President Obama’s day

When a President seems to be on a downward spiral, stories like this seem to come out:

Aimless Obama walks alone

Last Updated: 3:45 AM, October 9, 2011

Posted: 2:49 AM, October 9, 2011

headshotMichael Goodwin

The reports are not good, disturbing even. I have heard basically the same story four times in the last 10 days, and the people doing the talking are in New York and Washington and are spread across the political spectrum.

The gist is this: President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government. He talks mostly, and sometimes only, to friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett and to David Axelrod, his political strategist.

Everybody else, including members of his Cabinet, have little face time with him except for brief meetings that serve as photo ops. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner both have complained, according to people who have talked to them, that they are shut out of important decisions.

President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government.

The president’s workdays are said to end early, often at 4 p.m. He usually has dinner in the family residence with his wife and daughters, then retreats to a private office. One person said he takes a stack of briefing books. Others aren’t sure what he does.

If the reports are accurate, and I believe they are, they paint a picture of an isolated man trapped in a collapsing presidency. While there is no indication Obama is walking the halls of the White House late at night, talking to the portraits of former presidents, as Richard Nixon did during Watergate, the reports help explain his odd public remarks.

Obama conceded in one television interview recently that Americans are not “better off than they were four years ago” and said in another that the nation had “gotten a little soft.” Both smacked of a man who feels discouraged and alienated and sparked comparisons to Jimmy Carter, never a good sign.

Blaming the country is political heresy, of course, yet Obama is running out of scapegoats. His allies rarely make affirmative arguments on his behalf anymore, limiting themselves to making excuses for his failure. He and they attack Republicans, George W. Bush, European leaders and Chinese currency manipulation — and that was just last week.

The blame game isn’t much of a defense for Solyndra and “Fast and Furious,” the emerging twin scandals that paint a picture of incompetence at best.

We heard plenty of stories about how President Clinton was always up late, talking policy with anyone and everyone, keeping aides and interns [cough!] working late. And our friends on the left tried to make some political hay out of President Bush’s normal routine, up, exercising and at work very early, but also early to bed.

But this is the first of the stories I have seen about President Obama’s routine, and my first question would be: has his routine actually changed, or was he running his job this way even when he was riding high in 2009? The picture being painted by Mr Goodwin seems a bit disturbing, on the surface, sort of implying — without directly stating — that the President is losing it, but unless you have more background, it’s at the very least incomplete, and really rather unfair.

However, Mr Goodwin was right on target when he noted that Mr Obama’s supporters “rarely make affirmative arguments on his behalf anymore,” instead blaming everybody else, but that’s understandable: by every objective measure, his presidency has been a failure, and he’s hoping to hang on to his job not by telling us how good a job he has done, but by trying to persuade the voters that the Republicans would be even worse. That’s not usually a winning argument, and the President is a smart enough politician to know that, but it’s really the only one he has.

47 Comments

  1. His allies rarely make affirmative arguments on his behalf anymore, limiting themselves to making excuses for his failure.

    Seems to be a familiar tone here.

  2. His allies rarely make affirmative arguments on his behalf anymore, limiting themselves to making excuses for his failure.

    Seems to be a familiar tone here.

    You mean among the right-wingers here, didn’t you Yorkshire.

    Speaking for myself, as I have said before, considering what the President inherited, and considering the do-nothing Congress he has had for several years, any President would sputter under these circumstances. These are not excuses, they are facts, which I don’t expect Dana to ever acknowledge, as he will always remain in denial for partisan ideological reasons.

    I believe President Obama is under-appreciated at this point in time, since his power has been significantly limited. Considering the Repub candidates, I think Obama will win reelection, provided the Repub voter suppression efforts can be nullified in the meantime.

  3. Speaking for myself, as I have said before, considering what the President inherited, and considering the do-nothing Congress he has had for several years, any President would sputter under these circumstances. These are not excuses, they are facts, which I don’t expect Dana to ever acknowledge, as he will always remain in denial for partisan ideological reasons.

    Explain how Reagan got his agenda through a Dem Congress? There was even a TAX CUT which is anathema to the DEMS. Oh, I think it was called LEADERSHIP! Not Whining.

  4. “Explain how Reagan got his agenda through a Dem Congress? There was even a TAX CUT which is anathema to the DEMS. Oh, I think it was called LEADERSHIP! Not Whining.”

    Yorkshire, President Reagan had a cooperative, full time Congress, especially the Dem House and a non-filibuster happy Senate. President Obama’s leadership style was a lot like President Reagan’s: Let Congress do their job, and communicate frequently to the people. If you recall during President Obama’s campaign, he mentioned several times how much he admired President Reagan. President Reagan did not face the bitter partisan Congress with which President Obama has had to deal. I think some of you Righties are forgetful either in ignorance or on purpose.

    Nowadays, the Repubs are all about getting power, as a first priority, over and above the needs of a failing country. Cooperating with the President is off the table, just about totally!

  5. “And this is what — the 1500th time this nonsense has been repeated in one form or another by Perry?”

    That sounds about right, Hube. Repeating seems necessary to you numbskulls, since facts do not seem to penetrate into your brains. So the same issues keep coming up on here, thus requiring the same responses. It is pretty hard cracking the nut called right wing ideology, which is really like a religion, meaning it is not quite in touch with reality!

  6. Nowadays, the Repubs are all about getting power, as a first priority, over and above the needs of a failing country. Cooperating with the President is off the table, just about totally!

    So that means you want BO to keep the POWER. Like he said Congress didn’t pass it, find a way around it. IT being the Constitution where the House Appropriates All Spending. Not BO

  7. Repeating seems necessary to you numbskulls, since facts do not seem to penetrate into your brains.

    Actually, you need to repeat things so often b/c you forget what the fuck you say a mere five minutes later. And we all suffer for that.

    You’re sick, Perry. Get help.

  8. Hey Perry, when are you going to apologize to me for falsely accusing me of lying about Roseanne Barr now that the video of her and the transcription of her have been published on this blog? Never? Because that’s what you do: ignore all the facts that get in the way of your propaganda.

    Hey Perry, when are you going to admit the big three broadcast networks have far higher viewership than the cable network FOX News now that that data has been produced on this blog? Never? Because that’s what you do: ignore all the facts that get in the way of your propaganda.

  9. Hey Perry, when are you going to apologize to me for falsely accusing me of lying about Roseanne Barr now that the video of her and the transcription of her have been published on this blog? Never? Because that’s what you do: ignore all the facts that get in the way of your propaganda.

    Hey Perry, when are you going to admit the big three broadcast networks have far higher viewership than the cable network FOX News now that that data has been produced on this blog? Never? Because that’s what you do: ignore all the facts that get in the way of your propaganda.

    You have to grant him a certain leeway — he doesn’t remember any of those things. And this is why he’s a liberal — it’s not his fault. It never is.

  10. It seems as though Perry has just admitted that President Obama is a failure!

    Speaking for myself, as I have said before, considering what the President inherited, and considering the do-nothing Congress he has had for several years, any President would sputter under these circumstances. These are not excuses, they are facts, which I don’t expect Dana to ever acknowledge, as he will always remain in denial for partisan ideological reasons.

    To say that “any President would sputter under these circumstances” is to say that President Obama has failed. Perhaps you aren’t blaming him for failing, saying that no one could have succeeded, but it’s still an admission that he has failed.

    Actually, I have to wonder why you want to see him re-elected. You’ve said that he can’t get his programs through Congress, thanks to those wicked old Republicans, which means that there is little he can accomplish. You’ve complained that he needs sixty votes to get anything significant through the Senate, but with 33 Democrat-held seats and only 10 Republican-held seats in the Senate up for re-election, the odds that the Democrats will pick up seven seats in the Senate are vanishingly small. Even if President Obama is re-elected, he wouldn’t be able to get much done.

    You are backing a candidate doomed to failure, Perry; even if he wins, he loses.

  11. Perry is having a factual breakdown:
    Speaking for myself, as I have said before, considering what the President inherited, and considering the do-nothing Congress he has had for several years, any President would sputter under these circumstances.

    Perry, explain how BO has had a “do nothing” Congress from 2009 as you allude. In 2009 and 2010 BO had a practically filibuster proof Congress. When Sen Brown was elected in 2010, BO had a rubberstamp congress for at least 18 months. Now in 2011, BO has a Dem Senate, and a Repub House. Maybe the Repubs remember all those Dem meetings they were locked out of ????? Now it appears the only the only bullets left are frangible and of no effect. His bully pulpit is gone. And it’s hilarious to hear BO compare himself to Reagan, where had a Dem Congress and accomplished more than poor little whiny BO.

  12. he’s hoping to hang on to his job not by telling us how good a job he has done, but by trying to persuade the voters that the Republicans would be even worse.

    Worked for y’all in ’04.

  13. Perry wrote:

    considering the do-nothing Congress he has had for several years,

    Well, let’s see: he got ObaminableCare passed, he got the porkulus plan passed, he got Dudd-Frank passed, he got Lily Ledbetter passed, and the voters punished the Democrats for passing those things in the 2010 elections. Apparenty, the voters weren’t terribly pleased with what the Democrats were passing.

    And, of course, when the President proposes reasonable legislation, the Republicans certainly go along with it.

  14. “Perry, explain how BO has had a “do nothing” Congress from 2009 as you allude. In 2009 and 2010 BO had a practically filibuster proof Congress. When Sen Brown was elected in 2010, BO had a rubberstamp congress for at least 18 months. Now in 2011, BO has a Dem Senate, and a Repub House. Maybe the Repubs remember all those Dem meetings they were locked out of ????? Now it appears the only the only bullets left are frangible and of no effect. His bully pulpit is gone. And it’s hilarious to hear BO compare himself to Reagan, where had a Dem Congress and accomplished more than poor little whiny BO.”

    Yorkshire, I don’t agree with one word you said here, not one. You are thinking like a lock-step disciplined Repub. The Dems are not like that. In the Senate there are a handful of Conservative Dems who vote like Repubs, as we saw in the lead-up to the Affordable Health Act, therefore President Obama never had a filibuster proof Senate. Moreover, in the Reagan times, Dems cooperated with Reagan and the Repubs, hardly true re President Obama and todays Repugs!

    Finally, I make note of the fact that the American Jobs Act which the Repubs voted out yesterday had the support of 63% of Americans polled, with only 32% opposed, so your party was on the wrong side of this important issue.

    In the upcoming campaign, your party is going to have to explain this position, plus a lot more in the do-nothing House and the filibustering Senate, plus regarding your first priority to limit Obama to one term. You have boxed yourselves into a no-win political position. The American people are not dumb.

    President Obama is already becoming readily reelectable, regardless of whom your party finally picks to head up your ticket. The Occupy Wall Street movement will further energize the Dems and hurt the Repubs, with good reason, because you Repubs have prolonged the suffering of the struggling middle and poor by your coddling of millionaires and neglect of the rest of us Americans, you included Yorkshire.

    I expect you will finally secretly decide to vote to reelect President Obama, because there is simply not a viable Repub candidate in the current mix who will campaign on the basis of your individual needs. Dana also should vote likewise for the same reason, but he won’t because he is too damn stubborn and set in his ideological ways! Think of seat belts re Dana.

  15. “You are thinking like a lock-step disciplined Repub. The Dems are not like that.”

    Whaaaa? the Democrats invented it! All you need do is listen to the morning news to hear the programed points for the day. Do you remember “gravitas”, Perry? How about the “astro-tufers”? You guys haven’t had an origional thought since Truman.

  16. “Actually, I have to wonder why you want to see him re-elected.”

    I want to see President Obama reelected, because then at least he will be in a position to stop the Repub onslaught against the American middle and poor folks, not to mention that he excels, especially when compared to your current crop of candidates.

    President Obama’s main accomplishment has been to lead the turn around of our country (and the globe) from a sinking GDP, a collapsed Stock Market, and massive job losses, all caused by Repub policies post-Clinton. Of that there is no question!

    After trying for too long, he has finally given up trying to work with Congressional Repubs who have continually undermined his efforts as they pretend to work with him but rarely deliver, really never deliver since 2010.

    I consider the American Jobs Act to be a turning point for the President, to where he is pushing this bill in spite of Repub rejection, garnering a 63% of Americans for the bill and 32% against. He can run on this, plus all the other negatives associated with the Repub party as currently configured. I think Americans have had it with the far right. We’ll soon see.

    You tell me, Dana, which of your current crop of contenders for your party’s nomination can run successfully against President Obama?

  17. “The Occupy Wall Street movement will further energize the Dems and hurt the Repubs, with good reason, because you Repubs have prolonged the suffering of the struggling middle and poor by your coddling of millionaires and neglect of the rest of us Americans, you included Yorkshire.”

    Same old, same old aye, Perry? Nothin’ new here move along, just the same repiticious class warfare and “eat the rich” and oh boo-hoo poor me endless envy of everyone who earns more than you. So in your opinion a buch of hippie kids and looser adults mixed with commies, druggies, and criminals who loot the public, abuse or resourses, burn up taxpayers money, crap on the streets and call for killing the rich are “energizing the Dems? If that’s all you got then bring it on!

  18. “Whaaaa? the Democrats invented it! All you need do is listen to the morning news to hear the programed points for the day. Do you remember “gravitas”, Perry? How about the “astro-tufers”? You guys haven’t had an origional thought since Truman.”

    Your comment is so far from reality as to be laughable, Hoagie!

    Today’s Repubs vote in lock-step according to the party leaders. There’s no such a thing in the big-tent Dem party.

    Kennedy had the Peace Corps, Johnson had the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty and Medicare, Clinton achieved a budget surplus and welfare-to-work, and Obama stopped a slide into a global Great Depression and an Affordable Health Act.

    What “original thoughts” have the Repubs generated post Ike, Hoagie, besides Reagan shepherding the end to the Cold War?

  19. “President Obama’s main accomplishment has been….” improving his golf game and funneling money to his friends on Wall Street and the “green jobs” industry, murdering American citizens (and having a list of more to murder), keeping unemployment over 9%, pissing away tax money to save unions and his banking buddies, vacationing all over the country and the world like Louis XIII and finally owning up to the fact there were no “shovel ready jobs”. Other than those things he’s been a complete failure.

  20. “Kennedy had the Peace Corps,” And what did that do for Americaa other than cost us money and build a bunch of “little liberals for the Democrats?
    “Johnson had the Civil Rights Act” Forced on him by REPUBLICANS.. “and the War on Poverty” which after pissing away four trillion bucks failed…” and Medicare” which is bankrupt, “Clinton achieved a budget surplus and welfare-to-work,” right after the Republican Congress MADE him do it..” and Obama stopped a slide into a global Great Depression” no he didn’t Bush did with TARP, Obama has extended the recession by his lack of business sense.. “and an Affordable Health Act” which will be another big government money pit only this time it will cost lives as well as money.

    You should move in with Pho, you both want the same for America.

  21. “”Same old, same old aye, Perry? Nothin’ new here move along, just the same repiticious class warfare and “eat the rich” and oh boo-hoo poor me endless envy of everyone who earns more than you. So in your opinion a buch of hippie kids and looser adults mixed with commies, druggies, and criminals who loot the public, abuse or resourses, burn up taxpayers money, crap on the streets and call for killing the rich are “energizing the Dems? If that’s all you got then bring it on!

    I fully expected you Righties to mischaracterize and demonize the OWS movement. It won’t work, because you are in denial of how much pain your policies have caused so many Americans. Now they have decided to stand up to your ilk, and you don’t like it. Tough!

    On class warfare, it is you who are waging it, Hoagie, by rejecting policies that would have you shoulder your share of the fiscal burdens we have, caused by the actions of your party during the Bush administration. The last time we had a wealth distribution as skewed as it is now, was just before the onset of the Great Depression. This is unsustainable, Hoagie. “Wall Street” and the Corporate elite continue to suck more and more out of the American economy, while the middle sinks. You think this is OK???

    I think you are grossly underestimating the American people, as you look down your nose at those you arbitrarily define as rif-raf. That’s a serious mistake, Hoagie!

  22. I fully expected you Righties to mischaracterize and demonize the OWS movement.

    Just like we fully expected YOU to demonize the Tea Party, hypocrite?

    You made the bed; now, you’re gonna lie in it.

  23. You know Perry, your constant worry over “wealth distribution” over looks one point: wealth is “distributed” to those who earn it! How would you distribute it? And as I’ve pointed out time and again, I shoulder more of “the burden” than you and always have. I still am and I’m freekin’ retired. Again I ask: when is enough, enough? Must we all be driven to poverty before the income is equalized? If so, there’s a cute little hut in North Korea with your name on it. As for me, I’m perfectly content knowing there are folks with more money than I, cause I know they earned it and I didn’t.

    You know Perry, I could have earned a ton more money in my life than I did but I wasn’t willing to do what it took to do it. Call me lazy or an underachiever, but I wouldn’t do what was needed so I didn’t earn that money. We all make choices, live with them.

  24. Perry wrote:

    In the upcoming campaign, your party is going to have to explain this position, plus a lot more in the do-nothing House and the filibustering Senate, plus regarding your first priority to limit Obama to one term. You have boxed yourselves into a no-win political position. The American people are not dumb.

    Well, it wasn’t such a “no-win political position” in 2010, was it?

    President Obama is already becoming readily reelectable, regardless of whom your party finally picks to head up your ticket. The Occupy Wall Street movement will further energize the Dems and hurt the Repubs, with good reason, because you Repubs have prolonged the suffering of the struggling middle and poor by your coddling of millionaires and neglect of the rest of us Americans, you included Yorkshire.

    Becoming readily reelectable? Bloomberg notes that only 29% say that they will definitely vote for President Obama, while 43% say that they will definitely not vote for him. Thirteen months is a long time, and anything can happen, but if he is re-elected, he has a long way to go.

    But now Perry goes from speculating to pure fantasy:

    I expect you (Yorkshire) will finally secretly decide to vote to reelect President Obama, because there is simply not a viable Repub candidate in the current mix who will campaign on the basis of your individual needs. Dana also should vote likewise for the same reason, but he won’t because he is too damn stubborn and set in his ideological ways! Think of seat belts re Dana.

    Are we to judge your political acumen by this statement, Perry? If anything, York dislikes President Obama even more than I do; I, at least, have said that he has been right on a couple of things, such as the Afghanistan surge and the action against Libya.

    The thing is, you really don’t understand conservatives at all. You think that York would change his vote “on the basis of (his) individual needs,” and that I should do the same thing. Not to speak for York, but I base my vote on what I believe to be the country’s needs, but I can assure you, that my assessment of what this country needs is far different from yours. You think that, well, we just need universal health care coverage, and so we should be willing to sacrifice some of our individual liberty to provide it, while I view our individual liberties as far more important.

    The amusing thing is that you think we should vote to re-elect a President who has failed at most things. His porkulus plan was a failure, by the standards that he set for it, and all you can do is claim that it was a whopping success because things would have been far worse without it, even though such cannot be proved. He did get his health care reform package through the Congress, but the Republicans won’t fund it and will try to repeal it, even if the Supreme Court doesn’t throw the whole thing out. Your very own justification for wanting to re-elect him,

    I want to see President Obama reelected, because then at least he will be in a position to stop the Repub onslaught against the American middle and poor folks, not to mention that he excels, especially when compared to your current crop of candidates,

    is based not him actually accomplishing anything positive, not on him doing anything good, but just because you think/ hope/ pray he’ll be able to block Republican plans. Your reasons are wholly negative.

    In 2008, we gave the guy a chance. Some of us pointed out that he’d never actually run anything more complicated than a Cuisinart, but the majority of voters didn’t buy that argument, and thought that he deserved a real chance. But now we’ve seen the evidence: it doesn’t matter how good or noble you believe his intentions to be, he’s just no good at his job.

    Heck, you sound like Andy Reid telling us how great Juan Castillo is as his defensive coordinator! :)

  25. BTW Perry, if you think wealth distribution is “skewed” here, in NK there are six billionaires and 28 million people living on 29 cents a day and a rice bowl. That’s what happens when one tries to decide who “deserves” the wealth they earn. All you end up doing is shifting the wealth from one to the other, never seems to go to your “poor and middle”.

  26. “Some of us pointed out that he’d never actually run anything more complicated than a Cuisinart,”

    Woah there Dana, I’ve seen chefs cut the tips off their fingres in a Cuisinart. No way Obama could be trusted around one of those OSHA regulated contraptions!

  27. Our raconteur restauranteur wrote:

    Woah there Dana, I’ve seen chefs cut the tips off their fingres in a Cuisinart. No way Obama could be trusted around one of those OSHA regulated contraptions!

    I see your point, but the question naturally arises: did the fingertips go out n the food, or did you waste the dishes?

  28. LOL — from a fresh WSJ / msnbc poll, Herman Cain is now the Repub leader, several points over Romney. Perry is now plunging toward the bottom crowd of crazies. That didn’t last long, hey?

    Same poll has Obama beating =any= Repub candidate now running.

    Sorry about that — it must hurt to be a Repub.

  29. Beeb, if President Obama is re-elected, it would hurt to be an American!

    Of course, at this point in the process, there was no way, no way! that a crazed right-winger like Ronald Reagan was ever going to be seriously considered and beat President Carter, and Mr Carter wasn’t nearly as big a failure as President Obama.

  30. Hoagie wrote:

    BTW Perry, if you think wealth distribution is “skewed” here, in NK there are six billionaires and 28 million people living on 29 cents a day and a rice bowl. That’s what happens when one tries to decide who “deserves” the wealth they earn. All you end up doing is shifting the wealth from one to the other, never seems to go to your “poor and middle”.

    Meanwhile, south of the 38th parallel, same people, same culture, same history, are very prosperous. I wonder why that is?

  31. Hoagie wrote:

    BTW Perry, if you think wealth distribution is “skewed” here, in NK there are six billionaires and 28 million people living on 29 cents a day and a rice bowl. That’s what happens when one tries to decide who “deserves” the wealth they earn. All you end up doing is shifting the wealth from one to the other, never seems to go to your “poor and middle”.

    Meanwhile, south of the 38th parallel, same people, same culture, same history, are very prosperous. I wonder why that is?

    NK is an ultra extreme case of skewed wealth distribution, but I claim that the US is now in the extreme category as well, which is a factor in our continuing demise, because this continuing wealth grab by the wealthy is weakening our middle class and increasing poverty. Yet you support this, correct Dana? And I think you are middle class, correct Dana? What kind of a person would support policies that weaken themselves, I ask? Are you self-sacrificial to this extent, Dana? Are you in favor of charitable contributions for the wealthy? Confusing!!!

  32. “…which is a factor in our continuing demise, because this continuing wealth grab by the wealthy is weakening our middle class and increasing poverty.”

    Well, you got the event correct: our continuing demise. You just can’t wrap your brain around the actual cause. The “wealth grab” as you so succinctly put it is not by the wealthy, they already have wealth (hence the name), but by the government sucking the life blood out of taxpayers to finance everything fron phoney “green jobs”, to “environmental protection” to unions, failing companies, crony capitalists, Solyndra …should I keep going? You see Perry, the “wealthy” who you seem to loathe so much can’t “make” you do anything let alone give them your money. Only the government can steal your money legaly, and they do it all the time. You know Perry, if you were a woman you’d be the easiest piece on earth. All someone would have to do is tell you what you wanted to hear and you’d be in the sack. Ohh baby, I’ll give you health care, just give me money. Ohh baby, I’ll fix the climate, just give me money. You believe mere mortal men can fix everything from the “tides rising” to your comfy retirement without considering if they should or if they really can or are just trying to get into your pants (in this case back wallet pocket).

  33. ” I wonder why that is?”

    Well Dana perhaps “from each according to his ability to each according to his ability” is the reason?

  34. Yea burninbush, Obama’s got’em all beat. Let’s see, unemployment over 9% for 24 of the last 26 months. Who was President then? Didn’t he say if we passed his “stimulus” UE wouldn’t exceed 7%. Wow, what a great guy!

    He’s a failure at every level. When they say “4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years” to an Obamanite that’s a total of 12 more years, that’s how smart they are.

  35. Perry says:
    13 October 2011 at 09:41 (Edit)

    “Perry, explain how BO has had a “do nothing” Congress from 2009 as you allude. In 2009 and 2010 BO had a practically filibuster proof Congress. When Sen Brown was elected in 2010, BO had a rubberstamp congress for at least 18 months. Now in 2011, BO has a Dem Senate, and a Repub House. Maybe the Repubs remember all those Dem meetings they were locked out of ????? Now it appears the only the only bullets left are frangible and of no effect. His bully pulpit is gone. And it’s hilarious to hear BO compare himself to Reagan, where had a Dem Congress and accomplished more than poor little whiny BO.”

    Yorkshire, I don’t agree with one word you said here, not one. You are thinking like a lock-step disciplined Repub. The Dems are not like that. In the Senate there are a handful of Conservative Dems who vote like Repubs, as we saw in the lead-up to the Affordable Health Act, therefore President Obama never had a filibuster proof Senate. Moreover, in the Reagan times, Dems cooperated with Reagan and the Repubs, hardly true re President Obama and todays Repugs!

    Yeah, I know, it’s those pesky facts again that get in the way of your strict, if BO said it, ideology.

  36. Dana
    Are we to judge your political acumen by this statement, Perry? If anything, York dislikes President Obama even more than I do; I, at least, have said that he has been right on a couple of things, such as the Afghanistan surge and the action against Libya.

    The thing is, you really don’t understand conservatives at all. You think that York would change his vote “on the basis of (his) individual needs,” and that I should do the same thing. Not to speak for York, but I base my vote on what I believe to be the country’s needs, but I can assure you, that my assessment of what this country needs is far different from yours. You think that, well, we just need universal health care coverage, and so we should be willing to sacrifice some of our individual liberty to provide it, while I view our individual liberties as far more important.

    Think about this for a moment: Clinton came in and Blamed Bush 41 for the ills he inherited. When 9/11 happened Bubba wished that happed under his watch. Bubba had free, unwanted and not needed advice for Bush 43. Now Bush 43 has not said a word about how BO is operating. B43 is not president. Bush 41 & 43 have been silent. Clinton and BO keep blaming the Bushes. All that was an aside.

    Now do I dislike BO more than Dana? Having had an insiders view of how appropriations are made and spent I can say, this mman is a joke. BO wants to go around Congress. If he does do that, he will violate the Anti-Deficiency Act:

    Anti-Deficiency Act

    The Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), Pub. L. No. 97-258, 96 Stat. 923, enacted September 13, 1982, is legislation enacted by the United States Congress to prevent the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures (outlays) in excess of amounts available in appropriations or funds. It is now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341. The ADA prohibits the Federal government from entering into a contract that is not “fully funded” because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract. This Act of Congress is sometimes known as Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Deficiency_Act

    At work, you could get fired, a reprimand, or time off without pay, or prosecuted. Now if BO does it, it should be impeachable. My first question to the Project Manager when I negotiated contracts was “Do you have the money for this?” And if they did not, It sat on the corner of my desk until they could provide the appropriations papers. And, yes, I have seen people fired for this. Now we have the Chief Law Enforcer of the Country openly scheming to break this law. Now why don’t I like him?

  37. Perry wrote:

    NK is an ultra extreme case of skewed wealth distribution, but I claim that the US is now in the extreme category as well, which is a factor in our continuing demise, because this continuing wealth grab by the wealthy is weakening our middle class and increasing poverty. Yet you support this, correct Dana? And I think you are middle class, correct Dana? What kind of a person would support policies that weaken themselves, I ask? Are you self-sacrificial to this extent, Dana? Are you in favor of charitable contributions for the wealthy? Confusing!!!

    The difference is that North Korea is a case of wealth redistribution at the point of a gun, wealth redistribution by power, which is exactly what you want to do here! Oh, you’d certainly never put it that way, but what other way can it be put when you would use the police power of the state to take more money from those who earned it to give to those who did not?

    What I favor is for everybody to be treated equally by the government, including beng treated equally in their rights to property, and their rights to the fruits of their own labor. If some people make more than others, it is because they earned it!

  38. “The difference is that North Korea is a case of wealth redistribution at the point of a gun, wealth redistribution by power, which is exactly what you want to do here! Oh, you’d certainly never put it that way, but what other way can it be put when you would use the police power of the state to take more money from those who earned it to give to those who did not?

    What I favor is for everybody to be treated equally by the government, including beng treated equally in their rights to property, and their rights to the fruits of their own labor. If some people make more than others, it is because they earned it!”

    Dana, this is just so much BS, BS which the old Dana would never do. But you have become radicalized, to where you will say almost anything because it fits your ideological model.

    If the rewards for hard work were more equitable, I could see your point. They are not, as the transfer of wealth to the wealthy elite continues, to the point where it was just before the Great Depression. Moreover, you assume that those who work for the minimum wage or meager wages are not working hard. What is the basis for that. You do know that middle income wages have been stagnant while the upper income salaries have been rising rapidly? Then why do you say these things?

    Finally, you mean to say that the stock market short sellers, and the packaging of toxic default swaps, and those trading with insider information, that these people are doing productive work where they earn in the tens of millions or more? Please!!!

    The American worker has demonstrated a trend of higher productivity for decades, and they have in general not been rewarded in kind. This is healthy for Americans? Not one bit, and you should acknowledge all this instead of being so critical of the American worker, not to mention the millions who want to work but cannot find a job, and are stuck in place because of the real estate bust putting them underwater, therefore unable to sell and afford to move on. You have no compassion, Dana, only made up stuff based on a religious-like ideology which is actually a myth, not in touch with people’s realities.

  39. “Now we have the Chief Law Enforcer of the Country openly scheming to break this law.”

    What the Hades are you talking about, Yorkshire?

    Apparently you have forgotten the signing statements issued by GWB whenever he signed a bill. Wasn’t this going around Congress? Yes, it was!

  40. “Yea burninbush, Obama’s got’em all beat. Let’s see, unemployment over 9% for 24 of the last 26 months. Who was President then? Didn’t he say if we passed his “stimulus” UE wouldn’t exceed 7%. Wow, what a great guy!

    He’s a failure at every level. When they say “4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years” to an Obamanite that’s a total of 12 more years, that’s how smart they are.”

    No, President Obama said 8%. He did bring unemployment down from well over 10%, but of course you wingnuts don’t acknowledge that, nor the fact that he prevented a global great depression with his rescue policies. No acknowledgement for that either. But guess what, out of you, Hoagie, I never expect any acknowledgements out of you. You just don’t have it in you!

  41. Perry, when are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me of lying about what Roseanne Barr said, since we have provided actual video and transcript of what Roseanne Barr said concerning re-education camps and the guillotine? Never? Are you going to just keep spouting your propaganda and making false accusations to support your dishonest partisan agenda in the face of the truth we keep providing?

    Perry, when are you going to admit the three big broadcast networks have far more viewers than the cable FOX News, since we have provided actual proof of it? Never? Are you going to just keep spouting your propaganda and making false allegations to support your dishonest partisan agenda in the face of the truth we keep providing?

  42. “You know Perry, if you were a woman you’d be the easiest piece on earth.”

    I was just about to write the same about you, Hoagie! :)

  43. Perry wrote:

    No, President Obama said 8%. He did bring unemployment down from well over 10%, but of course you wingnuts don’t acknowledge that, nor the fact that he prevented a global great depression with his rescue policies. No acknowledgement for that either. But guess what, out of you, Hoagie, I never expect any acknowledgements out of you. You just don’t have it in you!

    Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in this recession, which was lower than its peak in the 1981-2 recession; kind of makes it difficult to call this the “Great Recession,” doesn’t it? But once unemployment crossed the 9% threshold (the threshold we weren’t supposed to see unless the porkulus plan wasn’t passed), it stayed above 9% for all but two months.

    You say that Teh Won “prevented a global great depression with his rescue policies,” but, were this a court of law, you’d quickly hear the opposing counsel saying, “Objection; assumes facts not in evidence,” at which point the judge would rule, “Objection sustained.” You can believe anything you want, but your claim cannot be proved, nor is it actually likely to have been true.

    But the whole thing is simpler than that: if unemployment starts to show a significant decline, President Obama will be re-elected, and if it doesn’t, he won’t be.

  44. Perry says:
    13 October 2011 at 19:19 (Edit)

    “Now we have the Chief Law Enforcer of the Country openly scheming to break this law.”

    What the Hades are you talking about, Yorkshire?

    Apparently you have forgotten the signing statements issued by GWB whenever he signed a bill. Wasn’t this going around Congress? Yes, it was!

    Obviouslly you didn’t bother to read or look at the Anti-Deficiency Act. The ADA is really this simple of a statement: If Congress didn’t appropriate it, you can’t spend it. As for signing statements, they were for what NOT to spend the money for whatever.

Comments are closed.