And the new strategy is......
 

So Obama is falling like a brick in the polls, Scott Brown ends the Dems super majority and the new white house strategy is.......

BLAME THE REPUBLICANS!!

Obama rips Republicans for 'obstruction'February 3, 2010 12:57 p.m. EST

President Obama blamed the Republican Party for what he called politically motivated opposition on issues.

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama tore into the Republican opposition on Capitol Hill Wednesday, blaming the GOP for what he called politically motivated opposition on virtually every issue.

Democrats have been willing to incorporate Republican ideas on health care and other issues, he said, but Republicans have not been willing to do the same.
Addressing a gathering of Senate Democrats, Obama promised to "call (Republicans) out when (Democrats) extend a hand and get a fist in return."
Several Democrats facing tough election fights this November were given time to ask the president questions on high-profile issues such as trade and deficit reduction. Much of the president's time, however, was used to lash out at GOP tactics.

Senate Republicans, he said, have tried to employ the filibuster more over the past year than in all of the 1950s and 1960s combined. The GOP's strategy has been "20 years of obstruction packed into one," he said.
"If you want to govern, you can't just say no," he argued. "It can't be about just scoring points." The filibuster, he added, only works as intended if there is a "genuine spirit of compromise."

So what else is new?

Haven't they blamed the Rebub's for everything including the extinction of the dinosaurs?

Sure, there have been Rebublican issues as well, but to blame EVERYTHING since he took office on the Republicans is mega-lame.

He also took a rip at Las Vegas, causing quite a few companies to cancel their meetings/seminars in an attempt to save money, yet the cancellation fees involved means that they saved NOTHING except the trip to Vegas!
That reminds me of a line from the National Lampoon's "Vegas Vacation" where Clark Griswald has been losing every game, he empties his savings account and heads back to the same dealer that he had been l;osing to, and proceeds to buy $500 in chips.

The dealer says "I'll tell you what, why don't you give me half of what you were planning on betting, we go outside and I kick you in the nuts and call it even?"

That's what this is like!

when you have people of one party sending emails to each other saying if we can defeat this bill we can break (or some word similiar) the president, what else would you call them? Repubs - the party of no ideas.

Patriots....the party of "no bleepin' way Obama...you friggin' Marxist"....:rotf2:

No, the policy is to engage enough so that the GOP can either come to the table or take a hit in the mid-terms.

The entire Republican party is so paranoid right about about being associated with anything bearing Obama's stench they're going to consume themselves.

Looks like Mr. Brown is in town just in time for brunch.

-spence

you can't come to the table when you are locked out of the room...

you have clearly left for a parallel universe....it's the dems that are running from Obama and in many cases against his policies ....the "plan" is to allow dems to have complete ownership of this disaster and take the deserved hit in the midterms....

you did get the stench part right though

Oh, thanks Spence. I get it. So hes playing politics, makes sense, but, er, uh, um ah, isnt that exactly what he is saying the republicans are doing?

This is a new strategy?

I thought blaming the Party of No had been the strategy since 2008.

I prefer the "Party of Less". Less government, less taxes, less giveaways.

Vs.

The "Party of More"

He's playing politics, but he's also giving the GOP an opportunity to engage. This notion that they've been "locked out" is pretty silly.

-spence

IMO, if the GOP doesn't jump on board with the Democrats then Obama's stand is, they aren't playing ball.
They are telling Obama where they stand, Obama just isn't listening. He has huge tin ears.
Did they forget the lessons learned from the Brown election? Small government, less taxes, no goverment run healthcare, Stop spending what you don't have.
He goes and proposes a budget that's 40% higher then tax revenue can support.

Is it possible he is just this stupid?

There is a Democrat in the White House today solely because the Republican Party Fucbarred this country to a fare-thee-well. Period.

This is something consistently harped on, but not far out of line from the previous budgets.

relativism is very enabling

And this is different now, how?

Yep. If the GOP hadn't bleeped themselves at every turn. Now the Democrats have their idiocy on full display. I love everything about this country 'cept politicians, both parties.

Its too much. Its irresponsible. Something has got to give.

Couldnt have said it better myself. I was listening to a few libs on talk radio today and they were talking about the expectations that Scott Brown was going to reach across the aisle. Callers made exactly the point I would have made, why would he? His stance was simple and it got him elected. He was against 80% of Obamas polices. I dont want compromise, I want 180 degree turn. I am not alone. Obama doesnt get it.

Oh really?

How about Sen. Richard Shelby's blanket hold on all of Obama's nominations. At first you might think this is me arguing the "Party of No" point, oh but that would be incorrect sir. This is me contradicting your "Party of Less" - specifically the less giveaways part.

Report: Shelby Blocks All Obama Nominations In The Senate Over AL Earmarks | TPMDC

$85billion - they are the "Party of Less" after all.

So Shelby is trying to improve his state by bringing money and jobs there. Isn't that why the people elected him? I thought every politician elected is supposed to fight for their constituents, whether they're Republican or Democrat.

If you want to get into all the earmarks proposed by the Dems, it would take you right up until I get my first keeper bass of 2010. It's all well and good that you can pick out one instance (I'm sure there are many more) by a Republican to support your argument, but the truth is that the Dems are much more about spending tax dollars on social welfare as opposed to creating jobs or growing industry in their states.

and thats one person, not a party. Let his constituients vote him out if they're unhappy.

JD this whole " we need 60 votes to do anything" mentality is something the Democrats are leaning on way too much. They are not capable of running anything.

I'm sure at least half of 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, are total,unqualified, nut bags.

Ah, but wasn't everyone in an rage about how the Dems are the ones playing politics? So, this single individual is going to lockout all discussions about every nomination because the pet projects in his state got cut - basically, a child throwing a hissy fit.

In a time when the Republicans are on the "we're trying to stop this frivolous spending of the Dems", he had to have known this would get national attention and make the entire party look bad.

You're right that this is certainly one instance out of probably dozens. But, the reason I posted this was because the timing was all too perfect. Dems have somewhat successfully labeled the GOP as the party of no and these actions re-enforce it. Then tack on how much the GOP complains about how Obama needs to cut back spending, and you have him throwing a temper tantrum because he wants $85billion in pet projects for his state.

We're in a current political state where everyone is guilty by association. If someone with an -R at the end of their name does something stupid, they are all found guilty of it.

The whole "we need 60 votes to do anything" is a Senate policy when it comes to what this guy has declared.

First off, I think all politicians generally have been doing a lousy job. But, in this case, I don't blame Shelby. I don't see this as frivolous spending. The article said this money was already earmarked for the programs, so it's not some new stimulus money. He's pushing for something that he had already been promised for his constituents. He's trying to help his state by generating jobs and income. I would venture that many people would be for that. His job is to represent the people that elected him, just as Ted Kennedy's job was here in MA. If John Kerry or Scott Brown were fighting for money to help industry and create jobs in MA, I'd support it regardless of whether they were an R or a D. I guess it's easier to rip someone if you don't like their political party rather than laud them for doing what the people who elected them want them to do.

Ah, an attempt at the high road coupled with sly backhanded jabs. Like I said, the Republicans have been harping on how we need to cut spending as a whole - that the federal government overall needs to make cuts.

What he's doing is no different than if I was killing my limit of fish with a commercial permit and then stating that if we don't kill less fish, the results will be disastrous. He's part of a party that states very vocally and collectively that the Democrats are spending too much. If they think so, then they should set an example and start making sacrifices.

"The federal budget is too high, but I don't want *my* state to have to make sacrifices."

I don't know JD. I htink he's trying to better his state, not keep it from making sacrifices. If he was looking to build a new sports stadium with public money or use the money in a manner in which it wouldn't help the economy, I'd agree with you. I look at it as Shelby trying to get money he was promised so that he can help the people in his state by creating jobs and revenue. Can't we agree that jobs need to be created and bringing new businesses to Alabama will do that. I'd rather that than put more money into the coffers to be spent on half-cocked health care plans.

I wouldn't say it was an attempt at taking the high road. I decided to stay off the high road a long time ago. It's too crowded for me.