Obama Sans Telepromptor

[NJ Stinks]

I guess somebody's got to bring this up. Obama's question and answer session with House Republicans today was interesting stuff.

Obviously, Barack did pretty good or a rightie here would have pounced by now.

Andy? Has anybody seen Andy? :p

[bigmack]

Keep suckin' on that MSNBC pipe. Have they blown the lid off the O'Keefe story over there? :lol:

His answers were less than adroit.

Tick-tock here come twenty-12, take a powder BO.

[boxcar]

I guess somebody's got to bring this up. Obama's question and answer session with House Republicans today was interesting stuff.

Obviously, Barack did pretty good or a rightie here would have pounced by now.

Andy? Has anybody seen Andy? :p

Obviously you're without a clue if you believe that. I think most of thought the Q&A rated :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: and, therefore, wasn't worthy of any remarks of any kind.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

I guess somebody's got to bring this up. Obama's question and answer session with House Republicans today was interesting stuff.

Obviously, Barack did pretty good or a rightie here would have pounced by now.

Andy? Has anybody seen Andy? :p
Two things are certain. Barack did very well, and none of the righties will admit it.

[ArlJim78]

I heard some excerpts on Rush today, there were some good laughs in there. from the clips I heard it sounded like the same scolding, angry finger wagging tone. the lies were free flowing again just like the SOTU.

shouldn't he be focusing his rage on the democrats? he doesn't need any republicans for all his wonderful ideas. if he can't get his own party on board even after massive bribes are handed out, why even bother with republicans?

[Tom]

Obama made a fool of himself. Again. His comments today were moronic at best. It shows what a total fool he is.

[schweitz]

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/29/obamas-stunning-admission/

[Tom]

Lots of fancy words to say I lied!

[bigmack]

PMSNBC continues to run the little gathering in a loop. Olbermann, Matthews & Maddows working themselves into a lather of bubbling at the feet of The Mis-Chosen One.

[ArlJim78]

its really quite odd how Obama gets an itch on his temple that he scratches with his middle finger, ONLY when discussing political opponents. there are at least 5-6 examples of it floating around the internet.

NUliUiYJGwo

[rastajenk]

That's 'cause he's so smooth and suave and intelligent and articulate and nuanced and all that jazz. I guess.

He made a statement at the Tampa rally on Thursday that I think deserves some air time. He said, only slightly paraphrasing and with editorial content inserted, "When I campaigned last year under the banner of Hope and Change (it's always about him and he's still campaigning), I didn't just say the things you wanted to hear (I believe that could be argued for a long while :rolleyes: ). I said the things you needed to hear."

Why is it that when BushHitler and Darth Cheney spoke in those terms, it was "fearmongering," but when the Chosen One sermonizes, it is inspirational? :confused:

[highnote]

I listened to Obama's Q&A with the Republicans. It seemed to me he was trying to be bi-partisan. He correctly points out that without bi-partisanship the work of government does not get done.

The most interesting thing he said was that because the Republicans and in some cases the media demonize liberals and the Obama administration, the Republicans become hamstrung because oftentimes they can not vote for a bi-partisan bill for fear that their conservative constituents at home will not vote for them in an upcoming election. So what happens is the Republicans end up voting against many bills for fear of losing votes. The bills don't pass and therefore Congress becomes gridlocked and nothing gets accomplished.

The Democrats have not always been bi-partisan, either. There is plenty of blame to go around.

The American people deserve better government than a gridlocked Congress. Otherwise, many problems that need solutions are not going to be resolved.

Reconciliation is an option and Bush passed a lot of bills through reconciliation. So maybe that is how we will be governed. I'd prefer bi-partisan governing than having bills passed through reconciliation.

[ArlJim78]

I'll take gridlock in a heartbeat over bi-partisanship. I'm fine if nothing gets done. they've done enough already. If they do much more we can turn off the lights. In congress getting things done means spending and redistributing a bunch more money. no thanks.

To Obama, bipartisanship is abandoning your ideas and voting for his plan. Since his plans are so hideous the correct response is to do what Republicans have done.

We're much much better off now that it looks like they might have to start over on healthcare, then we would have been if Republicans would have been bi-partisan and helped to "get things done". The bill was a complete mess, calling it bipartisan wasn't going to make it smell any better.

[GameTheory]

I listened to Obama's Q&A with the Republicans. It seemed to me he was trying to be bi-partisan. He correctly points out that without bi-partisanship the work of government does not get done.

The most interesting thing he said was that because the Republicans and in some cases the media demonize liberals and the Obama administration, the Republicans become hamstrung because oftentimes they can not vote for a bi-partisan bill for fear that their conservative constituents at home will not vote for them in an upcoming election. So what happens is the Republicans end up voting against many bills for fear of losing votes. The bills don't pass and therefore Congress becomes gridlocked and nothing gets accomplished.

The Democrats have not always been bi-partisan, either. There is plenty of blame to go around.

The American people deserve better government than a gridlocked Congress. Otherwise, many problems that need solutions are not going to be resolved.

Reconciliation is an option and Bush passed a lot of bills through reconciliation. So maybe that is how we will be governed. I'd prefer bi-partisan governing than having bills passed through reconciliation.

Usually parties say "let's end the gridlock" -- meaning give us a supermajority so we can get things done. But it has been shown time and again that the best government "product" results when neither party is firmly in control. When one party can do whatever it wants it is always a spending spree of rewards to their supporters. And only when there is more balance can Repubs and Dems vote for each other's bills without getting lambasted as you cite above. They tend to work out better compromises when they are forced to compromise in order to pass anything.

[Steve 'StatMan']

...although compromising and passing bad, unworkable bills is not worthwhile compromise and can be bad for just about everyone.

[Snag]

I listened to Obama's Q&A with the Republicans. It seemed to me he was trying to be bi-partisan. He correctly points out that without bi-partisanship the work of government does not get done.

The most interesting thing he said was that because the Republicans and in some cases the media demonize liberals and the Obama administration, the Republicans become hamstrung because oftentimes they can not vote for a bi-partisan bill for fear that their conservative constituents at home will not vote for them in an upcoming election. So what happens is the Republicans end up voting against many bills for fear of losing votes. The bills don't pass and therefore Congress becomes gridlocked and nothing gets accomplished.

The Democrats have not always been bi-partisan, either. There is plenty of blame to go around.

The American people deserve better government than a gridlocked Congress. Otherwise, many problems that need solutions are not going to be resolved.

Reconciliation is an option and Bush passed a lot of bills through reconciliation. So maybe that is how we will be governed. I'd prefer bi-partisan governing than having bills passed through reconciliation.

I thought elected officals were elected to represent their constituents. Maybe you know something about the process that I don't.

[Tom]

I listened to Obama's Q&A with the Republicans. It seemed to me he was trying to be bi-partisan. He correctly points out that without bi-partisanship the work of government does not get done.



I listened too and thought he was trying to be a total asshole. Which he was. And he lied, as usual. Come on John, it what DEMOCRATS he paid off with billions of dollars in bribes to get HC votes and they had a super majority - read: NO REPUBS were ever needed to get thing s passed, and yet they still could not.
The thing of it is, when the legislation smells to high heaven government grinds to a halt. And so far, almost everything this congress and WH had tried to do had been wrong, stupid, obviously garbage, and so bad even the scum of the earth (dems in congress) could not all vote for it. Even the skunks were plugging their noses, with the taste of TEA still on their tongues from the recess town meetings.:D

[NJ Stinks]

Usually parties say "let's end the gridlock" -- meaning give us a supermajority so we can get things done. But it has been shown time and again that the best government "product" results when neither party is firmly in control. When one party can do whatever it wants it is always a spending spree of rewards to their supporters. And only when there is more balance can Repubs and Dems vote for each other's bills without getting lambasted as you cite above. They tend to work out better compromises when they are forced to compromise in order to pass anything.

Your wisdom belies your age, Mr. Newforty! :ThmbUp: :)