This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 7, 2011 4:42 PM. The previous post in this blog was "Very, very, very, very grim" news for I-5 bridge. The next post in this blog is Mark Hatfield has died. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Obama: sellout after sellout

This sums it up pretty darn well.

The White House thinks that the party faithful will vote for the President again, because they have no choice. That's what Bush, Sr. thought when he broke his campaign promises. And he was shown the door.

Comments (20)

Darn it all, how are the rest of us supposed to come up with any comments when someone like that says it so eloquently.

He's lost a lot of Independents, and if you don't have them, you lose. Republican or Democrat, you don't win without Independent support. Gitmo's still up and running, and now we're involved in half a dozen "kinetic actions". He's still playing the blame game, which in its latest incarnation involves blaming the TEA Party for the S&P downgrade. To hear some tell it, you'd never know that there are Democrats associated with the TEA Party, as well as Republicans and Independents.

One of the things they want to see is spending cuts, and I was reading just a bit earlier that that's what S&P says they want to see, as well. This constant tendency to blame others (in between rounds of golf) has worn pretty thin. I'm not sure when he dumped unity and teamwork, but he's not delivering on that.

At the same time, who is delivering? Republicans? Mitt Romney? Oh yeah - that's believable. Jefferson was right: we might benefit from another revolution right about now.

Well, I ignore the NYTimes anymore and defame writers paid there as long as their writing extends the anti-democracy full-dictatorial CIA/NSA/FBI/DHS/NSA/DEA/ATF/ICE party line. Writers of on-the-ground truth need not apply, or if found out already inside are terminated.

Same as Wall St. Journal. Both were once reputable papers; now they are shameful blots to have on a journalist's resume.

Those crap wipers are awful death-dealing propaganda for dictatorship; Rush Limbaugh-Lars Larson programming with better vocabulary and worse betrayal.

The air-head article is 're-transmitted' at Common Dreams .org (where I came across it), and there the instant-response Comments choir (stating facts of the matter -- Obama is a CIA/etc.-created USA traitor, e.g. -- the NYTimes would blot out), disrobes the Drew Western dumbcluck 'auto-pen' writer, disdains the NYTimes source, and excoriates the editors at CommonDreams for bringing such trap tripe into the site.
A rollicking good read: the CommonDreams Comments against this NYTimes blathering bogosity.

The 'base' ain't talking about holding their noses and voting lesser-of-2-evils.
The 'base' is talking about obliterating massmedia properties and demolishing the one-establishment two-faced Democratic-Republican charades Party as the
collateral-damage casualty in the process.

President O-Blame-Ya. Loves the POTUS title, but hates the work.

Being the first black president goes down as a good thing. But ya gotta have more than that.

As someone who voted for Obama, I to am very disappointed in what he has done. Yet, I am left wondering if not him, who? The GOP has virtually no one who can pass my sanity test. Don't see much changing before '12.

Man that was so good to see the obvious truth finally break out in a major pub. Thanks for the heads-up.

One thing the article doesn't really touch on is how bad Obama and his staff seem to be at "playing the game" in Washington. By that I mean that they don't seem to be very politically adept or even very knowledgeable of how the system works.

The Daily Show found some really telling video (about the 4:00 mark) from last December. In it, a reporter predicts the debt ceiling showdown and asks Obama what he intends to do about it. Obama's answer is a window into why he's been so ineffective. He's out of his depth.

A bunch of psycho babble, if you ask me. The reality is that Obama has been preaching many of the very things the author says he should have preached, but half the nation simply doesn't buy it. It is not a matter of vocabulary or rhetoric or some perceived emotional defect or experience or a lack thereof.

The reality is that this very divided nation rejects the extremes of both parties. At least some who post on this blog sound just as shrill and uncompromising as the Tea Party faithful who go nuts when they don't get what they want enacted into law. As one of those independent voters that Obama won over, I feel like we need to ensure that the country both restrains entitlement spending and expects more from wealthy citizens that don't pay their fair share, which is exactly the approach Obama spells out.

In my mind, the article says more about the emotional state of people who buy into its thesis hook, line and sinker than it does anything about President Obama.

exactly the approach Obama spells out

If by "spells out" you mean he makes a speech, then yeah, you're right. But as far as actually getting anything done -- he's either a liar or incompetent. Like most politicians. Maybe both.

Obama has resorted to the entertainer role. He is a great speaker, but a poor leader. He delegates irresponsibly and then once everything breaks down, he entertains us with a speech hoping, and governing like Clinton by the poll numbers, that everything will swing his way.

I am tired of this insanity. At least GW Bush was smart enough to surround himself with a competent cabinet and VP who could run the country if he was stoned drunk everyday. Obama's cabinet...Well, there is an old saying by Machiavelli,

"One can assess a prince’s intelligence by looking at the men with whom he surrounds himself."

Obama is dumber than George W Bush in this regard. Or is it that Obama loves it when things come crashing down and he has the opportunity to entertain us with a speech?

I am unsure but leaning towards Obama as the Entertainer-in-Chief, which is a far, laughable cry from the Commander-in-Chief.

Agree with the article to a point, but the minute Obama lights into the "malefactors of great wealth" like the article's author wants, he gets tagged as "the angry black man".

No matter who we elect we get the same problems. That's because candidates of both parties are bought off by the same people.
The politicians serve those who bankroll their campaigns, not those who elected them.

You may be unhappy with your party's nominee, but in the end you have to figure out which candidate comes closest to your vision of how the country should be run, and vote for that person. You might disagree with almost everything about that candidate, but if you disagree with even more about the opposing candidate, you have to hold your nose and vote for your guy (or gal).

Some people might say that's being a mindless sheep. I think it's weighing the options and perhaps voting AGAINST the other guy, rather than FOR your guy.


Good formula for electing the worst people.
That's how David Wu was repeatedly re-elected.

2012 can't come fast enough!!! As for who can replace him - pretty much ANYBODY. My dead potted plant hasn't signed on to run for mayor of Portland, meaning it is STILL available for POTUS; and there is NO WAY it would be worse than Obama!!!!!

Kozzle - it is mathmatically IMPOSSIBLE to raise taxes only 'on the wealthy.'

First - then they lay off people and raise prices - passing the costs on to the poor.

Second - the 'wealthy' are the only ones paying the vast majority of taxes.

Indie - Where exactly are those wealthy taxpayers laying off people - India, China, Mexico, Kuala Lumpur, The Dominican Republic or some dinky dictatorship in nowheresville? Come on get a grasp on where the super rich have their work done, because by and large unless they are looking for innovation, it's not in the USA.

I chatted with someone from the Spanish Basque country the other day

He says:
"yeah we got this politician Zapatero, he's like Mr Bean. We call him Mr Bean. he's a total nightmare. He won by a fluke because his opponent was an idiot who pissed everyone off right before the election, by suggesting the Madrid bombing might have been the work of ETA Basque nationals, when everyone in the government knew that it wasn't. So then four year later, the opposition runs a guy who can hardly speak the language, even worse than Mr Bean. So we got stuck with Zapatero again, he's wasted all our money, politicians now can get pensions after being in their business for only 8 years..they built the biggest airport in Spain, it's empty, the politicians and the construction magnates are all in bed together wasting the money, Spain has more government vehicles than the USA... people are so pissed off they organized on the internet to get everyone to come out on the street and express their disapproval of the political class:
'El dia de los indignados' (Indignant people's day). Tons of people poured into the streets all over Spain on the designated day, March 15th. Things are very tense in Spain right now because we don't have anybody we want to vote for..."

But wait, doesn't this sound familiar??

Michelle's hearty endorsement of blind loyalty to party made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.

Clicky Web Analytics