obama wins again, he will still be black, so he's gotta overcome that somehow to get anyone to listen to him. (and I mean ANYONE; his budget was defeated in the Senate 99-0, and 414-0 in the house; yes the zero means he couldnt even get his own party to vote for it)

I guess you Democrats are just hoping McConnell's advanced age catches up with him and he dies or something ? Otherwise, what possible explanation can you have to suggest that we are not in for 4 more years of gridlock ? McConnell is very popular, to see him win again is not unreasonable.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Romney may not be Mr. Personality, but there's no evidence he is as personally harsh and abrasive as Jobs was, not by a long shot.

The difference between Romney and Jobs is not just personality. It's conviction. Whatever you thought of Steve Jobs you knew who he was and where he stood. Not so with Romney. Nobody knows who this guy is and he always appears to be hiding something. Makes him seem untrustworthy. Nobody will follow someone they don't know and don't trust.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Take a look at the Salt Lake Olympics for concrete evidence of competence. In fact, one Bill Clinton used the words "Sterling Business Record" to refer to Romneys credentials. The Olympics, just like corporate boardrooms, are filled with politics. If he can get the IOC to play nice, congress should be a walk in the park.

It's not a given that being good in business means you are good at politics. More to the point what I said in my previous post is that Romney has not demonstrated competence in his campaign for president. He's a lousy candidate and his campaign has been full of misteps and gaffs and he changes his positions almost daily. Then there's that pesky thing about not having a core. Nobody knows who this guy really is. It's bad, really bad.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

IMHO, those hardly seem like the most plausible outcomes. When the Republicans won 2 consecutive terms with Dubya, that did not cause the Democrats to move to the right ideologically speaking; in fact, their next candidate has gone farther to the left than his predecessor, stating in an interview he is in favor of wealth redistribution. Why would the Republicans suddenly go farther to the left, ideologically speaking, after 2 consecutive Democrat wins? There's no precedent for it, it hardly seems likely.

I never said the Republicans would be forced to the left if Obama is re-elected. That is one of the big problems for Republicans these days. They have convinced themselves that striking any kind of compramise (especially with this president) necessarily means giving up their principles which is complete BS. This president has demonstrated a willingness to compramise (even at the risk of alienating his base) with republicans over and over again but Republicans just throw it back in his face each time. If the president gets re-elected with the number I think he will be, Republicans will have no choice but to compramise to get something done. The voters are not going to stand for continued obstruction. The mid-terms will see to that.

I won't even go there regarding your statement about re-distribution of wealth. That is what happened for 8 years under Bush, only the wealth was re-distributed from the lower and middle class to the top 1 percent.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

As people see what is happening in Europe, where decades of more socialist style democracies have finally caught up to them, financially speaking, and they see rioting in the streets of Madrid because excess entitlement spending can no longer be sustained, the well has run dry, I can't imagine everyone here watching that and suddenly stating; hey, lets really embrace more of that approach.

Republicans have convinced themselves that this president is a far left socialist ideolog intent on spending this country into bankruptcy with all kinds of social programs that benefit minorities and the poor and siphon from the rich. That just isn't true. That characterization of Barack Obama is a cartoon narative created on the right for consumption by consertatives and other people on the right purely for political reasons. It has been ginned up and swirled around in the right wing echo chamber and it has worked very well. Trouble is it's BS. If this president is so bad for business then why is Wall Street doing so well? Why are businesses who have raked in massive profits over the last 3 years sitting on a shit ton of cash waiting to see how the election goes? The president wants to deal with the debt and I absolutely believe that if he gets a second term that will be a top priority in his administration.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I'll agree to that, assuming you share my sentiment that "interesting" does not always equate to "joyous".

Sorry but I don't share your pessimism. I think the next 4 years will see a strong economic recovery and expansion for this country. I do think there will be some pain politically for Republicans. I think the party has been taken over by extremists who are not good for the party or the country. I think Fox news has played a big part it that. I don't see the current status of the Republican party as being sustainable. Something has to give and it will be interesting to watch. That's what I mean by "interesting".

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Why are businesses who have raked in massive profits over the last 3 years sitting on a shit ton of cash waiting to see how the election goes?

Steve Wynn the billionaire is a self-professed "Harry Reid-supporting Democrat" (see, 48laws, I used quotes !)

He is one of the captains of industry who employs a LOT of people and is in control of a LOT of money.

Money that could be used to benefit struggling states like Nevada, if it were unleashed. But, he's not spending it.

"I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs. Wynn said he could very quickly create 10,000 new jobs himself and with the multiplier effect help create another 20,000 hires in Las Vegas. But like many other business people in both parties he's holding back under the current Democratic Obama administration.

I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-on-obama.html

Remember, this is from a self-professed Democrat. What about others with a LOT of money also to spend, such as Roger Penske, a long time Republican. Guess what he's doing with his money too. Guess why ?

Obama has already convinced you the pool is safe to swim in, so to speak. That doesnt really matter, unless you also have the kind of might to create 10K new jobs. Without trying to cast any moral judgement, mathematically speaking, Steve Wynns appraisal is more important than yours. Obama needs to convince the Steve Wynn's of the world it's safe to get back in the water, and thus far, he seems to have failed at that. He needs to skip the E.T. appearances, and focus instead on the corporate boardrooms of America to get his message across.

[rgrovr]

This thread was pure ownage. Great theater to see someone exposed for holding a standard they don't hold for themselves to and move the subject along as quickly as possible to any tangential subject to avoid being labeled greedy, when it is patently obvious.

Nevermind the fact that Milton's destruction of Phil Donahue was the original topic and there hasn't been any refutation of his argument. No other system has taken more people out of poverty and enriched the human condition outside of capitalism. More specifically, the U.S. form of capitalism shines brightly above all others. If someone believes another form of society has done better, I'd like to hear it.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

The difference between Romney and Jobs is not just personality. It's conviction. Whatever you thought of Steve Jobs you knew who he was and where he stood. Not so with Romney. Nobody knows who this guy is and he always appears to be hiding something. Makes him seem untrustworthy. Nobody will follow someone they don't know and don't trust.

Who is the president who debates his re-election Wednesday evening? The uncertainty of what he stands for is mounting.

He was the man who supported "pay-as-you-go budgeting." Yet more U.S. debt was created during his administration than in any previous one.

He boasts George W. Bush issued more regulations than his administration. He also accuses Bush of deregulation.

He says he supports American energy independence. He withdraws oil and gas leases on public lands, cancels lease sales and establishes new obstacles to energy production.

He spurns earmarks. He signs a bill with thousands of them.

He supported Egypt's Hosni Mubarak before he undermined Mubarak.

He ordered federal officials to "usher in a new era of open government." Nineteen of 20 of his Cabinet-level agencies disobeyed the law requiring the disclosure of public information.

He said, "Lobbyists will not find a job in my White House" and pledged he wouldn't raise money from them. They have. He did.

He ridiculed the Bush tax cuts and the "tired and cynical philosophy" behind them. He extended the Bush tax cuts.

He said Moammar Gadhafi must go while the chairman of his Joint Chiefs of Staff explained that wasn't the president's objective.

He leads from behind, reports one of his advisers, describing the president's handling of the Libya uprising. That's what most people call "following." He follows, crediting himself with leadership.

He attacked Hillary Clinton's plan to mandate health insurance coverage and John McCain's tax on Cadillac health plans. He turned around and proposed both ideas.

He has said, "Democrats are not for a bigger government," while advancing it.

He hides under the wing of a former president who declared that "the era of big government is over," though he, himself, revived that era.

He proclaims the urgency of his jobs bill. He waited for nearly 1,000 days to introduce it.

He was elected promising no red or blue America, no liberal or conservative America, "just one America." He has built his re-election on division.

He said, "We can argue fiercely about the proper size and role of government without questioning each other's love for this country."

He says Republicans in Congress do not "put country ahead of party."

He decries Republican elitism. He plays more golf, it seems, than Jack Nicklaus.

He pledged to end rendition of terror suspects. He now supports it.

He's said government shouldn't be in the business of running car companies. He took over General Motors and fired its CEO.

He proposed the Affordable Care Act. It has made health care less affordable and costs trillions.

He attacks Republicans for cutting Medicare. He cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare.

In chorus, he urges deficit reduction and offers large deficits for 10 straight years.

He said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." He authorized military action against Libya without consulting Congress.

He stands back while Arab Spring demonstrators die in the streets, cries for American help on their lips. He gives the Arab Spring lip service.

He pledges he'll close Guantanamo. He keeps it open, failing to convince other countries to accept its detainees.

etc.....


http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2

[JMAX]

"I voted in its favor before I became against it." (Or words to that effect.)

One of my favorite political sentences ever. (Closely competing with Ms. Pelosi's "I guess we'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.")

Epic.

[Mike Benvo]

Enjoyed reading.. Didn't know OT was so juicy!

[DrPops]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

When we're on our death-bed the only thing we wish we had more of is time....

Unless you're dying of hunger. I'm pretty sure a burger would help you more than additional time.