What is wrong with Obama? He did it his first term, when he had a mandate, yet he quickly handed the entire policymaking agenda to the loser Republicans.
Now the American electorate has given him a second term (questionable whether it's deserved or not) and they brought him some great allies in the Senate (Elizabeth Warren, for example) and the first thing he says is that he's going to SIT DOWN WITH LOSER ROMNEY TO SEE HOW THEY CAN WORK TOGETHER???
| Obama also said he is willing to meet Romney in the next several weeks to discuss how they can work together to help the country. |
No sooner does he get elected by the very people whose hopes he dashed the first time, than he turns around and does the same, stupid, thing!! Mr. President...YOU WON! SHOW NO MERCY! TAKE NO PRISONERS!!!
23 comments:
This is his last election, and he won. You'll get to see the real unvarnished Obama now. He's a wolf in wolf's clothing?
Romney doesnt even hold elected office... who the hell does he represent? GOP poobahs? This is not right... rsp,
"What is wrong with Obama? He did it his first term, when he had a mandate, yet he quickly handed the entire policymaking agenda to the loser Republicans."
What in the hell are you talking about? That is total bullshit. He had total control for 2 years. Maybe instead of using the word "quickly" you should say after half of his 1st term.
Bear,
Obama could solve all of this by COB today by ordering the mint to deliver a $1T coin to Treasury for deposit into the Treasury account at the Fed... no GOP cooperation required.
The Executive has much discretion related to Treasury/Monetary operations as evidenced by FDR/Nixon ending gold via Executive Order....
And Mike worked hard during O's first term to get MMT info into the admin via the Vice Presidents office to no avail...
This whole thing is now again 100% on the Obama admin ...
rsp
He can't get anything done without Republicans, so he has no alternative but to work with him. But I second Matt's comment about Romney. Romney is not the leader of his party. Once Presidential candidates lose, if they don't hold elected office, they ride off into the sunset and it's "adios". Meeting with Romney is like calling a meeting with Bob Dole.
Maybe Obama will ask Romney to be his Treasury Secretary in order to create a bipartisan assault on the deficit??????
"A Team of Rivals"
"Four years ago, Barack Obama said he wanted a Lincoln-esque “team of rivals” in his Cabinet....."
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/07/obama-cabinet-team-rivals-lincoln
maybe he thinks a second term is better for this to happen.... cant see Geithner sticking around for a second term.... rsp,
Boehner now live on "Fiscal Cliff"...
Quid pro quo. Entitlement reform in exchange for revenue increases. Grand Bargain, here we come!
Boehner makes it perfectly clear that the Republicans will cooperate with Obama so long as Obama does exactly what the Republicans want. Oh well.
It's just rhetoric - he has to say something nice for the cameras.
The extent to which he does compromise is another matter. The deal he gets at the end of it is a matter for him and his staff.
Of course, what he has today is that locking in the job for four more years will give him more leverage
Bowles-Simpson Bowles-Simpson
Bowles-Simpson Bowles-Simpson
Get used to it because that's all you're going to hear going forward. Heard it 20 odd time tonight alone.
Obama won and he endorses their plan without reservation. It's not if, it's when.
"Bowels-Simpleton" ;)
President Obama can start by promoting that recent report that the GOP tried to hide which showed that tax breaks for the rich don't promote economic growth
You have to love the smugness of obama getting in. I do not think he likes romney one bit.
They guy from FFT http://www.forecastfortomorrow.com predicted obama would get in back in FEB 2012, and has amazing and erry calls with this stuff.
But He is also saying that obama getting in is going to be horrible for us all. Hyperinflation is coming and wow, that will be something no one will be ready for.
As a foreigner looking in from without, I have to say I am always impressed by the persistance of the American Myth even by the most sophisticated people. There is a "hard-to-kill" belief in the system; they still get worked-up about the election; the idea that there is one party with two heads is accepted but not assimilated; that the country has been hijacked by the amalgam of big money and the national security state is accepted but not assimilated.
The States reminds me more and more in some respects of Mexico: essentially a dictatorship with a democratic face with all the usual bells and whistles, but with more freedom to write and speak opinions--a better safety steam valve. The difference seems to be that Mexicans are generally more aware that the system is a farce (except for the myth-bound middle class), but they are equally bamboozled by "patriotism." Americans are also deeply divided into those who think it's all because the rich dogs took it all, and those who think that it's the wretched bone-lazy welfare recipients and immigrants who took it all. Mexicans are far more aware that they are ruled by an oligarchic plutocracy which also has the guns and tanks. Both populations, however, are one in their worship of progress, "development," economic growth, their essentially modernist aspirations.
Bullish_Bear,
What in the hell are you talking about? That is total bullshit. He had total control for 2 years. Maybe instead of using the word "quickly" you should say after half of his 1st term.
No he didn't. Go look up when he actually had a filibuster-proof majority. It was a matter of weeks, not months or years.
Edmund Kar, You're correct; however it's also true that with Harry Reid on his side the President could have gotten rid of the filibuster at any time provided that Reid used the Constitutional option. Obama never tried to persuade Reid to do that. Since Reid was up for re-election 2010, Obama could have been quite persuasive about that, especially if he had done it in December 2009 before Reid organized the Senate in January and Obama took office. Was it rocket science to figure out that failure to do that was a grant of power to the Republicans and the Democratic blue dogs in the Senate? No, I'm sorry but Obama is to blame for all the failures of his Administration. His approach to governing was very unrealistic, and the Republicans and Blue Dogs pretty much cut him and the Ds to ribbons. The only question is whether the Ds were just stupid or planned it that way to rationalize their failure to govern progressively.
If it's any consolation, he has less to give away this time? :(
There are no Republicans in the way of Obama using his justice department and sending Holder after all the crooks that brought on this disaster. Had he done that right away, we would not be having a discussion about what he can or can't do with the Congress. Congress would have been in turmoil from all their donors going down and the curtain being drawn for everyone to see how things actually work. But he won't go down that road. Maybe he is worried about taking out Democrats too. Maybe it's a case of each side having something on the other so no one calls the other out without having their own crimes exposed. That was certainly the case during the Clinton years.
But there are plenty of things he could do at any time he wanted. And for the other things, he could simply start the midterm election campaign off right now by pushing popular items that he knows the House republicans will shoot down, and challenge for every seat in the house.
I'm with Mike on this one.
Why is it so hard for people to actually look up how long the Dems had 60?
Teapublicans are on every web page but Google these days.
Had 60 for just a bit over four months... one of those months was out of session.
Yeah, well, what did you expect? Ever heard the story of the frog and scorpion?
For the time being, until after year end, he doesn't need to do a thing. Let them sweat. He holds the cards on taxes and spending. ( I think he can veto any cuts they want??)
His problem, of his own doing, is the debt ceiling. Some say he should mint a coin. I doubt that but maybe he will use the constitution. I mean he is a lawyer right?
Why do I feel like this boat is already sinking?
Edmund Kar is right. If Obama ever had a filibuster proof majority it lasted no longer than a few weeks.
There weren't 60 votes (58 Democrats & 2 Independents) to override a Republican filibuster, until Arlen Specter changed his affiliation (becoming the 57th Dem. Sen. on 4/30/09) and Al Franken was seated as Senator of Minn. on July 7th 2009. When Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy's seat on Feb. 4th 2010 there were 41 Republicans and no chance of breaking a filibuster.
Even during those few weeks, an actual 60 votes on the floor of the Senate would have been hard to come by. Ted Kennedy suffered a massive stroke on 5/17/09 and never returned to Congress. His replacement was seated on 9/24/09. Arguably, Obama had a filibuster proof majority for 19 weeks from 9/24/09 until 2/7/10. Except that Congress took 5 weeks off for Thanksgiving and Christmas recess.
Post a Comment