Come on, your THE PRESIDENT!

US President Barack Obama went head-to-head with a prominent conservative Tea Party activist, in a microcosm of a political clash that will play out in the 2012 election.

Ryan Rhodes, a leader of the group in Iowa, took on Obama during an open-air town hall meeting, which marked a moment of new intensity in the president's campaign for a second term.

Rhodes shouted out that the president's calls for more civility in politics had little chance of coming to pass after "your vice president is calling people like me, a Tea Party member, a 'terrorist.'"

His question referred to media reports that Vice President Joe Biden made such a remark in a private meeting with House of Representatives Democrats at the height of a debt showdown earlier this month.

"I absolutely agree that everybody needs to try to tone down the rhetoric," he said, before going on to detail some of the more explosive charges that conservatives have laid against him.

"In fairness, since I have been called a socialist who wasn't born in this country, who is destroying America and taking away its freedoms because I passed a health care bill, I am all for lowering the rhetoric."

Mr President, in fairness - in my 42 yrs on this planet I watched Chevy Chase, stumble and trip on himself mimicking Gerald Ford, watched countless comedians make fun of Reagan falling asleep, watched Dana Carvey make fun of GHW Bush, watched liberals drool over every mistake GWM ever made, blaming 9/11 on Cheney, bumperstickers, protests and everything else against Bush and NONE, NONE of them complained or retaliated. YOU AND ADMINISTRATION must be held to higher standards. Not the people. YOU must bring dignity to the office.
You've lived up to every concern, you're junior, inexperienced and a finger pointer. A college professor with very little leadership experience. It shows all the time

A college professor with very little leadership experience. It shows all the time

Ah, not a professor, a senior college instructor who taught part time.
Kinda what he's doing now as President

This thread sucks.

-spence

the president of the united states continues to act like a 5yr old and thats your comment?
he says - everyone stop the rhetoric and when rehotric from his camp is brought up he says, we'll yeah, look what you said about me.
I guess once again Spence , me with my state school education will tell you what the great orator should have said.

"Good point, I will not tolerate that kind of language coming from my adminstration. A lot of lousy things have been said about me, but we're better than that is this country and my team needs to lead by example"

Hows that???? WTF - any high school coach would have said that!

"Good point, I will not tolerate that kind of language coming from my adminstration. A lot of lousy things have been said about me, but we're better than that is this country and my team needs to lead by example"

Hows that???? WTF - any high school coach would have said that!

"I absolutely agree that everybody needs to try to tone down the rhetoric" Is Biden included in everybody?

And, for the record, Fred Armesian (sp?) does a pretty good job of lampooning Obama on SNL as well

"I absolutely agree that everybody needs to try to tone down the rhetoric" Is Biden included in everybody?

And, for the record, Fred Armesian (sp?) does a pretty good job of lampooning Obama on SNL as well

leaders dont agree that everyone should do something, they do it.
come on Bry. you really cant defend this. Its been too much from him, I'd cut him some slack but its constant deflection and constant finger pointing for YEARS now. its juvenile

And what were the comments yesterday by one of the Repub. front runners: "I think the greatest threat to our country right now is this president trying to spend his way out of this debt" I guess Perry thinks we got the terrorism and economy things fixed.

When reporters asked if he believes Obama doesn’t love America, Perry responded: “You need to ask him.”

And what were the comments yesterday by one of the Repub. front runners: "I think the greatest threat to our country right now is this president trying to spend his way out of this debt" I guess Perry thinks we got the terrorism and economy things fixed.

When reporters asked if he believes Obama doesn’t love America, Perry responded: “You need to ask him.”

And he's wrong where??? The debt is our biggest threat, and it's derailing any hope of a better economy. Disrupting our economy has been the goal of terrorist.

Why is it so hard for Obama voters to admit they screwed up? Just say it and free yourself from all that bad Mojo:)

leaders dont agree that everyone should do something, they do it.
come on Bry. you really cant defend this. Its been too much from him, I'd cut him some slack but its constant deflection and constant finger pointing for YEARS now. its juvenile

You think it is finger pointing to say lets tone down the rhetoric and here are some examples of why?

it was also not confirmed Biden actually said that, (although he probably did run his mouth) so any direct comment towards that would acknowledge he did say it...

The difference is GWB had rove, cheney etc to call people out. I don't have a problem with these comments.

I'd cut him some slack but its constant deflection and constant finger pointing for YEARS now. its juvenile

Jim...try to be amused by him...it's much easier to cope with him...like a little child or a crazy uncle...:uhuh:

August 16, 2011
Obama to carmakers: Stop making so many products that people want!

Rick Moran

I don't truck with those who call Obama a commie, but by saying completely off the wall, totally ignorant stuff like this, he reminds me of factory managers in the old Soviet Union who would deliberately slow production on products that were popular because it created too much paperwork for them.

The Hill:

The country's automakers should ditch their focus on SUVs and trucks in favor of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, President Obama said Monday.

"You can't just make money on SUVs and trucks," Obama said during a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn. "There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money."

Obama has positioned the revival and reshaping of the auto industry as a major part of his administration's push to improve the economy and create jobs.

A man with zero business experience is telling carmakers that they've got to "understand the market?" The closest Obama ever got to a business was when he was picketing them back in his community organizing days. :rotf2:

And he's wrong where??? The debt is our biggest threat, and it's derailing any hope of a better economy. Disrupting our economy has been the goal of terrorist.

Why is it so hard for Obama voters to admit they screwed up? Just say it and free yourself from all that bad Mojo:)

So, you also think that the pres. is a terrorist and doesn't love the country?

So, you also think that the pres. is a terrorist and doesn't love the country?

also?

Ah, not a professor, a senior college instructor who taught part time.....

In the Liberal Arts department!

Obama is an absolute joke who cannot even do a rope-line without making a horse's azz of himself. Presidents get heckled all the time, ansd every single one of them simply smiles and moves on...but not Obama. He follows this guy right down the rabbit hole, and not only that, the guy clobbers Obama during the exchange.

Everything Obama touches, EVERYTHING HE TOUCHES, turns to vomit. He cannot even get one right by accident, he is unbelievable. He simply cannot stand the fact that not everyone out there feels obligated to bow down and kiss his ring. He's an unbelievable thin-skinned baby who cannot take any little criticism.

Did we really elect this inexperienced, incompetent Bolshevik to be President? Really? Seriously?

yeah, I guess Im just being petty again,,,,,hey lets see what he said to my boy wolf at cnn

Peosta, Iowa (CNN) -- President Barack Obama placed the blame for Washington's current political paralysis squarely at the feet of his Republican opponents Tuesday, telling CNN that the GOP's "ideological rigidity" is standing in the way of compromises necessary for stronger economic growth.


"Ultimately, the buck stops with me. I'm going to be accountable," Obama said. But the president was quick to emphasize the "mess" he inherited from former President George W. Bush in 2009.

While admitting that politically popular entitlement programs such as Medicare are contributing to Washington's spiraling deficits, Obama refused to offer details about what he is willing to do to help control medical costs. He stressed the need to lower health care costs as a whole, as opposed to going along with GOP attempts to "voucherize" Medicare and leave more responsibility for health expenses in the hands of vulnerable seniors.

yawn........anyone surprised?

let get some quotes from Bush, etc. blaming everyone else for their problems. Anyone, anyone?

Sorry, I've got run to BOS to catch a flight...but here's the first thing Google presented me...

Bush and Vice President #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, in separate speeches Wednesday, both claimed the U.S. economy was already in recession when they were inaugurated in January 2001, implying the blame for the slowdown rested on President Clinton's shoulders.

The big difference of course is the Left was far less effective in placing the blame on Bush as the Right has been on painting it as Obama's recession.

-spence

Sorry, I've got run to BOS to catch a flight...but here's the first thing Google presented me...

Yes - first thing up on Google. August 7, 2002. After owning the WH for about 7 months. Obama stated the same about August 2009. I can certainly appreciate him saying that in 2009.

We are now 2.5+ in. Obama owns the economy now.

We need his leadership and that of Congress. We are not getting our $$ worth. From any of them. Though at least the Tea Party is forcing the conversation.


The big difference of course is the Left was far less effective in placing the blame on Bush as the Right has been on painting it as Obama's recession.

-spence

:rotf2:

Sorry, I've got run to BOS to catch a flight...but here's the first thing Google presented me...



The big difference of course is the Left was far less effective in placing the blame on Bush as the Right has been on painting it as Obama's recession.

-spence

What?!! Did Bush or Cheney Blame the previous administration for the recession? They claimed, correctly, that the economy was already in recession when they were inaugurated in January (and were not able to take office till several months later due to Gore's challenge), but they did not place the blame on Clinton. THAT'S the "big difference." Obama doesn't just say he "inherited" his recession, which is implying more than simply saying the economy was already in recession when he was inaugurated. Not only does it "imply" that the previous administration was responsible, he has said over, and over again, that the Bush administration was responsible.

And the left was far less effective in placing the blame on Bush? Come on already, Spence! They successfully and continuously pounded him for growing the deficit and evaporating the so-called (but fictitious) budget surplus. The only reason he was re-elected was the sap he ran against. The left has successfuly hammered him on the "Bush War," on "tax cuts for the rich," on his inability to speak well and lack of "gravitas," and many etceteras. Obama basically ran against the image of Bush that the left had painted. And O is still running against Bush--still blaming him for the mess he "inherited."

So, you also think that the pres. is a terrorist and doesn't love the country?

I think he loves himself.

What?!! Did Bush or Cheney Blame the previous administration for the recession? They claimed, correctly, that the economy was already in recession when they were inaugurated in January (and were not able to take office till several months later duexactly

I.e.e to Gore's challenge), but they did not place the blame on Clinton. THAT'S the "big difference." Obama doesn't just say he "inherited" his recession, which is implying more than simply saying the economy was already in recession when he was inaugurated. Not only does it "imply" that the previous administration was responsible, he has said over, and over again, that the Bush administration was responsible.

And the left was far less effective in placing the blame on Bush? Come on already, Spence! They successfully and continuously pounded him for growing the deficit and evaporating the so-called (but fictitious) budget surplus. The only reason he was re-elected was the sap he ran against. The left has successfuly hammered him on the "Bush War," on "tax cuts for the rich," on his inability to speak well and lack of "gravitas," and many etceteras. Obama basically ran against the image of Bush that the left had painted. And O is still running against Bush--still blaming him for the mess he "inherited."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think he loves himself.

so what is wrong with that - I do it:rotf2:

so what is wrong with that - I do it:rotf2:

As long as it involves anne hathaway

Bush Sucks. Now that I got that out of the way. Obama did inherit a huge mess and is trying to fix it and yes the Repulbicans are stone walling him at every turn to the determent of the entire economy, which they would gladly destroy to get a Rebublican president. Clinton find a way to deal with these #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& Republicans and if Obama can't figure it out he does not deserve to get relelected period. And if you disagree with me then more than likley you never finished high school or dropped out of college or work with you hands and not your mind. The Repblicans have never done a single thing for the working class and yet those idiots yearn for them to be in power. Just a sad joke.

Bush Sucks. Now that I got that out of the way. Obama did inherit a huge mess and is trying to fix it and yes the Repulbicans are stone walling him at every turn to the determent of the entire economy, which they would gladly destroy to get a Rebublican president.

Ya, and he also inherited the House and Senate under his party's control
and did nothing but spend $$$$.

. The Repblicans have never done a single thing for the working class and yet those idiots yearn for them to be in power. Just a sad joke.

Bush cut the middle classes taxes, significantly

i wont bother to add more

Bush Sucks. Now that I got that out of the way. Obama did inherit a huge mess and is trying to fix it and yes the Repulbicans are stone walling him at every turn to the determent of the entire economy, which they would gladly destroy to get a Rebublican president. Clinton find a way to deal with these #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& Republicans and if Obama can't figure it out he does not deserve to get relelected period. And if you disagree with me then more than likley you never finished high school or dropped out of college or work with you hands and not your mind. The Repblicans have never done a single thing for the working class and yet those idiots yearn for them to be in power. Just a sad joke.

I can't say much...I work with my hands.
You clearly represent the views of a better class of people. Well done.

Sorry Guys I just felt like stiring up some #^&#^&#^&#^&.. I retract the working with your hand #^&#^&#^&#^& ... I am a level 80 Douche Lord at times.

Bush Sucks. Now that I got that out of the way. Obama did inherit a huge mess and is trying to fix it .

Here's how I remember recent history. Obama, Biden, and Clinton were all sitting US Senators in the Democratic party before Obama became president. That party, the Democratic party, took control of Congress in 2006. AT that time, what the Democrats "inherited" was a thriving, robust, economy.

We don't live in a dictatorship. The legislative branch sets the legislative agenda. The Democrats controlled the legislature from 2006 until 2010. Look where the stock market, and unemployment, were when the Democrats took control in 2006.

The Democrats controlled the white house, the house of reps, and the Senate from 2008-2010. Did things get better, or worse, during that time?

Try making that wrong.

What short memories we have, the politicians, their cronies, and Lib pundits
all depend on that fact.

What?!! Did Bush or Cheney Blame the previous administration for the recession? They claimed, correctly, that the economy was already in recession when they were inaugurated in January (and were not able to take office till several months later due to Gore's challenge), but they did not place the blame on Clinton. THAT'S the "big difference." Obama doesn't just say he "inherited" his recession, which is implying more than simply saying the economy was already in recession when he was inaugurated. Not only does it "imply" that the previous administration was responsible, he has said over, and over again, that the Bush administration was responsible.
The context for my response was an assertion by RIJIMMY that Bush never blamed anyone else for his problems. From terrorism to the recession he certainly did place the root of the problem on the shoulders of others quite frequently.

As for Obama claiming it was republican policies that caused the 2008 recession...what I've Obama most commonly talking about the issues he's "inherited". He certainly has blamed Bush policy (tax cuts, deregulation, war spending etc...) at times...and on paper these all were major factors in the reversal from a surplus to a deficit. So it's a bit of rhetoric for sure, but not entirely untrue.

And the left was far less effective in placing the blame on Bush? Come on already, Spence! They successfully and continuously pounded him for growing the deficit and evaporating the so-called (but fictitious) budget surplus. The only reason he was re-elected was the sap he ran against. The left has successfuly hammered him on the "Bush War," on "tax cuts for the rich," on his inability to speak well and lack of "gravitas," and many etceteras. Obama basically ran against the image of Bush that the left had painted. And O is still running against Bush--still blaming him for the mess he "inherited."
On Bush turning the surplus into a deficit - this message held well with the left, but I think most people factor in the short duration, terrorist attacks and corporate scandals and Bush isn't in the hot seat with the majority. It's certainly hasn't had a lasting effect.

On the Bush war - yes, he's been pounded on this but the majority of the country believes they were "marketed" into Iraq. While I have no doubt Bush personally thought he was doing the right thing...I do think his lumps are well deserved here.

The big difference is the lengths the Right has gone to frame the entire economic situation (recession and deficits) around liberals and spending which has been very effective. People here post stories about Obama's 2009 1.6 trillion dollar stimulus package and they don't even notice what's going on.

I don't think the left has a marketing engine that's 1/2 as effective.

-spence

Here's how I remember recent history. Obama, Biden, and Clinton were all sitting US Senators in the Democratic party before Obama became president. That party, the Democratic party, took control of Congress in 2006. AT that time, what the Democrats "inherited" was a thriving, robust, economy.
2006 marked the peak of the housing market, record setting household debt, a record trade deficit and declining GDP throughout the year. The stage was set for falling housing prices in 2007 and the start of the great recession.

Not quite the "thriving, robust, economy" as you assert.

We don't live in a dictatorship. The legislative branch sets the legislative agenda. The Democrats controlled the legislature from 2006 until 2010. Look where the stock market, and unemployment, were when the Democrats took control in 2006.

The Democrats controlled the white house, the house of reps, and the Senate from 2008-2010. Did things get better, or worse, during that time?

Try making that wrong.
Using your methodology of selective, analysis free reasoning it sure is easy to make it right eh?

-spence

The context for my response was an assertion by RIJIMMY that Bush never blamed anyone else for his problems. From terrorism to the recession he certainly did place the root of the problem on the shoulders of others quite frequently.

Did he actually, directly say that the recession he "inherited" was Clinton's or his administration's fault? I find no such accusation through a google search. Doesn't mean he didn't--just can't find it. If you can find it, then RIJIMMY is wrong to say NEVER, and maybe say not as constantly. When, in response to attacks that his policies caused the recession, he used the word "inherit" re the recession that had begun before he took office (which it did), I suppose it can be excused as you excuse Obama's much more incessant use of the term "a bit of rhetoric, for sure, but not entirely untrue." I didn't find him placing the blame for 9/11 on someone else. Perhaps he did. He was certainly blamed enough for it, so he might have come back with scenarios that showed he was not "responsible" and those scenarios might have implied others. I just don't recall him constantly casting blame as an excuse or a re-election ploy. Maybe just my selective memory, and my laziness in doing a more than skimpy search.

As for Obama claiming it was republican policies that caused the 2008 recession...what I've Obama most commonly talking about the issues he's "inherited". He certainly has blamed Bush policy (tax cuts, deregulation, war spending etc...) at times...and on paper these all were major factors in the reversal from a surplus to a deficit. So it's a bit of rhetoric for sure, but not entirely untrue.

Yes, we agree, he directly, not implicitly, blamed Republican policies for the 2008 recession. As far as the deficit--a budget deficit can only occur if you spend more than you have. To say that . . . well . . . more revenues are needed is admitting you are spending too much. Borrowing can help, only if you can and do repay the loan. Fact is, no administration, including Clinton's, who has "borrowed" from the Social Security "trust fund," has repaid the loan, but they have all gotten deeper in debt to it. So none have truly had a budget surplus. If your personal budget is in balance except for a gigantic debt that dwarfs the size of your budget and destroys your ability to repay, your budget is not in balance--you need chapter 11. So this reversal from surplus to defecit is bunk. The budget has been in defecit for a long, long time, and the National debt has constantly risen in all these administrations.


On Bush turning the surplus into a deficit - this message held well with the left, but I think most people factor in the short duration, terrorist attacks and corporate scandals and Bush isn't in the hot seat with the majority. It's certainly hasn't had a lasting effect.

Then why did Obama, so successfully run against Bush, not McCain?

On the Bush war - yes, he's been pounded on this but the majority of the country believes they were "marketed" into Iraq. While I have no doubt Bush personally thought he was doing the right thing...I do think his lumps are well deserved here.

It usually takes history several years to judge if lumps are deserved. Contemporary writing is usually too close and to full of biased contradictions to be accurate.

And why did Obama run against Bush rather than McCain?

The big difference is the lengths the Right has gone to frame the entire economic situation (recession and deficits) around liberals and spending which has been very effective. People here post stories about Obama's 2009 1.6 trillion dollar stimulus package and they don't even notice what's going on.

I don't think the left has a marketing engine that's 1/2 as effective.

-spence

It's "not entirely untrue" that spending is the problem. Actually it is entirely true that it is--regardless of Left/Right, Democrat/Republican.

And why is Obama still running against Bush. Isn't he aware that the left's marketing engine is less than 1/2 as effective as the Right's?

seems to be a common theme here recently with the Obama relativism from the usual suspects :uhuh:

REUTERS
Obama accuses Congress of holding back U.S. recovery

By Laura MacInnis

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass., Aug 20 (Reuters) - A vacationing U.S. President Barack Obama accused Congress on Saturday of holding back the U.S. economic recovery by blocking "common sense" measures he said would create jobs and help growth.

"The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party. That's the problem right now. That's what's holding this country back," the president said in his weekly radio address, which is also transmitted on the Internet.

Obama Blames His Low Approval Ratings on Unhappiness With Washington
August 21, 2011

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. (AP) — President Barack Obama says his low approval rating is a reflection of public unhappiness with Congress.

Obama tells CBS in an interview broadcast Sunday that he’s “impacted,” just like Congress, when people aren’t happy with Washington.

He says he understands that his arguments(lies and distortions) that the country would have been worse off if he hadn‘t taken certain actions don’t resonate with the millions of unemployed people.
hey, he got something right:jump1:

Did he actually, directly say that the recession he "inherited" was Clinton's or his administration's fault? I find no such accusation through a google search. Doesn't mean he didn't--just can't find it. If you can find it, then RIJIMMY is wrong to say NEVER, and maybe say not as constantly.
You're wanting an answer to your question and not the question I was answering.

The issue was on making excuses. I'd say they've both done it.
I didn't find him placing the blame for 9/11 on someone else. Perhaps he did.
Bush was pretty consistent in remarking that 9/11 happened because previous administrations (Clinton/Reagan) actions made America look vulnerable. While there's probably some truth to that, it's also an excuse to distract from accusations the Whitehouse wasn't paying attention. Not to mention the whole "they hate us for our freedom" press campaign which was about as excuse heavy as they get.

I just don't recall him constantly casting blame as an excuse or a re-election ploy. Maybe just my selective memory, and my laziness in doing a more than skimpy search.
Not sure I'd consider it a ploy, rather he's just trying to defend against those who would brand the economic woes on him personally.

I'd like to think he could do better, although he's also in quite a pickle. There's very little Obama can do, perhaps aside from another large stimulus, that would spur short-term growth in time to impact the election. And now that we've been through the credit circle jerk even that would likely be impossible. It will be interesting to hear his upcoming pitch on the subject, his reelection could hang on it.

Yes, we agree, he directly, not implicitly, blamed Republican policies for the 2008 recession.
He's also blamed rampant spending as well. I don't think he's ever said it's all Bush's fault.

As far as the deficit--a budget deficit can only occur if you spend more than you have. To say that . . . well . . . more revenues are needed is admitting you are spending too much. Borrowing can help, only if you can and do repay the loan. Fact is, no administration, including Clinton's, who has "borrowed" from the Social Security "trust fund," has repaid the loan, but they have all gotten deeper in debt to it. So none have truly had a budget surplus. If your personal budget is in balance except for a gigantic debt that dwarfs the size of your budget and destroys your ability to repay, your budget is not in balance--you need chapter 11. So this reversal from surplus to defecit is bunk. The budget has been in defecit for a long, long time, and the National debt has constantly risen in all these administrations.
Well, yes and no.

A budget doesn't have to include all liabilities like a balance sheet would. So technically speaking Clinton did balance the budget, but just not with a long-term plan to pay the debts.

Then why did Obama, so successfully run against Bush, not McCain?
Because of the war and the timing of the second recession. McCain wasn't in charge for either of these and had no plan to address any differently than Bush would, yet Bush generated a more emotional response from the electorate. Play to win...

It usually takes history several years to judge if lumps are deserved. Contemporary writing is usually too close and to full of biased contradictions to be accurate.
There are multiple issues here to judge. Was Iraq the proper strategic play? Was the war justified to the American people? Was the war executed well?

The first question will be debated forever. As things sit right now I see both positive and negative aspects.

The second question I do think has played out and the answer is no. Despite the bias of some contemporary commentators, there's simply too large a body of first hand accounts to not be able to construct a fairly complete picture.

The third question is a mix. Certainly the pre-war planning appeared to be deficient and some would argue downright ignorant of local cultures. Much of this seemed to be addressed with new leadership over time which has allowed our efforts to be more productive.

What's sure is that the last two questions will always dog the first.

It's "not entirely untrue" that spending is the problem. Actually it is entirely true that it is--regardless of Left/Right, Democrat/Republican.
I would say that deficit spending, short-term'ism and revenue generation are all big problems.

To say that spending is "the"problem ignores the realities of the current situation. Even if we pass massive spending cuts there will still be projected deficits for the next decade+.

Spending cuts, revenue generation and other means to encourage business growth should all be on the table.

And why is Obama still running against Bush. Isn't he aware that the left's marketing engine is less than 1/2 as effective as the Right's?
Perhaps your assertion he's running against Bush is a product of effective marketing?

-spence

The issue was on making excuses. I'd say they've both done it.
no, you said "The context for my response was an assertion by RIJIMMY that Bush never blamed anyone else for his problems. From terrorism to the recession he certainly did place the root of the problem on the shoulders of others quite frequently"

if he did it so "frequently"..... surely you can provide some proof of your contention


Bush was pretty consistent in remarking that 9/11 happened because previous administrations (Clinton/Reagan) actions made America look vulnerable.
-spence

again, please provide some evidence to back up your claim because the Bush crowd was quite frustrated with the President in his unwillingness to respond to detractors and point out the "root" of many of the issues that he faced....Obama, on the otherhand, has turned the blame game into a part-time job to go along with his other part-time job as president...

Perhaps your assertion he's running against Bush is a product of effective marketing?
-spence

if Obama is engaged in "effective marketing" for his reelection currently...I hope he keeps it up....

You're wanting an answer to your question and not the question I was answering.

The issue was on making excuses. I'd say they've both done it.

Perhaps, you're thinking of another thread. The "isssue" was not about "making excuses." I was answering your "context for my response was an assertion by RIJIMMY that Bush never blamed anyone else for his problems." Actually, RIJIMMY didn't say that, at least not in this thread. If it was about excuses . . . don't we all? And, if statements are true, they are not excuses. I think Jimmy's complaint was, not that Bush NEVER complained or blamed, but that Obama does it too much. We can expect some implied finger pointing from any POTUS, especially in reply to accusations. But a steady drumbeat sounds more like campaigning than explaining. Personally, I wouldn't complain about Obama's marketing strategy. If he doesn't succeed, it will all be hollow. And I have become less a Bush/Republican apologist (never was) and more awakened, like JOHNNYD, to see that they're all tramping on the Constitution. That I lean Republican and run from Democrat, is solely that the former shows the best hope, between the two, to drift back to Constitutional government. That's why I like the Tea Party movement, and hope it does not dissipate, but grows.

Bush was pretty consistent in remarking that 9/11 happened because previous administrations (Clinton/Reagan) actions made America look vulnerable. While there's probably some truth to that, it's also an excuse to distract from accusations the Whitehouse wasn't paying attention. Not to mention the whole "they hate us for our freedom" press campaign which was about as excuse heavy as they get.

I don't know what you mean by "pretty consistent in remarking." Is that implying that he harped on it and that he (not other republicans and commentators) specifically blamed Clinton or Reagan for 9/11? And, I don't think he said that Clinton/Reagan actions made America look vulnerable, but that incidents and responses in the past were viewed by Al Quaida as American weakness. He felt that his response to 9/11 corrected the erroneous view of the terrorists, not that Clinton/Reagan actions were weak. But that innefective Democrat/liberal/aided-by-Spence maketing can spin pretty gold into straw and an explanation into an excuse. And the "wasn't paying attention" comment could certainly be an "inherited" trait--9/11 was planned well before Bush took office, which, actually, wasn't very long before the attack occurred. And "they hate us for our freedom" certainly did not blame the previous Presidents.


Not sure I'd consider it a ploy, rather he's just trying to defend against those who would brand the economic woes on him personally.

I'd like to think he could do better, although he's also in quite a pickle. There's very little Obama can do, perhaps aside from another large stimulus, that would spur short-term growth in time to impact the election. And now that we've been through the credit circle jerk even that would likely be impossible. It will be interesting to hear his upcoming pitch on the subject, his reelection could hang on it.


He's also blamed rampant spending as well. I don't think he's ever said it's all Bush's fault.

Yeah, poor Obama, not much he can do. Of Course, Bush was to blame for a large portion of the problems that Obama can't do much about. It's amazing that one President can create problems that another can't fix. Yeah, his pitch should be interesting. More of that less than half capable marketing, would you say.

Well, yes and no.

A budget doesn't have to include all liabilities like a balance sheet would. So technically speaking Clinton did balance the budget, but just not with a long-term plan to pay the debts.


Yeah, technically, but not really.

Because of the war and the timing of the second recession. McCain wasn't in charge for either of these and had no plan to address any differently than Bush would, yet Bush generated a more emotional response from the electorate. Play to win...


Yeah, use that ineffective less than half the power of Republican marketing to defeat that so much more powerful marketing.

There are multiple issues here to judge. Was Iraq the proper strategic play?

So far, it appears Iraq was the most easily accessible Muslim Middle East nation susceptible to a democratic form of government.

Was the war justified to the American people?

It must have been, he got re-elected.


Was the war executed well?

As well as most.


I would say that deficit spending, short-term'ism and revenue generation are all big problems.

Much less of a problem under a U.S. Constitution form of government. But for an overbloated, Central Government taking on responsibiblites that the Constitution reserves to the States and the people, yeah--massive problems. Problems that most likely will grow. That is the nature of near unlimited power. It cannot be stopped. Nor does it freely give up its power.

To say that spending is "the"problem ignores the realities of the current situation. Even if we pass massive spending cuts there will still be projected deficits for the next decade+.

Yeah, it takes time to unwind this big ball of unconstitutional mess.

Spending cuts, revenue generation and other means to encourage business growth should all be on the table.

That's all wonkish, status quo system, jibberjabber. Just more winding threads around the big messy ball. More government intervention and growth and forced dependance of us to its usurped power to "fix."


Perhaps your assertion he's running against Bush is a product of effective marketing?

-spence

Of course it is. But it isn't the Republican/ conservative/ right wing putting the words in his mouth.