Barry and the republican retreat.

[Ishmael]

Great idea that went bad for the republicans. They do need to talk, but not on camera. That was a really BAD idea. The republicans should have anticipated which sound bites were going to make the news cycle with the MSM.

I'm sure that some would argue that there should be some transparency, and on that point I do agree. But this was not a meeting concerning any legislation, this was more akin to diplomatic talks and diplomatic talks have to take place in a venue of privacy so that the belligerents can speak openly and honestly among themselves rather than posture for public consumption.

What should have been a meeting that might have led to some level of cooperation was turned into another photo-op event.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Photo-op to show Obama Uniting was all it was ever meant to be.





It's not the thing to move anyone any one way or another.


Not like a $1.6T deficit or an attack...

 

[Ishmael]

Of course it was, otherwise there would have been no need for the cameras. And the repubs were boxed on that. If they had of refused the cameras in they would have been crucified by the MSM for not being 'transparent' and a good segment of the population would have agreed forcing the repubs to spend considerable time nullifying the effects.

Ishmael

 

[rosco rathbone]

Lesson learned: never play the other guy's game.

 

[Ishmael]

It was a pretty masterful play by Barry.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Of course it was, otherwise there would have been no need for the cameras. And the repubs were boxed on that. If they had of refused the cameras in they would have been crucified by the MSM for not being 'transparent' and a good segment of the population would have agreed forcing the repubs to spend considerable time nullifying the effects.

Ishmael

Who actually saw it?

The sound bites aren't exactly echoing in the ether, drowned out by the size of the proposed deficit...

 

[Ishmael]

Who actually saw it?

The sound bites aren't exactly echoing in the ether, drowned out by the size of the proposed deficit...

Being a Friday and then followed immediately by the budget disclosure did help the repubs dodge that bullet.

Ishmael

 

[busybody..]

I disagree

Its reminiscent of Clitman and Gringrich sitting side by side in 1995


And Clitman saying

I AM RELEVANT!


It brought BAM down

He is NO LONGER the IT MAN

 

[off2bed]

It'll be quickly forgotten by all.

 

[unregistered]

 

[MeeMie]

It's not Obama’s Fault


As President Barack Obama juggled faux accountability with the stubbornness of an ideologue last week, it’s important to understand that it isn’t all Barack Obama’s fault. It isn’t — the Democrats have to take their share of the blame, too.

I wouldn’t expect someone like Barack Obama to understand this; his education is woefully inadequate for the challenges that he is expected to meet. In addition, like a whining child standing within feet of a baseball and a broken window, he is always searching for someone else to blame. He couldn’t be at fault — after all, he only has the best interests of the American people at heart.

When it comes to his propensity to shift blame, the most telling quote came from his remarks on Friday during a remarkable event in which the president strayed into the lion’s den–a room full of House Republicans–and answered questions peppered at him by the opposition.

The quote:
"We had lost 650,000 jobs in December; I’m assuming you’re not faulting my policies for that. We had lost 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in, I’m assuming it wasn’t my administration’s policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs in subsequent months, before any of my policies had gone into effect, so I’m assuming that wasn’t as a consequence of our policies—that doesn’t reflect the failure of the Recovery Act … but those jobs losses took place before … any stimulus, whether it was the ones you guys proposed or the ones we proposed, could have ever taken to effect, now that’s just the fact …"​

Actually, he’s got a couple of his “facts” wrong.

First, he blames the House Republicans for the first stimulus package, which is an extremely misleading statement. The truth is that all of the stimulus packages since the successful 2003 tax cuts under former President George W. Bush have taken place with the Democrats in control of Congress. It is true that the first one was proposed in late 2008 by the Bush Administration; however, to blame that on House Republicans is unacceptable. President Bush was a lame duck president at that time and the Democrats controlled that bill and packed it with special interest add ons. President Bush was helpless to stop them.

Second, and even more important, is that Obama has full responsibility for all job losses after November 4th when he became the president-elect. In fact, a strong case could be made that the downturn in the economy began when the Democrats took control of Congress after the 2006 mid-term elections. An understanding of why this is true demands an understanding of the impact of images of the future on a society’s current economic health, and of how business people think — how and why they make the decisions they do.


I have stated previously that I received my Master’s in Futuristics (societal futures). The subject of my thesis was: “The Influence of Images of the Future on Current Socio-Economic Health.” While my study dealt mainly with the power of positive images of the future, “negative” images of the future can have a disastrous effect on a society. In this instance, “negative” is in the “eye of the beholder.” While Obama sees the future he is planning as a very positive one, where fairness and equality will be spread throughout society, others–especially business owners and investors and anybody who trades in growth and prosperity–tend to see Obama’s vision as an extremely negative one.

There is no doubt that Obama–and, in large respect, the Democratic Party–has made it very clear that they do not support business or embrace the profits that come from running a successful one. In fact, statement after statement has been made during the entire time that the Democrats have been in control of Congress, and even more blatant during the campaigns, that profits were evil and that, “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.” The whole concept of profit being a bad word, to the redistribution of wealth from those who have achieved to those in need, to an overall War on Success and Prosperity and American Exceptionalism have been made very clear by Barack Obama from the very beginning of his campaign.

In addition, of course, were the threats of cap-and-trade, government-run health care and “card check” legislation. Any one of these measures taken alone could cause major problems for business — especially small businesses, the business segment that drives the U.S. economy by creating “more than half of the private non-farm gross domestic product, and … 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs.” (see SBA). Together, they mean disaster for the American economy, and with so much uncertainty on the horizon, the last thing any business owner is going to take on is more personnel and related expenses. Nope — unfunded mandates are the domain of the federal government, not the private sector.

Therefore, the image of the future that Barack Obama and a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party paints is an extremely negative one for American business, resulting in more regulation and higher taxes and as a result making it much more difficult to succeed, let alone be profitable.

As soon as the Democrats gained control of Congress in January 2007, businesses began to feel negative about the future. Increased government control, which always effects small businesses (97 percent of all firms) more than the large businesses, seemed to be the wave of the future.

Then, with the election of Obama—and the clear understanding to anyone who was listening carefully that he was extremely negative regarding business in general (but especially profitability) while being very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth—the handwriting was on the wall. It was now clearly understood that times were changing and the future for American business was not all that bright. Businesses went from “began to feel negative” to knowing that they had to prepare for the worse possible scenario and the potential of a dramatic decrease in profitability. This attitude was shared by the vast majority of investors.

Make no mistake — this was the image of the future that Barack Obama had painted. This was the future that he seemed committed to bringing about. His image or vision of the future was much more powerful than any of the stimulus packages.

Once businesses realized that there was a strong possibility that they would be seeing a dramatic increase in the costs of doing business, they had no choice but to “batten down the hatches” and prepare for the future that seemed to be on the horizon. How does business prepare for the potential of bad times? They lay people off, instigate hiring freezes and freeze salaries. At the same time, investors get extremely fiscally conservative, only putting their money where there is minimum risk, which means that new businesses find it extremely difficult to just get started. As a result, jobs become scarce, projects are shelved, and even the best ideas have trouble finding funding.

This is why Obama can be blamed for any downturn in the economy from the day he was elected, and why the Democrats have a major responsibility for any downturn that took place after January 2007. To ignore the effect of the images of the future they have created is to show a level of ignorance that is unacceptable in those in charge of our country.



Thus, whether he believes it or not, Barack Obama is responsible for what has taken place in the United States since the day of his election, if not months before. And, the Democratic Party has a major responsibility for anything that has happened since January 2007. Both Obama and the Democratic PArty are totally responsible for the images of the future they have created, and those images have had a major impact on our nation’s socio-economic health.


The president of the United States needs to wise up and realize that it is his vision of our society that is causing problems and that, quite probably, our current rebound is due more to the possibility of a Democratic defeat in November and a one-term presidency for Barack Obama than any stimulus package that they can force upon the American public.

 

[Liar]

It was a two-fold GOP mistake.

The first was to have it on TV. Although it's a hard thing to argue about, transparency and all.

But they could have come out looking good if they hadn't made the second mistake, to think "Hey, it's on TV, let's bombard the viewers with our talking points!".

Too many of them abandoned the opportunity to look competent and ask specific, pointed questions about legislation, procedure and issues, and went with the spoken version of Tea Party signs instead. Something which Obama had no problem hitting them over the head with. He could be a substance challenged slogan thumper too, but he just had to be a little bit less of a substance challenged slogan thumper, in order to appear like the adult in the room.

Obama is good at talking policy details on his feet, but not superhuman. Clinton and also Papa Bush were really good at it, albeit boring when they did, but they always had the specific answer to any specific question. If the repubs had been more consistent in keeping the topic there, they would have pulled even or even gained points.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Being a Friday and then followed immediately by the budget disclosure did help the repubs dodge that bullet.

Ishmael

Glenn Beck is reporting that the new Budget includes a Cap'n Trade tax cash flow into the Treasury...





Let's see how quickly he's proved to be lying.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Great idea that went bad for the republicans. They do need to talk, but not on camera. That was a really BAD idea. The republicans should have anticipated which sound bites were going to make the news cycle with the MSM.

I'm sure that some would argue that there should be some transparency, and on that point I do agree. But this was not a meeting concerning any legislation, this was more akin to diplomatic talks and diplomatic talks have to take place in a venue of privacy so that the belligerents can speak openly and honestly among themselves rather than posture for public consumption.

What should have been a meeting that might have led to some level of cooperation was turned into another photo-op event.

Ishmael

That matters not.

Being a Republican is no defense from the fast-approaching anti-incumbency November vote. Being a conservative is.

If the Republicans waffle and try to draw in moderates, they will lose just as they always have.

The only Republicans who will survive are those who espouse the same conservative views of their constituents.

People mistake and confuse the terms "Independent" and "Moderate." They are quite different. Moderates like guys like John McCain and number in the thousands. Independents are concerned about the deficit, excessive spending, etc. and are looking for conservative economics, not ideological polemics, and number in the millions.

 

[Liar]

People mistake and confuse the terms "Independent" and "Moderate." They are quite different. Moderates like guys like John McCain and number in the thousands. Independents are concerned about the deficit, excessive spending, etc. and are looking for conservative economics, not ideological polemics, and number in the millions.

People also mistake "Independent" for "Libertarian" or "Conservative". There are left wing progressive independents. Bernie Sanders probably the most famous one.

Whether their numbers are less, I have no idea. But "independent" means only that: independent from conventional party affiliation.

 

[tinylittlegnat]

Great idea that went bad for the republicans. They do need to talk, but not on camera. That was a really BAD idea. The republicans should have anticipated which sound bites were going to make the news cycle with the MSM.

Ishmael

Why should there be no cameras? I thought you guys wanted transparency? Or is it because he whipped their asses? By the way where were his teleprompters for that?

They should do this more often and it should be televised. After the first ten or twenty minutes of Republicans getting their asses handed to them fox news cut away to talk about how Obama was preaching to the Republicans or some shit.

 

[tinylittlegnat]

Photo-op to show Obama Uniting was all it was ever meant to be.

It's not the thing to move anyone any one way or another.


Not like a $1.6T deficit or an attack...

A photo op you say? Thats funny cause the republicans are the ones who asked for the cameras to be there and the white house agreed.

 

[phrodeau]

A photo op you say? Thats funny cause the republicans are the ones who asked for the cameras to be there and the white house agreed.

They wanted to try out the new makeup girls.

 

[sigh]

Who actually saw it?

The sound bites aren't exactly echoing in the ether, drowned out by the size of the proposed deficit...

Come election time they'll likely pop up in campaign ads.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Who actually saw it?

Quite a few of us, actually. I made a thread and posted a link to the complete video and transcript on Friday, we had quite a discussion on it.

You even posted in that thread, AJ, remember?

Granted, your post was a non-sequitur designed to change the subject...and your comments showed that you didn't actually watch the video or read the transcript, but that's just the sort of intellectual dishonesty we've come to expect from you.

So do us all a favor, m'kay? Take that revisionist babble of yours, shine it up reallllll good, turn it sideways and shove it up your situationally outraged ass. thxbai.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

GOP leadership and the "right" talking heads are saying that this was a very bad idea. Bad for the GOP. You can bet your ass that if they ever invite the President for an unscripted Q&A that it won't be on television, think more of a "media barred Palin event".

The President schooled the Republicans at their own retreat on national television.. The best part was the entire deal was their idea.

Hearing the usual suspects try to play this off as if nobody watched it (Cap'n) or that the President didn't actually beat the hell out of the GOP on their home field (Vette), and that nobody is going to remember this come election time (Out2Lunch).. is fucking priceless.

Even better is the fact that FauxNews, seeing exactly what was happening, cut away to try to do damage control 20 minutes before the end of the session. "Fairly Unbalanced" for all to see.

 

[RobDownSouth]

GOP leadership and the "right" talking heads are saying that this was a very bad idea. Bad for the GOP. You can bet your ass that if they ever invite the President for an unscripted Q&A that it won't be on television, think more of a "media barred Palin event".

The President schooled the Republicans at their own retreat on national television.. The best part was the entire deal was their idea.

Hearing the usual suspects try to play this off as if nobody watched it (Cap'n) or that the President didn't actually beat the hell out of the GOP on their home field (Vette), and that nobody is going to remember this come election time (Out2Lunch).. is fucking priceless.

Even better is the fact that FauxNews, seeing exactly what was happening, cut away to try to do damage control 20 minutes before the end of the session. "Fairly Unbalanced" for all to see.

It was fascinating watching the "dog whistle" damage control afterwards.

Fox News cut away and second string talking head Trace Gallagher (and a Congressman who wasn't even there...Peter King, I think), began the meme that "the President lectured them!"

The most insane person in Congress, that Foxx woman (forget her first name) immediately tweeted "President Obama lectured us!"

Two hours later, Stupid Sarah Palin dutifully repeated the same talking point "the President lectured Congress!"

By Sunday, there were 4 or 5 more Congress people bemoaning being "lectured", and the meme was fully in force in Wingnuttia.

I have to believe that any answer that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker is by definition a lecture.....in Wingnut Nation.

 

[RobDownSouth]

People also mistake "Independent" for "Libertarian" or "Conservative". There are left wing progressive independents. Bernie Sanders probably the most famous one.

Whether their numbers are less, I have no idea. But "independent" means only that: independent from conventional party affiliation.

I think that in 2010, "independent" is political shorthand for "I supported Bush and lack the courage to admit that my support for Bush was a mistake".

See also: Vetteman, AJ, et al.

 

[rosco rathbone]

It was fascinating watching the "dog whistle" damage control afterwards.

Fox News cut away and second string talking head Trace Gallagher (and a Congressman who wasn't even there...Peter King, I think), began the meme that "the President lectured them!"

The most insane person in Congress, that Foxx woman (forget her first name) immediately tweeted "President Obama lectured us!"

Two hours later, Stupid Sarah Palin dutifully repeated the same talking point "the President lectured Congress!"

By Sunday, there were 4 or 5 more Congress people bemoaning being "lectured", and the meme was fully in force in Wingnuttia.

I have to believe that any answer that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker is by definition a lecture.....in Wingnut Nation.

That's "echo chamber". "Dog Whistle" is Rush Limgaugh calling Obama "manchild", ie "boy".

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's "echo chamber". "Dog Whistle" is Rush Limgaugh calling Obama "manchild", ie "boy".

I stand corrected.

Another example of "dog whistle" was back when Dubya proudly said he was "against the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision". 95% of America scratched their heads and said "huh?" and the other 5% nodded and yelled "fuck them niggers!".