You mean the way you did?
So now calling the President names is trolling? Even if it really is his name, and not “Shrub” or something like that.
:shrugs:
We have taken another step towards defining trolling as “any post that mocks one of the sacred cows of liberalism”.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, I see. It is OK to refer to a President by a name if his family gave it to him.
Refresh my memory - who gave Obama his middle name?
Regards,
Shodan
I think there’s a difference between showing simple contempt for Bush by calling him “Shrubya” or whatever and calling Obama “Hussein”. The latter is designed to stir anti-Muslim sentiment and exploit the fear that many Americans have of all things Muslim.
Of course it is BobLibDem, but wingnuts will never admit it. They’ll pretend to be playing fair and honorably claiming innocence while spewing the basic mean-spiritedness that I’ve sadly come to expect from them. I’ve never been disappointed in that, though I wish they would disappoint me once.
They might as well just shout “Hail Cobra!” at their press conferences.
Gosh yes. We keep spewing nasty, mean-spirited stuff like this -
Oops! That wasn’t any of us.
Regards,
Shodan
It appears to me to be simple partisan posturing. Here’s why.
Gregg’s nomination pissed off minorities on the basis that Gregg’s history of voting against funding is thought to be responsible for undercounting in the last census. Considering significant problems with this one, it’s understandable that they feel, as Commerce secretary, Gregg could undermine any solutions related to funding.
In order to allay these fears, the Obama administration indicated they would be taking a more active role in the Census Bureau inciting Republicans who believed that meant he was taking over the census:
Presumably the Commerce secretary would be named in this lawsuit were it to be filed or he would have to be one of the filers. I can’t imagine the logistic of suing your boss, the President, who recently appointed you to a cabinet post. Either way, he’d have to be a party to the hypothetical lawsuit. Now, if Gregg were to be out of the way of the lawsuit, it makes it supremely less complicated to file without worrying about too much overspray landing on your party.
Secondly, if you’re creating a partisan taskforce to make sure no funny business takes place wrt the census:
…wouldn’t it make sense to have one of your own guys on the inside able to scrutinize these WH census-related dealings? After all, Obama did say that the census was to remain under the purview of the Commerce Department. As a Republican Secretary of Commerce, you’d be in a unique position to ensure that Obama keeps to his word. Unless, Repubs would like to use the task force to stymie the process and tar the Administration with unfounded suspicions, and make yourself appear to be the only thing standing in the way of rampant corruption. Then it makes it easier if one of your guys wasn’t standing too close to the administration and doesn’t inadvertently look either impotent or corrupt.
Finally, Repubs invited Obama to reinforce their view that he doesn’t trust a Repub to get the job done, but since he didn’t rise to their challenge, they had no choice but to do it for him. By not cowtowing to Repub devisiveness, Obama made a bold statement and forced them to appear even more partisan. The timing of Gregg’s step down is also orchestrated to downplay Obama’s Peoria speech regarding the economy. The fact that he found it necessary to release a statement and then call a press conference illustrates the fact that he’s working to undermine Obama’s decisions.
So, essentially you think the President is going to be effective and good for the country, and therefore you wouldn’t be able to do your job which would be carrying out effective and good policy that you disagree with? Gotcha.
I could be way off, but this is my “everyman” perception. I wonder if they care.
No, I don’t think that you do.
There is a world of difference between “I cannot do the job because I think Obama will be a good President” and 'I cannot do the job even though I think Obama will be a good President".
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah but he says that it’s because he believes the President will do a good job, he can’t do his job. What does that mean? Is he saying he’s so blinded by the greatness in front of him that he’s too dumbfounded to perform his duties? Is he saying that the good works of the President would be hampered by his doing his job? Is he saying that even though he believes in the President’s good work, his work ethic doesn’t allow him to perform to the same standards?
I have a job too and believe that the company I work for is doing great things. I believe in them. That actually makes my job a lot easier to do. I have worked for companies that I didn’t think that highly of and, frankly, it made going to work a total drag. I probably didn’t do as good a job at those companies as I do now. That’s in complete contradiction to what Gregg is saying, so don’t be surprised if it looks like total bullshit to me.
Not really, but they tend to proclaim and claim that they have the moral high ground and tend to beat the “reach across the aisle” stuff (as if they did any of that when they held the majority–hell, the Dems couldn’t get meetings with Bush for some time). And I really mean Reps, not conservatives. I am so tired of black and white thinking, on both sides. The Reps have no moral high ground. I really don’t see the Dems claiming any, so this is about the Reps. I understand there are different way of doing things, and I think we need alternate POV. What I cannot stomach is the righteousness (especially in the face of such hypocrisy, but that’s another thread).
Maybe Gregg truly did have a change of heart and maybe he didn’t. We none of us really know. But it LOOKS like a stunt and in politics, perception is everything. I agree with DSeid: it is time for Obama to put the hammer down. IMO, Reps understand nothing but an iron fist-they even disdain the velvet glove. The hand was extended, and rejected. Time to strike.
(actually, I think Obama will not do that because it plays right into their manipulative hands–Reps like nothing more than being the minority, Monday morning quarterback, doom and gloomers, but it’s nice to contemplate).
Yeah, that Obama’s pretty slick alright. I hear he’s already plotting the downfall of the Democratic majority in Congress and trying to figure out some way to return the presidency to the Republicans so as to thwart evil Republican plans to maintain minority status.
Typically, he’s having trouble getting the Republicans in Congress to go along.
In any case I do not think it will take long for Team Obama to announce their next choice. I suspect that an alternate decision was close to being made when Gregg’s interest was brought to them; that person gets the call today and triple-vetting gets done by mid-next week.
It won’t be another Republican. A moderate Dem is much more likely and I hope not out of the Senate.
Thing is that Commerce really isn’t all that important; I think that Gregg was likely honest in that he really just didn’t get it that he would need to toe the Obama line as much as it became apparent he would but he will likely be a bit more reachable as a cross-over Republican for having considered himself as part of their team especially on issues not so dear to his heart. If nothing else he would likely have been a vote against the stimulus and he instead was a recused one. Team Obama’s willingness to choose him while not getting another Dem in the Senate in return also will have it’s longer term pay-offs with those few critical swing GOP votes even as a moderate Dem actually goes in. And those GOP swingers (a bad image I know) control the show. They are the target audience for all the bipartisanshipness and will limit how much he puts the hammer down.
I haven’t seen that Gregg said that he couldn’t do his job because Obama was so good.
Nothing there at all about “because Obama is so great”. Just the opposite - he had to withdraw even though “I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership”.
Regards,
Shodan
I apologize for misquoting/paraphrasing Gregg in my initial post. I blame poor choice of source. Here it is again with link:
So, he believes the administration, and specifically Obama, is “strong and effective and good.” He says as much. Then he says he didn’t think the implications of working for a strong and effective and good administration. What could these implications be? That as an opinionated, independent, principled individual, he wouldn’t be able to adjust to a strong and effective and good administration. Essentially, telling me that he’s a blowhard who is inflexible and will stick to his guns in the face of effective and good policymaking on the basis of principle pound desk emphatically. So, he’s really saying “I’m not a team player.”
Excellent timing, my friend. The country is in the crapper and you are throwing down your equipment and stomping off the field because the big guy doesn’t agree with you. Awwww. Whatever insight the administration might have gleaned from a point of view as different as yours (which I think was the idea here, bud) is all for naught. I suspect also that this wasn’t so much Gregg’s decision as it was a political Republican push.
DSeid, please stop talking like an adult. You’re bringing the tone of the thread down.
If anyone has an actual argument as to how this is an evil plot, drop in.
But it’s all really meant to keep us distracted while Obama, Bush, McCain and Palin break into the building next door to steal the Hope Diamond.
Whereupon they’ll all dash off to some tropical island and live happily ever after, freed at last from the need to earn money off the backs of the proletariat. (This because Obama’s done pretty well himself.) 
No, in fact you’re fucking blind.
Try not to drop subordinate clauses: his family gave it to him to differentiate him from the other George. There is a purpose for it, to identify one from the other.
What the hell does that mean?
Well, you can spin it that way. Or you can put it “I said Yes because I thought Obama was going to be a good President. But I didn’t realize how fundamentally we disagree on principle. So I changed my mind.”
I am sure you agree that being a team player doesn’t necessarily mean going along with whatever the boss says.
Regards,
Shodan
The American public is having similar trouble:
So, in general, what is the purpose of a name? Would it not be to differentiate one person from another? Thus he was named Barack Hussein Obama to differentiate him from his father, who was named Barack Obama Sr. (cite).
IOW, pretty much the same thing as calling Bush Dubya. Yet in the one case, it is trolling, and in the other, not.
Regards,
Shodan