PDA

View Full Version : Is Obama man enough to accept responsibility



eg8r
12-14-2011, 09:46 AM
I personally don't think so. Right from the very beginning he made it clear that he was most interested in blaming everyone else. A real leader would have ignored the blame game and focused on the issues. Obama never showed us that this was his intention because he always reminded everyone that he felt it was someone else's fault. He has no intention of changing this either even with his approval ratings dropping down to W's level.

Obama and the politics of disappointment (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/politics/obama-disappointment/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)

CNN has already noticed that Obama's re-election game plan is to keep the blame game going. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sharply aware of such sentiment, the White House is now clearly launching an offensive aimed at shifting voter disappointment from their man to the opposition.</div></div> He has been doing this since day one and it was certainly clear when he tried to shut up the Reps by cutting them off and stating "I won" as if that was going to somehow scare them into cowering to his every whim. Well that didn't work did it. He won alright and then proceeded to piss off nearly all the people that voted for him.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The depth of the turnaround is massive. Three years ago this month, 77% of voters polled told CNN they believed Obama would unite the country, 68% said they were either "thrilled" or "happy" he'd been elected, 79% thought he'd do a good job and 74% were confident he would improve the economy.

Today his approval rating wallows in the mid 40% range; disapproval is over 50%. And a dismal 35% of the voters like the way he is handling the economy.
</div></div>LOL, sure didn't take long to prove us correct. There is a reason why he was only a community organizer and not a community leader. He campaigns very well but when the job has to get done he does best by handing that over to the LEADERS who know how to LEAD.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Beck argues that taking a hard line, partisan stance now, could turn off many of the moderate voters the president needs, because one of the primary messages of his first run was just the opposite. "One of the things he campaigned on in 2008 was that politics has become too polarized."</div></div>Everyone can see Obama for the partisan politician that he is other than the looney far left. I guess his partisan stance at this point is another example of sofla's sly misdirection from the campaign trail. Another you might remember was a transparent government and we all know that never materialized either.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still, Krosnick points out an important nuance in the president's makeover: "It's not actually clear to me that he needs to be someone else." Rather, Krosnick suggests, Obama's sales pitch to voters can be, in effect, "I'm the same man you believed in, conditions were just tougher than any of us expected. Getting the job done is going to take longer and involve new strategies. And although I still believe in bipartisanship, it doesn't work unless the other side is also on board."</div></div>Very true statement.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Somehow he must not only run against his Republican challenger, but also against his past image, the one that so many voters believed in, and the one that let them down so hard. In critical states like Pennsylvania, he must persuade them to move beyond their disappointment, or he may risk a great and grave disappointment of his own.</div></div>Honestly, if he wins it will not be a vote of encouragement for the job he has done. Sadly it will be yet another, in a long stream of recent elections, vote against the challengers. I don't think the Reps have a good candidate that can rally people behind him. I don't think the RNC, as currently being led, will offer up a candidate because they are just way to far right and polarized. Obama gained a bunch of support by talking bipartisanship and I don't hear that from the Reps right now.

eg8r

Qtec
12-14-2011, 11:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally don't think so. Right from the very beginning he made it clear that he was most interested in blaming everyone else. A real leader would have ignored the blame game and focused on the issues. Obama never showed us that this was his intention because he always reminded everyone that he felt it was someone else's fault. </div></div>

Obama stated the facts of the situation and you call that playing the blame game!
Faced with a credit crisis, a foreclosure crisis, an unemployment crisis, a huge deficit, and a Nat Debt that GW had doubled, the USA was in an economic crisis not seen since the great Depression. The US was losing jobs at a rate of 800,000 a month when he took office.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama's re-election game plan is to keep the blame game going. He has been doing this since day one and it was certainly clear when he tried to shut up the Reps by cutting them off and stating "I won" as if that was going to somehow scare them into cowering to his every whim. </div></div>

He was just reminding them that there was an election and the majority choose his policies , not theirs.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well that didn't work did it </div></div>

Correct. The GOP have held the country hostage just to get their way. They have brought Govt to a virtual halt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He campaigns very well but when the job has to get done he does best by handing that over to the LEADERS who know how to LEAD. </div></div>

Its hard to get anything done when you now need <span style='font-size: 14pt'>60 votes</span> in the Senate to pass anything and you don't have them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone can see Obama for the partisan politician that he is other than the looney far left. </div></div>

LOL. The only one's who see this is the looney Right.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"It's not actually clear to me that he needs to be someone else." Rather, Krosnick suggests, Obama's sales pitch to voters can be, in effect, "I'm the same man you believed in, conditions were just tougher than any of us expected. Getting the job done is going to take longer and involve new strategies. And <span style='font-size: 14pt'>although I still believe in bipartisanship, <u>it doesn't work unless the other side is also on board.</u></span>" </div></div>

Has the GOP been on board with ANYTHING Obama wanted to do?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think the Reps have a good candidate that can rally people behind him. I don't think the RNC, as currently being led, will offer up a candidate because they are just <u>way to far right and polarized.</u> Obama gained a bunch of support by talking bipartisanship and I don't hear that from the Reps right now.

eg8r </div></div>

Wow! You just had an epifany.

Q

Soflasnapper
12-14-2011, 11:50 AM
This is all over the map.

To distill it to a surprising conclusion, Obama needs to take responsibility for sticking to his bipartisanship pose too long. (And by the use of pose, I don't mean to imply it was insincere. May have been entirely sincere, may not have been.)

It was a key part of his appeal, going back to his very well-received keynoter address in the Kerry nomination convention-- we're all Americans, let's go into a post-partisan phase, we're not Red America or Blue America, but the United States of America, etc.

Well, great tactic to get elected, less great to govern in the current miasma of COMPLETE PARTISANSHIP that is the GOP and their guiding lights of the day, including their proven history of repeatedly turning to opposing things they just recently advocated for, once Obama became in favor of them.

To the degree that Obama has disappointed his own base, it was mainly because of this bipartisanship, refusing to call out the opposition by name and in detail, and the many, many compromises that he and the Democratic leadership in Congress put into their laws, in a usually failed attempt to gain any GOP votes for their plans. The compromises didn't get GOP support, but just made the legislation lousy, disappointing, and uninspiring, for the Dem base.

The other reason his base is disappointed is the continuity in place and even extension of some correctly denounced national security policies from the prior administration. Here, while I wish he had more courage of his convictions (he knows these things are wrong, and had stated that fact publicly), I tend to cut him slack from a realistic point of view. A new guy, with that little of experience, coming in and discarding the policies of the entire national security apparatus, would be too disturbing, too radical, to probably let the person stay in office. The national security apparatus has many ways to make such a thing happen, and Obama probably had no choice but to continue these policies, if he wished to serve out his term.

eg8r
12-14-2011, 11:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama stated the facts of the situation and you call that playing the blame game!
</div></div>I knew you did not have the intelligence or wherewithal to understand.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Correct. The GOP have held the country hostage just to get their way. </div></div>LOL, sorry schmuck but that dog don't hunt. The Dems had full control of House, Senate and White House. It was theirs to lose and that is exactly what they did. Poor performance is why Obama has an extremely low favorability rating.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has the GOP been on board with ANYTHING Obama wanted to do?
</div></div>This is the exact reason why Obama is not considered a leader. A leader faces adversity and overcomes. Obama was a follower. Just look at his record...He is the epitome of George W Bush. Heck Obama even took over Bush's tax cuts.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow! You just had an epifany.
</div></div>First off, please don't start spelling like cc it is a shame what he does to the english language. Besides that, nothing has changed with my mindset and I have said it since W was our only option a decade ago. I actually have been saying it since his father but most people (on the Rep side) thought I was too young to know anything then but turns out I was right.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-14-2011, 05:43 PM
Define 'complete control of the Senate.'

Dems had 60 votes for about 4 weeks, if you include two independents (one who was a weasel turncoat and unreliable, in many votes).

As they did not have 60 votes for any length of time, and therefore did not have complete control of the Senate for 99%+ of the first two years, you should realize you are stating that false things are true.

And yes, given that Obama and the Dems hardly ever had the control of the Senate you imagined they did, he did indeed show the leadership you claim he hasn't, by getting through the parts of his agenda he got through, despite the lack of 60 votes. How did he do it? By getting the occasional Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins, or Arlen Spector or yes, even a Scott Brown, to vote to allow the vote to take place where it could be won with anything over 50% of the vote.

That's the dirty secret. Most of the things the GOP obstructed would have won an up or down vote, if such a vote had been allowed. Frequently, bills or nominees that had been filibustered ended up with over 90 votes in the Senate, not controversial at all, just obstructed for slow-walking obstructionist sake.

eg8r
12-14-2011, 09:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we're all Americans, let's go into a post-partisan phase, we're not Red America or Blue America, but the United States of America, etc.
</div></div>Like we have all said, he is a great campaigner. Like you have said, it was a sly misdirection.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, great tactic to get elected, less great to govern in the current miasma of COMPLETE PARTISANSHIP that is the GOP and their guiding lights of the day, including their proven history of repeatedly turning to opposing things they just recently advocated for, once Obama became in favor of them.
</div></div>It is funny to see this sentence as a direct reflection of COMPLETE PARTISANSHIP that is the DEMs. LOL, you guys don't take an ounce of credit for what is going on. It is not just the Reps that are obstructing. The Dems have set their ultimatums plenty of times. They refuse to agree with anything if it includes spending cuts or keeps the current tax breaks for all taxpaying Americans. Since the Obama tax cuts went into effect this has been a standoff between the Dems and Reps and no one has budged. Blame that on the Reps all you want but you are lying to yourself if you think it is only the Reps that are causing these problems.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To the degree that Obama has disappointed his own base, it was mainly because of this bipartisanship, refusing to call out the opposition by name and in detail,</div></div>Americans do not care to see the finger pointing. You must be blind to not see that Obama has been finger pointing since day one. Americans are disappointed NOT because he doesn't finger point enough. They are disappointed because he does not get anything done. He is not a leader and they are beginning to see it and are starting to have the courage to admit it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A new guy, with that little of experience, coming in and discarding the policies of the entire national security apparatus, would be too disturbing, too radical, to probably let the person stay in office. </div></div>Hindsight is 20/20. It is a shame it took till now for you to recognize that he was not qualified for the job but your excuse is BS. This country was around for 200 years before these policies went into effect. They had been in effect for less than a decade so we know that we would be fine without them. You all screamed from the hilltops when they were put into effect that they were wrong. Yours and his convictions about these laws change simply because the rookie is in charge now with the power to get rid of certain policies you both have been against for close to decade or less? Give me a break. You cut him slack on everything and have held him responsible for nothing.

eg8r

eg8r
12-14-2011, 09:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dems had 60 votes for about 4 weeks, if you include two independents (one who was a weasel turncoat and unreliable, in many votes).
</div></div>LOL it is funny for you to get bent out of shape when we call someone a RINO but then look what you go and do the first time someone goes against what you thought they would do. Hilarious.

The Dems had full control. If you don't believe me then sit back and think about how in the heck they were able to get a HC bill passed with an obstructing minority party getting in the way. The way I, and the rest of America, see it is that when the Dems really push for something they got it, when they did not do their jobs they call the Reps obstructionists.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And yes, given that Obama and the Dems hardly ever had the control of the Senate you imagined they did</div></div>You are a freaking dreamer.

eg8r

Qtec
12-15-2011, 06:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Dems had full control. </div></div>

Where is your proof dumbass? YOU make a claim, back it up with facts if you can.

In this case, as USUAL, Sofla is correct and you are talking out of your back passage. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Look it up dummy. Google is a wonderful thing.

Q

eg8r
12-15-2011, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where is your proof dumbass?</div></div>Well it would start with the elections that put the Dems in control of the House, Senate and White House. Do you need someone to now start googling for you?

eg8r

Qtec
12-15-2011, 10:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where is your proof dumbass?</div></div>Well it would start with the elections that put the Dems in control of the House, Senate and White House. Do you need someone to now start googling for you?

eg8r </div></div>

Obviously you are either incapable of doing so or you have done and the FACTS contradict your claims.

Feb 2010.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Never accuse us of not knowing how to have a good time here in The Swamp. We've been live-blogging the swearing-in of Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, in the U.S. Senate.

<u>It's the C-SPAN equivalent of Woodstock for the GOP.</u>

With Brown's arrival, President Barack Obama joked somewhat ruefully this week, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the GOP now has a "41-59 majority'' in the Senate -- that is, the votes sufficient to filibuster the Senate on anything the party chooses.</span>

Already, the president told fellow Democrats this week, the GOP has crammed "20 years of obstructionism into one'' with its attempted filibusters. </div></div>

Which they have done.

He also needed Lieberman's vote ,[ the so called Independent that endorsed McCain! ], which mostly was not forthcoming.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Joe Lieberman showed no sign of dropping his filibuster threat on Sunday morning, when <span style='font-size: 14pt'>he pledged to help kill any health care reform that includes a public option.</span>

The Hill reported last week that the Connecticut senator had reached a "private understanding" with Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to let the bill pass. Both he and Democratic leadership denied the report, and publicly Lieberman is only increasing his commitment to the filibuster.

"A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I'm convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance," he told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."<span style='font-size: 17pt'> "If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote."</span>

Watch: </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/08/lieberman-pledges-to-fili_n_349981.html)

..and you pretend Obama had a total majority, that's a total lie and you know it. Either that then you are as dumb as a bucket of hair.





Q...your choice egor.

eg8r
12-15-2011, 10:20 AM
LOL, you can look for excuse for your failures but in the end it is the public that is voting and they are ignoring your excuses. The Dems had control and their ratings are dropping.

eg8r