Quoted:

Where has Obama gone wrong?



Well, first... he's a Communist. A big C Communist. A Marxist-Leninest Communist.

Quoted:
Is it possible that gubmint just can't fix everything? That some things are better left alone and worked out for themselves. Why do we think that anyone, let alone Gubmint can fix anything? Isn't this the epitome of arrogance and neptism?

I suppose that by electing officials to office, they probably think that they must do something. Or else why did we elect them and pay them? But truthfully, what can they do well?
Also, I guess it would be tough to run on the platform of "I'm not going to do anything".
But reality is that everytime these corrupt bozos sit down either in the house or senate or city council or county commission, we lose a little more of our money or our freedom or both.

■President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Quoted:
He ran for president with no qualifications for the job.
He told a huge number of lies during the election.
He almost immediately reneged on all of his promises made during the election.
He continues to campaign for the presidency even after being elected.
He has no clue how the economics of the market work.
He has a personal agenda to turn a world power into a third world shit hole.
He rejects the fact that he was elected by the American people and owes some level of respect to the majority opinion.
He is a mental case waiting to curl up and go into a comatose state.
He is too stupid to realize that he's way in over his head.

Amateur Hour at the White House

I just about fell out of my chair yesterday when I read this in the Washington Post.

President Obama's advisers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unprepared for the intraparty rift that occurred over the fate of a proposed public health insurance program, a firestorm that has left the White House searching for a way to reclaim the initiative on the president's top legislative priority.
This confirms a suspicion I have had for some time, and made clear a few weeks ago: Democratic leaders in the White House and on Capitol Hill have only recently begun to take seriously the internal divisions within their own party.

Frankly, I am stunned that they would be caught off guard by this. How could they not have anticipated this? How could they possibly have been surprised that the left and right flanks of the party would not see eye to eye?

To explain my utter, complete astonishment at this bone-headed mistake, I need a visual aid. The following is courtesy of Google Maps. It marks the district offices of four types of congressmen:

(1) Democratic House committee chairmen are marked with blue pinpoints.
(2) House leaders and chairmen closely involved with health care are marked with red crosses.
(3) The top 40 Democratic House members in McCain-voting districts are marked with yellow bubbles.
(4) Committee chairmen from the McCain-voting districts are marked with yellow pinpoints.

As you can see, coastal liberals dominate the leadership positions. California has six of the 24 leadership positions I have delineated. Another seven are located roughly within the megapolis that stretches from Washington, D.C. to Boston. Meanwhile, those marginal members are clustered in the South and the Border States, with a few sprinkled across the Great Plains and then into Arizona.

This is a stark visual representation of the divide within the Democratic Party. We can clearly see the source of the problem. Liberal leaders from the coasts were given wide latitude by the White House to write these bills - and, unsurprisingly, they delivered products their fellow liberals love (or at least like). But the moderate and conservative Democrats - whose votes are needed for passage yet who run the risk of defeat next fall should the broad middle of the country sour on the reform efforts - weren't fully consulted, and don't like the bills. Hence, the internal friction - which corresponds pretty well with age-old sectional divisions in the party (more on that in a moment).

It was always going to be a challenge to find something that the moderates could stomach yet the liberals don't think is too watered down. That, more than anything else, was destined to be the highest hurdle for health care reform to jump. Amazingly, the White House waited until after the liberal House bills were published - and all the attending fallout - to take this challenge seriously, or even notice it! Because of this error, it is now in a substantially weaker position to find that middle ground. The liberals already have their bills on the table, so they are at least somewhat committed to them (as the Progressive Caucus has been saying for weeks, and as the WaPo article suggests). The moderates and conservatives are at home getting yelled at by angry constituents, rather than in D.C. searching for that common ground. The acrimony has forced Obama out onto the campaign trail, where he is making mistakes (e.g. the Post Office comment, the Cambridge police comment, and the AARP comment - all a consequence of the White House's desire to get back in front of the health care story). All of this has driven his poll numbers downward, leaving him less able to persuade the marginal members in the caucus, who must get getting nervous about November, 2010.

I can think of five very good reasons why the White House's lack of foresight on the potential for the intraparty squabble is absolutely inexcusable:

(1) For the months between November and January, we were treated to endless comparisons of Obama to the great presidents of the days of yore. One of them was Franklin Roosevelt. Question: who stopped the New Deal dead in its tracks after 1938? It wasn't the Republicans alone. It was Southern Democrats working in alliance with the Republicans. Who are the marginal members standing between Obama and a health care bill...Southern Democrats! Generally speaking, the internal cleavage within the Democratic Party (North v. South; left v. right) is really one of the most significant features of the political landscape since at least the Great Depression. After eighty some years and dozens of failed attempts at liberal reforms, there is no excuse for a President not to anticipate it rearing its head again.

(2) Much of last year was dominated by that famous primary brawl between Obama and Hillary - and all through these states (Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc.) the former First Lady made mincemeat of the junior Senator from Illinois. Then, when the general election rolled around, these states voted against him again. Historically speaking, these states usually vote for a winning Democrat. Obama should be very familiar with his struggles in this region, and not terribly surprised that the large number of Democratic members from it could create such problems for bills drafted by coastal liberals.

(3) How many of these members did Rahm Emanuel recruit? Fourteen of these seats changed hands in either 2006 or 2008 when Emanuel was in a leadership position in the House. Is this not a sufficiently representative sample to know that there could be trouble?

(4) Congress usually fails to find compromises on big solutions to big problems - exactly like what is being debated now - regardless of whether the legislature is under control of a single party or if it is split. This means that internal cleavages can do just as much damage to reform efforts as the partisan divide. This should be especially evident for an item like health care reform: Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton failed to deliver anything approaching the scope Obama is envisioning, even though the Democratic Party had complete control of Congress for at least parts of their terms.

(5) As stark as this map looks, the landscape in the Senate is even starker. Thirteen Democratic senators come from McCain states.

It's almost as if the President has absolutely no experience in dealing with the United States Congress whatsoever.

That's so puzzling, considering how Democrats turned down the fresh-faced newcomer who could turn a good phrase on the campaign trail for the old-hand who had been in Washington for 15 years by the time of the nomination battle. Oh wait...

Quoted:



They are saying the economy is Bush's fault, but I would like to see where Obama has tried to fix the economy? Everything I can find is just blame Bush

Quoted:
This might help you a bit...

Bush vs Obama Deficit in pictures





And it not include the 1.2 to 1.6 trillion health care would cost in the next 10 years, or the 1 trillion + the Cap and Trade bill would cost.  (ETA)...  <––––  that's my take, anyways.

Quoted:
He was born

Quoted:

He was born

Quoted:
He was born

Quoted:
He got elected?

Quoted:
Mrs. Obama? She didn't have an abortion.

Quoted:
His mother fucked him up when he was still a child. He's never been right since.

Quoted:
He ran for president with no qualifications for the job.
He told a huge number of lies during the election.
He almost immediately reneged on all of his promises made during the election.
He continues to campaign for the presidency even after being elected.
He has no clue how the economics of the market work.
He has a personal agenda to turn a world power into a third world shit hole.
He rejects the fact that he was elected by the American people and owes some level of respect to the majority opinion.
He is a mental case waiting to curl up and go into a comatose state.
He is too stupid to realize that he's way in over his head.

Quoted:


Bingo. That's exactly what I needed. Amazingly the comments have stopped. Oh, just in case y'all were wondering, Bush was the cause of the crusades.

Quoted:
His mother fucked him up when he was still a child. He's never been right since.